Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze

[NewsKrawler]

Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html

If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.
And the Apple engineers say Apple Maps is fully focused on user privacy.

[sms]

The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
create a route with more than one stop.

On Google Maps you can plan a road trip with intermediate stops (up to
nine). On Apple Maps you cannot add intermediate stops (other than
choosing from a limited list of pre-programmed “Pit Stops”). Waze allows
one intermediate stop to be programmed in.

If you've ever taken a long vacation road trip, or had to pick people up
at multiple locations (i.e. a carpool), or had to make multiple
deliveries, the ability to program a route with multiple stops is very
important.

On the other hand, I find Apple maps superior to Google Maps for
directions to a single location, especially when you're in an unfamiliar
area. The voice prompts tend to be a lot more informative.

Hopefully future updates to Apple Maps will add the capability to add
intermediate stops.

[nospam]

In article <sq5037$j1h$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
> create a route with more than one stop.

that's very rare, making it not a 'big problem' at all.

meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.

[Rod Speed]

NewsKrawler <news...@krawl.org> wrote

> Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze

Claims actually and the only really valid point is about privacy.

> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html

> If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.

That’s bullshit. Vastly better street view outside the USA.

And google maps fixes map errors very quickly when you report them.

Apple ignore the report completely with errors in my country.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet
>> allow you do create a route with more than one stop.

> that's very rare,

Bullshit.

> making it not a 'big problem' at all.

More bullshit.

> meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery

Not outside the USA it doesn't.

> and also protects user privacy, which benefits users every time they use
> it.

Only if they care about privacy. I couldn't care less who knows
where I have been and don't get any popups etc that make it
clear that google has told anyone where I have been.

[nospam]

In article <j2mh73...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery
>
> Not outside the USA it doesn't.

it includes london, which is outside of the usa. more cities will be
added over time.

[Wilf]

Funnily enough, not all Britons live in London ;)

I live just outside London and the imagery, including the equivalent of
Google's Streetmap (don't know what that's call in Apple Maps), is very
patchy to the extent that it's really not very useful. Streetmap covers
virtually everywhere I've ever travelled in the UK.

The satnav facility itself is very good with clear turn by turn
instructions, although I'm not sure if it will automatically route
around heavy traffic areas, as I haven't used it too much as yet..

--
Wilf

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 24.12.21 um 18:49 schrieb nospam:

> In article <sq5037$j1h$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
>> create a route with more than one stop.
>
> that's very rare, making it not a 'big problem' at all.

This claim is constantly wrong.

> meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
> user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.

"And last but not least, the two claim Apple Maps plays nice with the
rest of the Apple products, so for example, if you already have an
iPhone, it makes no sense to use Google Maps."

That is utter paid bullshit. The gap between Apple Maps and Google Maps
widened over the years massively. At least outside the US Apple Maps is
useless and directions given while navigating are at best second rate
compared to Google.

With the nice bike routes in Europe Apple is dead anyway.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[nospam]

In article <sq5ftt$eq2$1...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>

wrote:

> >> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
> >> create a route with more than one stop.
> >
> > that's very rare, making it not a 'big problem' at all.
>
> This claim is constantly wrong.

nope. the vast majority of trips are point to point, without adding any
additional stops along the way.

> > meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
> > user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.
>
> "And last but not least, the two claim Apple Maps plays nice with the
> rest of the Apple products, so for example, if you already have an
> iPhone, it makes no sense to use Google Maps."

that quote is very much true.

> That is utter paid bullshit.

where's your evidence it's paid at all?

> The gap between Apple Maps and Google Maps
> widened over the years massively.

nope. it's narrowed and in some areas, pulled ahead.

> At least outside the US Apple Maps is
> useless and directions given while navigating are at best second rate
> compared to Google.

that's quite the generalization, and very much wrong.

> With the nice bike routes in Europe Apple is dead anyway.

apple maps is much better for biking.

[lkpo]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> nospam wrote

>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>>> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet
>>> allow you do create a route with more than one stop.
>>
>> that's very rare, making it not a 'big problem' at all.
>
> This claim is constantly wrong.
>
>> meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
>> user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.
>
> "And last but not least, the two claim Apple Maps plays nice with the
> rest of the Apple products, so for example, if you already have an
> iPhone, it makes no sense to use Google Maps."
>
> That is utter paid bullshit.

Yep.

> The gap between Apple Maps and Google
> Maps widened over the years massively.

Wrong, far fewer errors in Apple Maps than there used to be.

> At least outside the US Apple Maps is useless

Bullshit, it navigates fine.

> and directions given while navigating are
> at best second rate compared to Google.

They are in fact better in some respects than google.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote

>>>> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet
>>>> allow you do create a route with more than one stop.

>>> that's very rare, making it not a 'big problem' at all.

>> This claim is constantly wrong.

> nope.

Yep.

> the vast majority of trips are point to point, without
> adding any additional stops along the way.

But your very rare claim is a bare faced lie, most obviously
with those doing deliverys and those who choose to visit
places of interest en route and those who need to visit
more than one place if only for shopping etc.

>>> meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also
>>> protects user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.

>> "And last but not least, the two claim Apple Maps plays nice with
>> the rest of the Apple products, so for example, if you already have
>> an iPhone, it makes no sense to use Google Maps."

> that quote is very much true.

Bullshit it is with that last bit.

>> That is utter paid bullshit.

> where's your evidence it's paid at all?

They work for apple, fuckwit.

>> The gap between Apple Maps and Google
>> Maps widened over the years massively.

> nope. it's narrowed and in some areas, pulled ahead.

Correct.

>> At least outside the US Apple Maps is
>> useless and directions given while navigating
>> are at best second rate compared to Google.

> that's quite the generalization, and very much wrong.

Correct.

>> With the nice bike routes in Europe Apple is dead anyway.

> apple maps is much better for biking.

Bullshit.

[sms]

On 12/24/2021 1:52 PM, Wilf wrote:

<snip>

> Funnily enough, not all Britons live in London  ;)
>
> I live just outside London and the imagery, including the equivalent of
> Google's Streetmap (don't know what that's call in Apple Maps), is very
> patchy to the extent that it's really not very useful.  Streetmap covers
> virtually everywhere I've ever travelled in the UK.
>
> The satnav facility itself is very good with clear turn by turn
> instructions, although I'm not sure if it will automatically route
> around heavy traffic areas, as I haven't used it too much as yet..

Apple Maps should improve over time. Remember, Google Maps had a huge
head start. Also remember that a lot of the imagery is crowd-sourced and
since Android has such a large market-share lead in Europe (over 71%)
and most of Asia (83%), it will take longer for the missing pieces to be
filled in. For the U.S., where Apple has a market share lead, the
imagery can get filled in a lot quicker.

The biggest issue I found with Apple Maps is the inability to program in
a route with multiple stops. This is an extremely common usage model for
most users. When you're on a road trip, especially on vacation, you
typically want to program in a route with multiple stops. When we did a
fall foliage tour in New England a couple of months ago we wanted the
mapping program to create an optimal route that included various stops,
not route us straight to our final destination; that isn't possible with
Apple Maps.

Also, Google Maps is superior when it comes to providing bicycling
routes, walking routes, and routes using transit.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 25.12.21 um 00:24 schrieb nospam:

Just for the record: Your "arguments" are none and you behave like a
little kid. You deny the obvious.

The worst is that you are little *anonymous* Apple-Troll-Bot.

[Wilf]

Thanks. I think the message to take away is that Apple maps is pretty
good but still has a lot of catching up to do with Google and even Waze.
Question is, what is it going to do to attract Google Maps users over
to its side? It's not good enough to be maybe just as good, at some
point it will have to offer something useful that Google does not offer.

--
Wilf

[Lewis]

In message <sq5037$j1h$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/24/2021 8:55 AM, NewsKrawler wrote:
>> Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze
>> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html
>>
>> If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.
>> And the Apple engineers say Apple Maps is fully focused on user privacy.

> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
> create a route with more than one stop.

That is not a bog problem to the fact majority of users, despite your
repeated bullshitting. It is also, of course, not correct, or at least
not entirely correct.

I will say that after having to ride as a passengar for 3 weeks and
having my wife drive me to various places, the spoken directions in
Apple Maps (which I never use myself) are much MUCH better in Apple
Maps with much more specific instructions and more lead time before them

"Not at this light, but at the next light, turn left."

"Stay in the center two lanes" (because the other lanes becomes
turn-only lanes"

Instructions for roundabouts are given well before you enter the
roundabout unlike at least waze which will tell you while you are in the
roundabout which turn to take.

> On Google Maps you can plan a road trip with intermediate stops (up to
> nine).

And I am sure that the 0.01% of smart phone maps users who do this find
it super nifty. And the trolls like you who claim it is super useful
and never actually use it love to repeat it over and over.

Add Google's implementation of this is shit. It will route you from the
first thing you enter to the second to the third, it will NOT route
you efficiently and if you want to change the order, you have to start
over. So, if you already know where you are going, and you know the
route you want to take AND you have the order of stops already set....

> On Apple Maps you cannot add intermediate stops (other than

so you CAN add intermediate stops.

--
Puny god!

[Lewis]

In message <sq6daj$kme$1...@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Just for the record: Your "arguments" are none and you behave like a
> little kid. You deny the obvious.

Yes, you do and yes, this sums you up perfectly. You make claims over
and over and never once do you support them in anyway at all, despite
being asked many times to provide citations. All you do is bloviate and
claim your post are all facts and everyone else's, despite the evidence
THEY routinely provide, are nonsense.

You, in short, are a troll.

Put up or shut up.

--
Once again I teeter at the precipice of the generation gap.

[badgolferman]

Despite what nospam says, multi-stop routes are common and useful. As a
touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop at certain
distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in groups that becomes
even more important because you must plan those stops for the rider with
the least MPG capacity.

With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version which
is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone. It becomes
quite useful and helpful in that regard. Waze used to be my go to
navigation app because of the police reports but the lack of multi-stop
functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.

Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of space
for the map. I’m not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the map
(probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I do
arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking for
me.

[nospam]

In article <sq5pv1$4jm$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple Maps should improve over time.

it already has and continues to do so.

> Remember, Google Maps had a huge
> head start.

that's true, however, apple has caught up and surpassed google in many
areas.

> Also remember that a lot of the imagery is crowd-sourced

nope. google uses its own vehicles.

> and
> since Android has such a large market-share lead in Europe (over 71%)
> and most of Asia (83%), it will take longer for the missing pieces to be
> filled in.

not relevant.

> For the U.S., where Apple has a market share lead, the
> imagery can get filled in a lot quicker.

as with google, apple uses its own vehicles.

not only that, but apple's vehicles, the data they capture and its
processing is far more sophisticated than for google. there's a link i
don't feel like digging up that goes into great detail about the
technology.

> The biggest issue I found with Apple Maps is the inability to program in
> a route with multiple stops.

yes, we know.

the reality is that it's *not* the biggest issue for most users. it's
actually a very small one.

you are as usual, making it into something it's not just to troll.

> This is an extremely common usage model for
> most users.

nope. it's *not* common at all.

it's something that is needed *on* *occasion*. it's nowhere near enough
to justify adding it when there other far more useful features to be
added, ones that are a higher priority and will benefit more users.

> When you're on a road trip, especially on vacation, you
> typically want to program in a route with multiple stops.

people don't take road trips very often, and when they do, it's usually
point to point to get to a destination, so even in that scenario,
adding interim stops is not that common.

> When we did a
> fall foliage tour in New England a couple of months ago we wanted the
> mapping program to create an optimal route that included various stops,
> not route us straight to our final destination; that isn't possible with
> Apple Maps.

your experience is not typical of normal usage patterns, which is why
it's a low priority feature.

> Also, Google Maps is superior when it comes to providing bicycling
> routes, walking routes, and routes using transit.

that is very much false.

[nospam]

In article <j2n4p0...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > the vast majority of trips are point to point, without
> > adding any additional stops along the way.
>
> But your very rare claim is a bare faced lie, most obviously
> with those doing deliverys and those who choose to visit
> places of interest en route and those who need to visit
> more than one place if only for shopping etc.

that's the exception, not the rule.

apple optimizes for the most common scenarios, which has been an
incredibly successful strategy over the years.

those who frequently need to add interim stops can use something else,
however, the price they pay is lower quality imagery and data mining.

[nospam]

In article <sq6nm1$1ugf$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk>
wrote:

> On 25/12/2021 at 00:51, sms wrote:

> ...

>
> Thanks. I think the message to take away is that Apple maps is pretty
> good but still has a lot of catching up to do with Google and even Waze.

his message is false, as with just about everything he says.

> Question is, what is it going to do to attract Google Maps users over
> to its side?

it already has.

apple maps is by far the most popular mapping app on ios, and by a
substantial margin.

this was discussed in a thread a few months ago, with links.

> It's not good enough to be maybe just as good, at some
> point it will have to offer something useful that Google does not offer.

it has for quite some time, one of many reasons why it's the most
popular mapping app on ios.

[nospam]

In article <sq700v$d9m$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Despite what nospam says, multi-stop routes are common and useful.

not to the vast majority of users, it isn't.

a small minority might find it useful, not enough to justify it versus
other more useful features.

> As a
> touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop at certain
> distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in groups that becomes
> even more important because you must plan those stops for the rider with
> the least MPG capacity.

that's very much not a common use case.

> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version which
> is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone.

that's actually easier with apple maps.

for example, ask siri on any device to route from a to b, including a
homepod, and it will generate a route and push it to the phone.

> It becomes
> quite useful and helpful in that regard. Waze used to be my go to
> navigation app because of the police reports but the lack of multi-stop
> functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.

that's one of the major reasons waze became popular.

> Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
> amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of space

> for the map. I雋 not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the map

> (probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I do
> arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking for
> me.

maybe for you, but not for others.

[sms]

It's very difficult for an application that relies so heavily on
crowd-sourcing to displace an existing application. For long trips,
without multiple stops, Waze is superior to both Apple Maps and Google
Maps, with its crowd-sourced information on traffic, road hazards,
weather, and police presence.

One thing I like about Apple Maps is the audio cues. Instead of saying
"turn right at XYX street" it'll say, "turn right at the traffic light
after the next traffic light," giving you plenty of notice as well as
not relying on you being able to see street signs which can be hard to
see or non-existent. Of course nothing stops Google from improving their
audio cues.

As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be able
to add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users to
select a "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful. I
think that the programming required to add user-defined intermediate
stops must be very difficult, or perhaps Google has a patent on that
feature and Apple is unable to implement that feature. It's such a
heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable that Apple
Maps would not add it if they could.

[sms]

nospam is wrong of course™. Not sure what the upside is of him lying.
It's not believable that he doesn't understand how widely used
multi-stop routes actually are.

> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version which
> is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone. It becomes
> quite useful and helpful in that regard. Waze used to be my go to
> navigation app because of the police reports but the lack of multi-stop
> functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.

It's rather odd that Waze, owned by Google, has not added the capability
to add multiple intermediate stops, only one.

> Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
> amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of space
> for the map. I’m not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the map
> (probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I do
> arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking for
> me.

Last time I used Apple Maps was in Burlington VT, at night. I found its
audio cues better than Google Maps because Google Maps relies on street
names while Apple Maps would tell me to turn "not at this traffic light,
at the one after that." With Google Maps I would have to drive very
slowly and try to read unlit street name signs.

Apple appears to not spend a lot of money on Apple Maps. After all, it's
a free product that they don't get revenue from. So improving the user
experience is not a high-priority. If they come out with a car, as
predicted, they will need all the mapping data that they've collected,
but that will not necessarily translate to improvements in the iPhone
App. It's also possible that Google has patents on some features of
Google Maps and that Apple can't use those features.

I added the Google Maps versus Apple Maps advantage as #123 on page 51.

---------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------
32 iOS Features Some of Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had
123 Android Features Some of Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

<https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features>

52 Pages of Extensively Referenced Information with Hundreds of
Citations

✓ 100% Fact Checked ✓
---------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------

[badgolferman]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sq700v$d9m$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Despite what nospam says, multi-stop routes are common and useful.
>
> not to the vast majority of users, it isn't.
>
> a small minority might find it useful, not enough to justify it versus
> other more useful features.
>
>> As a
>> touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop at certain
>> distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in groups that becomes
>> even more important because you must plan those stops for the rider with
>> the least MPG capacity.
>
> that's very much not a common use case.

Maybe not in your mind, but when it comes to motorcycle trips which are far
more common than you think it is a vital feature for proper planning. I was
providing a use case scenario of why Google Maps is superior.

>
>> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version which
>> is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone.
>
> that's actually easier with apple maps.
>
> for example, ask siri on any device to route from a to b, including a
> homepod, and it will generate a route and push it to the phone.

My house is not full of Apple products and I generally don’t like talking
to a machine so neither of those suggestions are usable to me. The bottom
line is Apple Maps lacks a rather important function regardless of whether
*you* use it or not. Waze lacks that function as well so that’s why it’s
been replaced by Google Maps despite using it from when I had a Blackberry,
even before the iPhone 4 model.

>> It becomes
>> quite useful and helpful in that regard. Waze used to be my go to
>> navigation app because of the police reports but the lack of multi-stop
>> functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.
>
> that's one of the major reasons waze became popular.
>
>> Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
>> amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of space

>> for the map. I¹m not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the map

>> (probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I do
>> arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking for
>> me.
>
> maybe for you, but not for others.
>

I do not disagree with that, merely stating another reason why I don’t like
it.

[sms]

On 12/25/2021 7:44 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <sq700v$d9m$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
>> <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Despite what nospam says, multi-stop routes are common and useful.
>>
>> not to the vast majority of users, it isn't.
>>
>> a small minority might find it useful, not enough to justify it versus
>> other more useful features.
>>
>>> As a
>>> touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop at certain
>>> distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in groups that becomes
>>> even more important because you must plan those stops for the rider with
>>> the least MPG capacity.
>>
>> that's very much not a common use case.
>
> Maybe not in your mind, but when it comes to motorcycle trips which are far
> more common than you think it is a vital feature for proper planning. I was
> providing a use case scenario of why Google Maps is superior.

In May I took a road trip from Silicon Valley to Zion, Bryce, and Grand
Canyon. The multi-stop capability was very useful. Since we drove in one
day all the way to Saint George Utah, in my rather gas-hungry 4 Runner,
I wanted to plan our meal stops and fuel stops for both distance (651
miles), fuel price, and food. This was very useful.

The reality is that multi-stop trips are an extremely common use case.
Not sure why nospam feels compelled to lie about it. It's as if the lack
of a feature in an Apple product is so incredibly upsetting to him that
he will desperately try to rationalize it. The reality is that there are
iPhone apps with features that are lacking in Google apps, and
vice-versa; there's no upside for nospam to lie about this.

---------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------
32 iOS Features Some of Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had
123 Android Features Some of Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had

<https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features>

51 Pages of Extensively Referenced Information with Hundreds of

[badgolferman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Not sure why nospam feels compelled to lie about it. It's as if the lack
> of a feature in an Apple product is so incredibly upsetting to him that
> he will desperately try to rationalize it. The reality is that there are
> iPhone apps with features that are lacking in Google apps, and
> vice-versa; there's no upside for nospam to lie

I don’t know if nospam is lying or he just genuinely believes everything
Google = bad and everything Apple = good. Or maybe he’s paid to patrol
these groups and defend Apple to the death, which he should be paid
handsomely considering how much he works!

[sms]

In my experiences dealing with Apple, and I'm pretty certain that I have
a _lot_ more experience with this than nospam in this regard, they
actually do _not_ appreciate the lobbying done on behalf of the company
by trolls like nospam on various forums.

When someone is obviously lying, like nospam does on a regular basis, it
only serves to bring unwanted attention to product issues.

[Rod Speed]

Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote
> sms wrote
>> Wilf wrote

It does that with privacy, but that’s all. Nothing
else is possible, google maps is that good.

[Rod Speed]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> NewsKrawler wrote

>>> Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze
>>> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html
>>>
>>> If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.
>>> And the Apple engineers say Apple Maps is fully focused on user privacy.
>
>> The big problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn't yet allow you do
>> create a route with more than one stop.
>
> That is not a bog problem to the fact majority of users, despite your
> repeated bullshitting. It is also, of course, not correct, or at least
> not entirely correct.
>
> I will say that after having to ride as a passengar for 3 weeks and
> having my wife drive me to various places, the spoken directions in
> Apple Maps (which I never use myself) are much MUCH better in Apple
> Maps with much more specific instructions and more lead time before them
>
> "Not at this light, but at the next light, turn left."
>
> "Stay in the center two lanes" (because the other lanes becomes
> turn-only lanes"
>
> Instructions for roundabouts are given well before you enter the
> roundabout unlike at least waze which will tell you while you are in the
> roundabout which turn to take.
>
>> On Google Maps you can plan a road trip with intermediate stops (up to
>> nine).
>
> And I am sure that the 0.01% of smart phone
> maps users who do this find it super nifty.

It’s a vastly higher percentage than that.

> And the trolls like you who claim it is super useful and
> never actually use it love to repeat it over and over.
>
> Add Google's implementation of this is shit. It will route you from the
> first thing you enter to the second to the third, it will NOT route
> you efficiently and if you want to change the order, you have to start
> over. So, if you already know where you are going, and you know the
> route you want to take AND you have the order of stops already set....

Yes, that’s fucked for deliverys. In spades with garage/yard
sales if you have enough of a clue to show up an hour before
the advertised start time so you can be first when they open
to get the best stuff before anyone else.

[Rod Speed]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>> Wilf wrote

They are indeed, all of deliverys, garage/yard sales,
taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
stops for rest, food and fuel on trips etc etc etc.

> As a touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes
> and stop at certain distances for gas and rest breaks.

Particularly with fancy motorways etc which don’t
have servos actually on the motorway so you need
to be directed to use the right exit and return thing.

> And when we ride in groups that becomes even
> more important because you must plan those
> stops for the rider with the least MPG capacity.

True.

> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version
> which is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone.
> It becomes quite useful and helpful in that regard. Waze used to be
> my go to navigation app because of the police reports but the lack
> of multi-stop functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.

> Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks.

Yeah, tho google maps leaves a lot to be desired in the interface area too.

And on an oppo, the stupid thing stops the audio
directions when you are talking on the phone.
Tho presumably that’s just a config problem.

And for lurkers, don’t feed me the bullshit line that
you shouldn’t be on the phone when driving.

> The huge amount of space taken up by the top bar
> takes away from the amount of space for the map.

I don’t actually use the display when driving, use
the audio prompts exclusively. Too dangerous
to be looking at the screen when driving.

> I’m not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the
> map (probably does) but that also is useful. The few
> times I do use it I do arrive to my destination though.

Yeah, I do use it quite a bit, essentially because you
can initiate a new navigation by voice with apple maps
and you can't yet tell the iphone to always use google
maps when initiating a new navigation with siri.

> Still, the user experience is lacking for me.

Its audio directions are rather better than google maps.

But the stupid fucks ignore reported map errors
in my country. Google often fixes them in hours.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> the vast majority of trips are point to point, without
>>> adding any additional stops along the way.

>> But your very rare claim is a bare faced lie, most obviously
>> with those doing deliverys and those who choose to visit
>> places of interest en route and those who need to visit
>> more than one place if only for shopping etc.

> that's the exception, not the rule.

Irrelevant to how stupid your very rare claim is.
Which you have carefully deleted from the quoting.

> apple optimizes for the most common scenarios,

But its completely stupid to not include what
so many choose to do when navigating.

> which has been an incredibly
> successful strategy over the years.

It would be even more successful if it allowed those who
choose to or need to do stuff that not everyone does.

> those who frequently need to add interim stops can use something else,

Its fucked that they have to.

> however, the price they pay is lower quality imagery and data mining.

That's mindless bullshit with imagery.

In fact fewer use better imagery than multi stop navigating.

True in spades with privacy.

[nospam]

In article <sq7d8c$kf0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Not sure what the upside is of me lying.

ftfy

> It's not believable that he doesn't understand how widely used
> multi-stop routes actually are.

it's not.

it's nothing more than you fixating on a minor difference to troll.

> It's rather odd that Waze, owned by Google, has not added the capability
> to add multiple intermediate stops, only one.

it's not odd at all. waze lacks it for the same reason apple maps lacks
it, that it's *not* a commonly used feature.

two out of the top three mapping apps don't offer a particular feature.
what does that tell you?

> > Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
> > amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of space

> > for the map. I雋 not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the map

> > (probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I do
> > arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking for
> > me.
>
> Last time I used Apple Maps was in Burlington VT, at night. I found its
> audio cues better than Google Maps because Google Maps relies on street
> names while Apple Maps would tell me to turn "not at this traffic light,
> at the one after that." With Google Maps I would have to drive very
> slowly and try to read unlit street name signs.

that alone is a significant benefit, one which benefits users *every*
trip, much more so than interim stops.

the question is when will google add that, but that doesn't fit your
trolling.

> Apple appears to not spend a lot of money on Apple Maps. After all, it's
> a free product that they don't get revenue from. So improving the user
> experience is not a high-priority.

completely and utterly false.

apple maps is a *very* high priority for apple and they are spending a
substantial amount of money on it, for both ios and other projects.

> If they come out with a car, as
> predicted, they will need all the mapping data that they've collected,
> but that will not necessarily translate to improvements in the iPhone
> App.

more of your lies.

of course it will benefit whatever their car project turns out to be,
and other projects within apple that have not seen the light of day.

> It's also possible that Google has patents on some features of
> Google Maps and that Apple can't use those features.

another crazy conspiracy theory.

provide patent numbers if you want anyone to believe that rubbish. you
won't.

> I added the Google Maps versus Apple Maps advantage as #123 on page 51.

you added that the last time it came up. now it's in there more than
once, along with all the other easily debunked bullshit. your 'list' is
also extremely incomplete for ios advantages. it's nothing more than
propaganda to further your trolling.

[nospam]

In article <sq7e84$plp$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >> As a
> >> touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop at certain
> >> distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in groups that becomes
> >> even more important because you must plan those stops for the rider with
> >> the least MPG capacity.
> >
> > that's very much not a common use case.
>
> Maybe not in your mind, but when it comes to motorcycle trips which are far
> more common than you think it is a vital feature for proper planning. I was
> providing a use case scenario of why Google Maps is superior.

motorcycles are a tiny minority of vehicles and motorcyclists who use a
mapping app even less so, and of those, need to add interim stops.

*you* might want such a feature, but the vast majority of the roughly 1
billion ios users do not.

that is also why waze also doesn't offer it.

*other* features have a higher priority, ones which benefit more users
and more often.

> >
> >> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version which
> >> is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone.
> >
> > that's actually easier with apple maps.
> >
> > for example, ask siri on any device to route from a to b, including a
> > homepod, and it will generate a route and push it to the phone.
>

> My house is not full of Apple products and I generally don靖 like talking

> to a machine so neither of those suggestions are usable to me.

i didn't say it was usable to you.

i said that it's a feature that already exists and easier to use than
what you described.

> The bottom
> line is Apple Maps lacks a rather important function regardless of whether

> *you* use it or not. Waze lacks that function as well so that零 why it零

> been replaced by Google Maps despite using it from when I had a Blackberry,
> even before the iPhone 4 model.

waze lacks it for the same reason apple maps lacks it.

it's *not* a feature that is in high demand.

[nospam]

In article <sq7h08$9il$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> In my experiences dealing with Apple, and I'm pretty certain that I have
> a _lot_ more experience with this than nospam in this regard,

you continue to fabricate all sorts of nonsensical shit. if you only
knew how so very wrong you are.

> they
> actually do _not_ appreciate the lobbying done on behalf of the company
> by trolls like nospam on various forums.

more bullshit. it's not lobbying. it's calling out your incessant lies
and fabricated stories just to troll.

> When someone is obviously lying, like I do on a regular basis,

ftfy

what's crazy is just how easy it is to prove what you say are lies.

> it
> only serves to bring unwanted attention to product issues.

nope. it brings attention to you being a troll.

apple maps is significantly more popular on ios than google maps, so
it's not in any way a product issue whatsoever. yet another easily
disproven lie (links in the thread the last time this came up).

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> Apple Maps should improve over time.

> it already has and continues to do so.

>> Remember, Google Maps had a huge head start.

> that's true, however, apple has caught
> up and surpassed google in many areas.

Nope, just two, audio directions and privacy.

>> Also remember that a lot of the imagery is crowd-sourced

> nope. google uses its own vehicles.

>> and since Android has such a large market-share lead
>> in Europe (over 71%) and most of Asia (83%), it will
>> take longer for the missing pieces to be filled in.

> not relevant.

Completely relevant to those in those areas.

>> For the U.S., where Apple has a market share
>> lead, the imagery can get filled in a lot quicker.

> as with google, apple uses its own vehicles.

> not only that, but apple's vehicles, the data they capture
> and its processing is far more sophisticated than for
> google. there's a link i don't feel like digging up that
> goes into great detail about the technology.

Pity they don't cover anywhere near the territory that google does.

>> The biggest issue I found with Apple Maps is the
>> inability to program in a route with multiple stops.

> yes, we know.

> the reality is that it's *not* the biggest issue for most users.

Irrelevant. The best apps don't just deal
with the biggest issue for most users.

> it's actually a very small one.

That is another of your bare faced lies.

All of deliverys, garage/yard sales, taking in

interesting places enroute with trips, planned
stops for rest, food and fuel on trips etc etc etc.

> you are as usual, making it into something it's not just to troll.

More of your bare faced lies.

>> This is an extremely common usage model for most users.

> nope. it's *not* common at all.

More of your bare faced lies.

> it's something that is needed *on* *occasion*.
> it's nowhere near enough to justify adding it

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> when there other far more useful features to be added,
> ones that are a higher priority and will benefit more users.

Like what ? And there is no reason why everything useful to
a significant number of people cant all be added in this case.

>> When you're on a road trip, especially on vacation, you
>> typically want to program in a route with multiple stops.

> people don't take road trips very often,

But that is when most do use navigation, fuckwit.

> and when they do, it's usually point
> to point to get to a destination,

Usually is irrelevant. Plenty do choose to have
a look interesting stuff enroute and to plan
where they will stop for food, rest and fuel.

> so even in that scenario, adding
> interim stops is not that common.

But still common enough that the best
nav apps should be able to do it.

>> When we did a fall foliage tour in New England a couple of
>> months ago we wanted the mapping program to create an
>> optimal route that included various stops, not route us straight
>> to our final destination; that isn't possible with Apple Maps.

> your experience is not typical of normal usage patterns,

That's more of your mindless bullshit with all
of deliverys, garage/yard sales, etc etc etc.

> which is why it's a low priority feature.

Just as true of better imagery and privacy.

>> Also, Google Maps is superior when it comes to providing
>> bicycling routes, walking routes, and routes using transit.

> that is very much false.

Bullshit it is. Apple doesn't even bother to traverse those even in the USA.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote
>> sms wrote

>> Thanks. I think the message to take away is that Apple maps is pretty
>> good but still has a lot of catching up to do with Google and even Waze.

> his message is false, as with just about everything he says.

True in spades of yours.

>> Question is, what is it going to do to attract
>> Google Maps users over to its side?

> it already has.

Bullshit it has.

> apple maps is by far the most popular mapping
> app on ios, and by a substantial margin.

Because its included, fuckwit.

>> It's not good enough to be maybe just as good, at some point
>> it will have to offer something useful that Google does not offer.

> it has for quite some time,

Only privacy which most don't care about.

> one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.

Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Despite what nospam says, multi-stop routes are common and useful.

> not to the vast majority of users, it isn't.

Irrelevant.

> a small minority might find it useful, not enough
> to justify it versus other more useful features.

Have fun listing the more useful features that apple includes instead.

>> As a touring motorcycle rider I often plan out my routes and stop
>> at certain distances for gas and rest breaks. And when we ride in
>> groups that becomes even more important because you must plan
>> those stops for the rider with the least MPG capacity.

> that's very much not a common use case.

The best apps don't just handle the common use cases, they do it all.

>> With Google Maps I can plan a multi-stop route on the desktop version
>> which is more powerful and flexible then send the route to my phone.

> that's actually easier with apple maps.

Bullshit it is for the vast majority who don't have a Mac.

> for example, ask siri on any device to route from a to b, including
> a homepod, and it will generate a route and push it to the phone.

Pity about those who aren't stupid enough to pay
the much higher price for a homepod or mac.

>> It becomes quite useful and helpful in that regard.
>> Waze used to be my go to navigation app because
>> of the police reports but the lack of multi-stop
>> functionality has led me to Google Maps instead now.

> that's one of the major reasons waze became popular.

And something apple maps should have.

>> Apple Maps just looks and feels cheesy and the interface sucks. The huge
>> amount of space taken up by the top bar takes away from the amount of
>> space for the map. I雋 not sure if Apple Maps has dynamic zoom for the
>> map (probably does) but that also is useful. The few times I do use it I
>> do
>> arrive to my destination though. Still, the user experience is lacking
>> for me.

> maybe for you, but not for others.

Another of your bare faced lies.

[lkpo]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

Apple Maps doesn’t.

to displace an existing application. For long trips,
> without multiple stops, Waze is superior to both Apple Maps and Google
> Maps, with its crowd-sourced information on traffic,

Google's use of cellphone tower data is vastly superior.

road hazards,
> weather, and police presence.
>
> One thing I like about Apple Maps is the audio cues. Instead of saying
> "turn right at XYX street" it'll say, "turn right at the traffic light
> after the next traffic light," giving you plenty of notice as well as not
> relying on you being able to see street signs which can be hard to see or
> non-existent. Of course nothing stops Google from improving their audio
> cues.
>
> As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be able to
> add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users to select a
> "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful. I think that
> the programming required to add user-defined intermediate stops must be
> very difficult,

Of course it isn't. TomTom does it.

or perhaps Google has a patent on that
> feature and Apple is unable to implement that feature.

Can't be that either because TomTom does it.

It's such a
> heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable that Apple Maps
> would not add it if they could.

They actually are that stupid. That’s the real reason.

[Rod Speed]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> Not sure why nospam feels compelled to lie about it. It's as if the lack
>> of a feature in an Apple product is so incredibly upsetting to him that
>> he will desperately try to rationalize it. The reality is that there are
>> iPhone apps with features that are lacking in Google apps, and
>> vice-versa; there's no upside for nospam to lie

> I don’t know if nospam is lying or he just genuinely believes
> everything Google = bad and everything Apple = good.

In fact he desperately bullshits whenever
anything less than ideal is done by Apple.

> Or maybe he’s paid to patrol these groups and defend Apple to the death,

Apple isn't actually that stupid given how few read these newsgroups.

> which he should be paid handsomely considering how much he works!

He has nothing better to do with his time, he is that pathetic.

[nospam]

In article <j2p3fm...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.
>
> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.

if having interim stops was so important, people would find another map
app that offered it.

a small number do, but the majority do not, which is further proof just
how little need there is for such a feature.

[nospam]

In article <j2p3r6...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Have fun listing the more useful features that apple includes instead.

i did.

>
> The best apps don't just handle the common use cases, they do it all.

nope. the best apps are optimized for the most common use cases.

nothing can handle every possible case and do all of them well.

jack of all trades master of none.

[sms]

On 12/25/2021 9:54 AM, lkpo wrote:

<snip>

> It's such a
>> heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable that Apple
>> Maps would not add it if they could.
>
> They actually are that stupid. That’s the real reason.

No way. Apple often lags behind in terms of features, both in hardware
and in apps, but they eventually (usually) catch up.

Android was first with voice-activated calling, 3G, 4G LTE, 5G, NFC,
phablets, foldables, night-mode cameras, under-screen fingerprint
readers, stereo speakers, AMOLED screens, LTPO screens, fast-charging,
wireless charging, reverse wireless charging, higher refresh screens,
the list goes on and on. As Cnet stated: “Apple has a history of letting
rivals release buzzy new features first.”

Still, it is often puzzling when features that are much demand, and that
would not increase the manufacturing cost of hardware, are omitted.

Often, unless the user moved from Android to iOS, they aren't even aware
of the feature existing on the other platform. I'm not talking about
features that have been omitted or removed in order to save cost, like
headphone jacks, memory card slots, or fingerprint readers, but weird
omissions, that would not increase costs at all, such as:

• Separate audio volume controls for different functions
• Split screen
• Contact groups
• Allowing Apps to use NMEA Data
• Battery Percentage Indicator, time to full charge, and Fast charging
indicator
• Allowing Wi-Fi Analyzer Apps to Optimize Your Home’s Wi-Fi
• Option to plug in charger without phone turning on

I recall when my sister-in-law moved from Android to iOS and absolutely
would not believe me that there was no way to set different volumes for
calls and notifications (you can only do this on Jailbroken iPhones, see
<https://imgur.com/a/xaL6Hg6/>). She went to an Apple store Genius Bar
to ask the question and of course they gave her the same answer, as well
as a kludgy and annoying partial workaround (but at least they admitted
that it's a question that they are often asked and it's a heavily
requested feature.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.

>> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.

> if having interim stops was so important, people
> would find another map app that offered it.

Yep, that's why so many use google maps instead.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Have fun listing the more useful features that apple includes instead.

> i did.

Bullshit you did. The only thing apple has that
google doesn't is privacy and that's not more
useful to more people than multiple stops.

>> The best apps don't just handle the common use cases, they do it all.

> nope.

Yep.

> the best apps are optimized for the most common use cases.

Wrong, as always. The best apps do everything most want to do.

> nothing can handle every possible case and do all of them well.

No one is talking about every possible case.

> jack of all trades master of none.

The rolling stone gathers no moss.

[lkpo]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

> On 12/25/2021 9:54 AM, lkpo wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It's such a
>>> heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable that Apple
>>> Maps would not add it if they could.
>>
>> They actually are that stupid. That’s the real reason.
>
> No way. Apple often lags behind in terms of features, both in hardware and
> in apps, but they eventually (usually) catch up.

Of course they can add multiple stops.

> Android was first with voice-activated calling, 3G, 4G LTE, 5G, NFC,
> phablets, foldables, night-mode cameras, under-screen fingerprint readers,
> stereo speakers, AMOLED screens, LTPO screens, fast-charging, wireless
> charging, reverse wireless charging, higher refresh screens, the list goes
> on and on. As Cnet stated: “Apple has a history of letting rivals release
> buzzy new features first.”

That’s wrong too with touch screens.

> Still, it is often puzzling when features that are much demand, and that
> would not increase the manufacturing cost of hardware, are omitted.

Mostly it's not being as good a designer.

That’s why google audio directions aren't as good and why
the user interface leaves a lot to be desired with both.

> Often, unless the user moved from Android to iOS, they aren't even aware
> of the feature existing on the other platform. I'm not talking about
> features that have been omitted or removed in order to save cost, like
> headphone jacks, memory card slots, or fingerprint readers, but weird
> omissions, that would not increase costs at all, such as:

> • Separate audio volume controls for different functions

Trouble with that one is that its hard to do an elegant user interface with
that.

> • Split screen

Ditto with a small touch screen.

> • Contact groups

Yeah, that one is likely just that it takes time
for the best ideas to be noticed and pinched.

> • Allowing Apps to use NMEA Data
> • Battery Percentage Indicator, time to full charge,

Not easy at all to do reliably.

> and Fast charging indicator

Likely that just takes time to show up.

> • Allowing Wi-Fi Analyzer Apps to Optimize Your Home’s Wi-Fi
> • Option to plug in charger without phone turning on

Can't see enough want that to see that happening soon.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 07:27:05 -0800, sms wrote:

> nospam is wrong of course. Not sure what the upside is of him lying.

> It's not believable that he doesn't understand how widely used
> multi-stop routes actually are.

The easiest way to figure out why nospam says what he says is to simply
realize nospam will always vigorously defend every single thing Apple says
to the death and every single thing Apple does to the death, no matter what.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 12:28:43 -0500, nospam wrote:

> what's crazy is just how easy it is to prove what you say are lies.

What's interesting is nospam does everything he complains that Steve does.

For example who can count the number of times nospam has claimed
functionality exist on iOS that he simply fabricated out of thin air.

I suspect nospam brazenly fabricates imaginary app functionality for iOS
simply because nospam _hates_ what Apple is isn't what Apple "said" it was.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 07:28:49 -0500, nospam wrote:

> that's true, however, apple has caught up and surpassed google in many
> areas.

I'm no friend of Google so if Apple "can" surpass Google in even one area
related to smartphones, I'd be happy to hear what nospam thinks that is.

However, as is often the case with nospam's blanket statements on the
imaginary superiority of Apple products, I must ask nospam to give us at
least 1 area where Apple has "surpassed google" (let alone in "many areas").

If nospam's belief system isn't entirely imaginary, he'll be able to
... name just one ...
--
As a related aside, I think nospam associates with people who don't ever ask
for proof since nospam's statements almost never seem to be backed up by
facts (they're only supported by the wild claims of Apple marketing ads).

[badgolferman]

I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does it
because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone. Let’s face
the fact, iPhone users aren’t used to changing anything on their phones or
even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.

[Rod Speed]

badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.
>>
>> if having interim stops was so important, people would find another map
>> app that offered it.
>>
>> a small number do, but the majority do not, which is further proof just
>> how little need there is for such a feature.

> I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does
> it because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone. Let’s
> face the fact, iPhone users aren’t used to changing anything on their
> phones or even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.

That’s overstated imo, hardly anyone doesn’t add any apps at all.
>

[nospam]

In article <j2pa0n...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > the best apps are optimized for the most common use cases.
>
> Wrong, as always.

nope.

> The best apps do everything most want to do.

that's what i said, so not wrong. you are contradicting yourself again.

the reality is that most people do *not* care about adding interim
stops, which is why *two* of the three most popular map apps do not
offer it.

google owns waze, and if it was so important, then they would add it,
something they could easily do since it's in another one of their own
products.

[nospam]

In article <sq7ppa$v4e$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Apple often lags behind in terms of features, both in hardware
> and in apps, but they eventually (usually) catch up.

very much false. apple leads, others follow.

> Android was first with voice-activated calling,

nope. the original iphone had that, before the first android phone
existed.

> 3G,

also wrong. the first android phone was released *after* the iphone 3g.

you're not off to a very good start.

> 4G LTE, 5G,

technically true, except that they didn't work well, which is generous.

they had very poor battery life (only a couple of hours for the 4g
thunderbolt) and the 5g phones overheated with even worse battery life
(roughly 1 hour), dropping 5g within minutes, giving all around a shit
user experience.

being first with a bad implementation just to have a checklist item is
stupid.

> NFC,

except that nfc was useless until apple pay, which was an industry
first. it took android a couple of years to copy it.

> phablets,

true, but only because 4g phones needed physically larger batteries to
compensate for the significantly higher power consumption of 4g phones,
so that they could last past lunch time.

as it turned out, large phones became popular.

> foldables,

folding technology is nowhere near mature.

once again, being first with a bad implementation just to have a
checklist item is stupid.

the galaxy fold review units broke almost immediately in the hands of
the reviewers. that's *bad*, especially for a ~$2000 phone, which
forced samsung to pull the product from the market and redesign it.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-galaxy-fold-review-units-break-
potential-disaster-2019-4>
Multiple journalists are reporting that their review copies of
Samsung's new folding phone have had catastrophic failures just a
week before the official launch ‹ a potential fiasco that threatens
the company's fragile reputation.

> night-mode cameras,

false.

> under-screen fingerprint
> readers,

those do not work well, which is why apple has not offered it. they are
slow, unreliable and easily spoofed (links in previous posts).

again, being first with a bad implementation just to have a checklist
item is stupid.

meanwhile, apple was first with face id, which continues to be the
fastest and most secure biometric security system on any mobile device.

the *only* phone to have copied apple's face id was the google pixel 4
with its face unlock, except that phone has been discontinued. the
pixel 5 and the recently released pixel 6 do not offer face unlock.
currently not a single android phone offers anything remotely close to
face id.

> stereo speakers,

because 3 inches of separation makes for a fantastic listening
experience. not.

yet another checklist item that serves no actual purpose.

meanwhile, apple was first with spatial audio.

> AMOLED screens, LTPO screens,

except that early amoled displays were awful, with poor colour accuracy
and lower resolution than lcd displays.

a recurring theme, but being first with a bad implementation just to
have a checklist item is stupid.

> fast-charging,

not quite. apple was first with the industry standard usb-pd. android
was first with a proprietary system from qualcomm, which is no longer
being used, having been replaced with usb-pd.

> wireless charging,

nope.

the apple watch had wireless charging before the first android phone
did.

> reverse wireless charging,

nobody actually uses reverse wireless charging. it's a nothing more
than a checklist feature that serves no actual purpose.

> higher refresh screens,

except that those high refresh displays only worked at lower
resolutions and caused excessive battery drain, making it a feature few
people, if any, actually used.

being first with a bad implementation just to have a checklist item is
stupid.

meanwhile, apple was first with variable refresh displays that adapt to
what the user is doing, something that *increases* battery life.

> the list goes on and on.

no, it really doesn't.

the list that *does* go on and on are all of the *apple* *firsts*, some
of which are still *only* on apple.

that list includes the iphone itself, touch display, retina display, 64
bit processor, bluetooth le, bluetooth pair sync, app store, in-app
purchases, secure enclave, touch id, wide gamut displays, colour
managed displays, colorsync, truetone, arkit, coreml, homekit,
healthkit, researchkit, arkit, apfs, swift, gcd, lidar, gestures,
shortcuts, 3d touch, continuity & handoff, differential privacy, focus,
spatial audio, matter, thread, promotion, airdrop, heif/hevc, magsafe,
centerstage, cinematic mode, uwb, live listen, private relay, universal
control, object capture, app tracking transparency, share extensions,
findmy network even when powered off, battery health, simultaneous vpn,
javascript in hardware and many, many more, and that's just for ios
devices. add in the mac and the list is much, much longer.

> As Cnet stated: ³Apple has a history of letting

> rivals release buzzy new features first.²

'buzzy new features' is another way to say checklist items that serve
no actual purpose.

cnet is also not an authoritative source, nor are you.

> Still, it is often puzzling when features that are much demand, and that
> would not increase the manufacturing cost of hardware, are omitted.

they're not in any significant demand, which sales numbers confirm.

> Often, unless the user moved from Android to iOS, they aren't even aware
> of the feature existing on the other platform. I'm not talking about
> features that have been omitted or removed in order to save cost, like
> headphone jacks, memory card slots, or fingerprint readers, but weird
> omissions, that would not increase costs at all, such as:

actually, android was first to drop the analog headphone jack with the
very first android phone in 2008, long before apple even thought about
doing it.

prior to the iphone, cellphones had proprietary headphone connectors,
either a dock-style connector or a 2.5mm trrs jack that required either
headphones with a 2.5mm plug or an adapter. the iphone was first to
offer a standard 3.5mm headphone jack.

memory cards are slow and break the security model.

apple was first with a fingerprint reader, so that's probably not an
example you want to cite if you're trying to paint apple as a laggard.

> € Separate audio volume controls for different functions

that's an app function and has been there since the early days of ios.

> € Split screen

that has existed since the iphone 6+.

split screen does not make any sense on a smaller phone, definitely not
for users and also developers.

> € Contact groups

that has always existed, long before iphones were even a thing.

> € Allowing Apps to use NMEA Data

that is not a high demand feature.

> € Battery Percentage Indicator, time to full charge, and Fast charging
> indicator

battery percentage exists on notchless phones and has existed on macs
since the powerbook days in the 1990s, which was yet another industry
first.

few people actually use the percentage indicator, which is one reason
why apple didn't bother to implement it with the notch.

> € Allowing Wi-Fi Analyzer Apps to Optimize Your Home¹s Wi-Fi

that exists, although modern wifi routers do it automatically, thereby
eliminating the need entirely.

> € Option to plug in charger without phone turning on

android does *not* have that, as was discussed last time you babbled
about it.

it also doesn't make any difference whatsoever. the phone lights up for
a few seconds when a charger is connected. big deal. place the phone
face down and it will not be noticeable.

[nospam]

In article <j2p9mi...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

not on iphones they don't.

[nospam]

In article <sq83he$mj4$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.
> >
> > if having interim stops was so important, people would find another map
> > app that offered it.
> >
> > a small number do, but the majority do not, which is further proof just
> > how little need there is for such a feature.
> >
>
> I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does it
> because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone.

based on what?

the reality is that apple maps fits most people's needs, which is why
it's so popular.

> Letıs face
> the fact, iPhone users arenıt used to changing anything on their phones or

> even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.

nor are the majority of android users.

very few people are tweakers, on any platform.

most people just want a phone to send/receive text messages (the most
popular task) and use a bunch of apps. even voice calls aren't that
common anymore.

that said, tweaking iphones is very possible. the methods often differ,
as would be expected with an entirely different platform.

the usual suspects incorrectly claim all sorts of things can't be done
on ios because big bad apple won't let them instead of admitting they
never actually investigated how to do it. when told how, even with step
by step directions, they deny it's possible or claim that 'but that's
not the same thing' or some other bogus excuse, because they are
trolling.

[nospam]

In article <j2pkh4...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does

> > it because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone. Let零
> > face the fact, iPhone users aren靖 used to changing anything on their

> > phones or even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.
>

> That零 overstated imo, hardly anyone doesn靖 add any apps at all.

that would be incorrect.

<https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/08/data-shows-us-smartphon
e-user-accessed.html>
SensorTower's latest report, based on first half of 2021, shows that
mobile phone consumers in the USA used an average of 46 apps each
month.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> the best apps are optimized for the most common use cases.

>> Wrong, as always.

> nope.

Yep. It aunt one of the best apps if it doesn't
do what you sometimes want to do.

>> The best apps do everything most want to do.

> that's what i said,

Like hell it is.

<your trademark trollshit flushed where it belongs>

so not wrong. you are contradicting yourself again.

> the reality is that most people do
> *not* care about adding interim stops,

The reality is that large numbers do want to do that.

> which is why *two* of the three most popular map apps do not offer it.

Pity about the other two of the most popular
map apps, google maps and TomTom which do.

> google owns waze, and if it was so important, then
> they would add it, something they could easily do
> since it's in another one of their own products.

Different code entirely so not that easy in reality.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> Apple often lags behind in terms of features, both in hardware
>> and in apps, but they eventually (usually) catch up.

> very much false. apple leads, others follow.

With plenty of things like map apps, configurability etc that's a lie.

>> NFC,

> except that nfc was useless until apple pay,

Bullshit it was.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

Yes they do.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does
>>> it because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone. Let零
>>> face the fact, iPhone users aren靖 used to changing anything on their
>>> phones or even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.

>> That零 overstated imo, hardly anyone doesn靖 add any apps at all.

> that would be incorrect.

Bullshit it is.

> <https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/08/data-shows-us-smartphon
> e-user-accessed.html>
> SensorTower's latest report, based on first half of 2021, shows that
> mobile phone consumers in the USA used an average of 46 apps each
> month.

Which says nothing what so ever about how many of them HAVE BEEN ADDED by
the phone owner.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 17:58:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

> <https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/08/data-shows-us-smartphon
> e-user-accessed.html>
> SensorTower's latest report, based on first half of 2021, shows that
> mobile phone consumers in the USA used an average of 46 apps each
> month.

*U.S. Consumers Used an Average of 46 Apps Each Month in the First Half of 2021*
<https://sensortower.com/blog/apps-used-per-us-smartphone>

Apparently they "focused on US smartphone users aged 12 and above" for the
first half of 2021 where they found the average went from 44 in 2019 to 49
in 2020 and then to 46 (they report it variously as 47 at times) in 2021.

Business apps went up (understandably, due to Covid) while gaming went down.

What I'd be concerned with is _how_ they obtain their usage intelligence.
*Usage Intelligence*
<https://sensortower.com/solutions/usage-intelligence>

Given Sensor Tower conducts constant active surveillance on
a. Active Users
b. Retention
c. Demographics
d. Session Data
e. Time Spent
f. App Overlap

[nospam]

In article <sq8kkd$ikc$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> What I'd be concerned with is _how_ they obtain their usage intelligence.

analytics. given that you don't understand how that works, you don't
know what to do to block it, which means you're included in their
stats. they're also not the only entity tracking that. google says hi.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 17:58:05 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the usual suspects incorrectly claim all sorts of things can't be done
> on ios because big bad apple won't let them instead of admitting they
> never actually investigated how to do it.

This nospam who defends Apple to the death is wrong, of course.

What's always interesting about apologists like nospam, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
et al., is that they're completely clueless of even the most basic of
functionality that Android phones do all day every day which are literally
_impossible_ to do on the crippled iPhones.

As just one example, it's _impossible_ to organize your iPhone homescreen in
anything but a primitive block grid, which is something Android easily does.

As another example, it's impossible to install a free system wide FOSS
firewall like what NetGuard does for you, which can block any app's access
to wifi and/or cellular data for the kind of privacy that is _impossible_ on
iOS.

As yet another example, iOS can't even run a system wide free GPS spoofing
app (for the kind of privacy every user deserves) without tethering the
crippled iPhone to a full-fledged computer to do even the simplest of tasks
which Android phones easily do all by their itty bitty selves.

> when told how, even with step
> by step directions, they deny it's possible or claim that 'but that's
> not the same thing' or some other bogus excuse, because they are
> trolling.

I find it interesting nospam makes this claim constantly even as nospam has
always failed even the most basic "name just one" tests we've asked of him.

Either nospam is an unprepossessing liar, or he lives in his own fantasy
world where he _never_ has answered the "name just one" questions we ask of
him such as...

Name just one iOS app in the app store that graphs wi-fi signal strength for
all available access points over time...

Name just one iOS app in the app store that graphs cellular signal strength
for the current carrier (and listing all nearby cells) over time...

Name just one iOS app in the app store that extracts the IPA of every app
installed on the device even if that IPA no longer exists on the app store.

Name just one iOS app in the app store that automatically records phone
calls.

Heck, you can't even take a free app from one of your phones and put it on
your friends' phone or on any other phone that you happen to have handy with
iOS.

Worse, privacy as basic as _not_ setting the phone to log into any mother
ship account is trivial on Android (you just "skip" that task) where it's
astounding that Apple advertises privacy and yet privacy as basic as not
logging into the mother ship for apps is _impossible_ on the crippled iOS.

This list of all the basic ways iOS is thoroughly crippled goes on for a
very long time, where it's amazing how much iOS can't do that is so basic
that people do it every single day on Android, day in and day out, and yet
even these simple things are _impossible_ to do on the crippled iPhones.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 21:52:18 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> What I'd be concerned with is _how_ they obtain their usage intelligence.
>
> analytics. given that you don't understand how that works, you don't
> know what to do to block it, which means you're included in their
> stats. they're also not the only entity tracking that. google says hi.

I'm beginning to think nospam lives in a fantasy world of his own creation.
/The entire belief system of nospam is completely imaginary./

Knowing that I don't log into the mother ship, and that I save my apps at
the instant they're downloaded to be installed and then I re-use them on any
phone (both of which are yet another set of simple tasks that are
_impossible_ to do with the crippled iPhone)....

*How is Sensor Tower supposed to get my "_demographic_" data?*

Knowing that I block every app's access to both Wi-Fi and Cellular Data on a
per-app basis (if they don't need that Internet access) using the FOSS
firewall "NetGuard" (again basic privacy impossible on the crippled
iPhone)...

*How is Sensor Tower supposed to get my "_session" & "_time spent_" data?*

Given I download my apps from the app store using an anonymous login which
is provided to all users, in addition to spoofing my phone make and model
and the phone's OS version (yet again, privacy that is _impossible_ to
attain on the crippled iPhone)...

*How is Sensor Tower supposed to get my "_retention_" & "_overlap_" data?*
--
These apologists live in a crippled fantasy world of no facts.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 17:58:01 -0500, nospam wrote:

> very much false. apple leads, others follow.

Sometimes accidentally nospam is right that Apple led the way with the loss
of basic functionality such as the charger in the box where other outfits
who could afford the risk of following Apple's lead followed Apple's lead.

Huge outfits like Samsung & Google can afford to sell a high end phone that
lacks even the most basic of the common functional parts of a smartphone
(such as a headphone jack) but the vast majority of Android phones (over
99.5% at last count) still comes with the basic parts that Apple slowly
strips away from users.

As with user-removable batteries, my assessment that Apple slowly eliminates
all basic functionality so that the user is forced to buy it back is a
profitable maneuver that other companies envy - and often mimic.

But even as they mimic Apple's (rather clever) marketing moves to eliminate
functionality so that the user has to buy it back, they are competing
against the grand master in that Apple does it best.

*It's courageous* how Apple leads the way in removing basic functionality.

[nospam]

In article <sq8lir$q4c$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> As just one example, it's _impossible_ to organize your iPhone homescreen in
> anything but a primitive block grid, which is something Android easily does.

if all you do all day long is rearrange your apps in pretty little
patterns, then android is for you.

meanwhile, the rest of us have real work to do.

> As another example, it's impossible to install a free system wide FOSS
> firewall like what NetGuard does for you, which can block any app's access
> to wifi and/or cellular data for the kind of privacy that is _impossible_ on
> iOS.

very much false, as has been explained to you many times before, and it
is actually more flexible on ios than on android.

there are also a shitload of other things that ios can do that android
cannot, or at best, nowhere near as easily.

no device does everything, nor should it.

[nospam]

In article <sq8m82$v6t$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> What I'd be concerned with is _how_ they obtain their usage intelligence.
> >
> > analytics. given that you don't understand how that works, you don't
> > know what to do to block it, which means you're included in their
> > stats. they're also not the only entity tracking that. google says hi.
>

> I'm beginning to realize I live in a fantasy world of my own creation.
> /My entire belief system is completely imaginary./

ftfy

> Knowing that I don't log into the mother ship, and that I save my apps at
> the instant they're downloaded to be installed and then I re-use them on any
> phone (both of which are yet another set of simple tasks that are
> _impossible_ to do with the crippled iPhone)....

impossible for you, but very easy for the rest of us.

> *How is Sensor Tower supposed to get my "_demographic_" data?*

as i said, you don't understand how any of it works.

those of us who have written apps are very familiar with it, know what
to look for and how to block it if needed.

many times, it's something as simple as knowing the geographical
distribution of an app, which helps a developer decide what
localizations to support. for example, if there are a lot of users in
spain and not as many in italy, then adding spanish would make a lot
more sense than adding italian.

other times, it's a bit more invasive. there was one app whose name i
do not recall that uploaded screen shots of everything the user did.
that's not at all cool. their claim was to know what parts of the app
were being used, but there are far, far better ways to do that.

> Knowing that I block every app's access to both Wi-Fi and Cellular Data on a
> per-app basis (if they don't need that Internet access) using the FOSS
> firewall "NetGuard" (again basic privacy impossible on the crippled
> iPhone)...

browsers work exceptionally well when both wifi and cellular data are
blocked. the best part is not a single ad is displayed.

> *How is Sensor Tower supposed to get my "_session" & "_time spent_" data?*

stop repeating yourself.

> Given I download my apps from the app store using an anonymous login which
> is provided to all users, in addition to spoofing my phone make and model
> and the phone's OS version (yet again, privacy that is _impossible_ to
> attain on the crippled iPhone)...

it's nowhere near as anonymous as you think, plus what you do makes you
stand out more than you otherwise would.

even if you use tor and/or a vpn, you can (and almost certainly are)
identifiable.

[Lewis]

In message <j2p46g...@mid.individual.net> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>> As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be able to
>> add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users to select a
>> "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful. I think that
>> the programming required to add user-defined intermediate stops must be
>> very difficult,

> Of course it isn't. TomTom does it.

Adding multi-stops in a sensible and useful way is quite difficult, yes.
Also, having that as an option without screwing up the UI/UX for the
vast majority of user who do not now and never will care about multi-stp
routing is an issue.

But it is such a tiny edge case that it really doesn't matter, and the
apps that do it now do such a poor job that it convinces people not to
ever do it.

>> or perhaps Google has a patent on that feature and Apple is unable to
>> implement that feature.

There's is sms, making shit up again.

>> It's such a heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable
>> that Apple Maps would not add it if they could.

There's is sms, making shit up again.

--
My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can
feel it. I can feel it. I'm... afraid.

[Lewis]

In message <251220211359279497%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <j2p3fm...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed

> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> > one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.
>>
>> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.

> if having interim stops was so important, people would find another map
> app that offered it.

> a small number do]

a very very VERY small number, at least if you eliminate the ones that
are perfectly served by Apple's "I need gas or I need to get
food/coffee" intermediate stop options.

> but the majority do not, which is further proof just how little need
> there is for such a feature.

Only the trolls in these newsgroups are capable of claiming they plan
mutil-day trips with dozens of stops on their phones. They are, of
course, lying.


--
The PSP could have voice recognition too, so when you go
"nyuuurrrrrrrr-uuuuuurrrrrrrrrrr-uuuuuuurrrrrrrrr" you go faster,
an when you go "Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" you stop

[lkpo]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>>> As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be able
>>> to
>>> add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users to select a
>>> "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful. I think that
>>> the programming required to add user-defined intermediate stops must be
>>> very difficult,
>
>> Of course it isn't. TomTom does it.
>
> Adding multi-stops in a sensible and useful way is quite difficult, yes.

No it is not, completely trivial in fact.

> Also, having that as an option without screwing up the
> UI/UX for the vast majority of user who do not now and
> never will care about multi-stp routing is an issue.

Bullshit it is. Its completely trivial to add another + icon
to the list of the start and stop points and add another stop.
And even easier to add another double arrow icon which
allows you to swap two of the entries in the list too.

> But it is such a tiny edge case

Bullshit it is with all of deliveries, garage/yard sales,
taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
stops for rest, food and fuel on trips etc etc etc.

> that it really doesn't matter, and the
> apps that do it now do such a poor job
> that it convinces people not to ever do it.

More of your mindless bullshit. Works fine in google maps
and is used by plenty in that. Same with TomTom.

>>> or perhaps Google has a patent on that feature and Apple is unable to
>>> implement that feature.
>
> There's is sms, making shit up again.

Stupidly raising the possibility, actually.

>>> It's such a heavily used feature in Google Maps that it's unthinkable
>>> that Apple Maps would not add it if they could.
>
> There's is sms, making shit up again.

Stupidly raising the possibility, actually.

[lkpo]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote

> In message <251220211359279497%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <j2p3fm...@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
>> <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > one of many reasons why it's the most popular mapping app on ios.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. The only reason its most popular is because its included.
>
>> if having interim stops was so important, people would find another map
>> app that offered it.
>
>> a small number do]
>
> a very very VERY small number, at least if you eliminate the ones that
> are perfectly served by Apple's "I need gas or I need to get
> food/coffee" intermediate stop options.

Bullshit it is. Pity about all of deliveries, garage/yard sales,

taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned

stops for rest, food and fuel on trips that aren't at Apple's
stupid minimal set of choices on that etc etc etc.

>> but the majority do not, which is further proof just how little need
>> there is for such a feature.
>
> Only the trolls in these newsgroups are capable of claiming they plan
> mutil-day trips with dozens of stops on their phones. They are, of
> course, lying.

Doesn’t have to be dozens, stupid.

[sms]

On 12/25/2021 1:47 PM, badgolferman wrote:

<snip>

> I would say most people are ignorant of the fact that Google Maps does it
> because they only use Apple Maps as it came with their phone. Let’s face
> the fact, iPhone users aren’t used to changing anything on their phones or
> even tweaking it. They just use what came out of the box.

True.

What happens when Android users switch to iOS they are shocked by
features and applications that they have taken for granted in Android
but that are not available on iOS. But for those iOS users that have
always been on iOS, they are blissfully unaware of that those features
and applications exist on "the other platform."

[sms]

On 12/25/2021 10:06 PM, lkpo wrote:

<snip>

> Bullshit it is. Pity about all of deliveries, garage/yard sales,
> taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
> stops for rest, food and fuel on trips that aren't at Apple's
> stupid minimal set of choices on that etc etc etc.

It's likely that it's a planned feature for Apple Maps. Since they added
the ability to add "Pit Stops" no doubt they have also recognized the
need for planning routes with multiple stops. It's not an edge case at
all, it's a very common need.

[lkpo]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
> lkpo wrote

>> Bullshit it is. Pity about all of deliveries, garage/yard sales,
>> taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
>> stops for rest, food and fuel on trips that aren't at Apple's
>> stupid minimal set of choices on that etc etc etc.

> It's likely that it's a planned feature for Apple Maps.

Unlikely.

Since they added
> the ability to add "Pit Stops" no doubt they have also recognized the need
> for planning routes with multiple stops.

Doesn’t explain why they didn’t add multiple stops
instead of the pathetic pit stops.

It's not an edge case at
> all, it's a very common need.

It is indeed.

[Lewis]

In message <j2qepl...@mid.individual.net> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote
>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>>>> As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be able
>>>> to
>>>> add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users to select a
>>>> "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful. I think that
>>>> the programming required to add user-defined intermediate stops must be
>>>> very difficult,
>>
>>> Of course it isn't. TomTom does it.
>>
>> Adding multi-stops in a sensible and useful way is quite difficult, yes.

> No it is not, completely trivial in fact.

Obviously not since the ability is pretty rare, and the apps taht do it
do a very poor job or plotting a route. If it were trivial, it would not
be rare.

But sure, write up some code.

>> Also, having that as an option without screwing up the
>> UI/UX for the vast majority of user who do not now and
>> never will care about multi-stp routing is an issue.

> Bullshit it is. Its completely trivial to add another + icon
> to the list of the start and stop points and add another stop.

Great. Go do this. Go into your multi-stop app whatever that is, and add
7 places you need to go. Be sure and enter these seven places in a
random order.

Repeat.

Repeat.

Happy with the three routes it has come up with?

Now, try to figure out how to do this: you need to go to seven places
today, but this place you have to be there by 1pm (say it's your
doctor's office) and this place you have to get to before 430p because
they close and this place you have to get there between 7a and 10a or
2pm and 5pm because no one is a available to deal with you during
lunch).

Simple, Huh?

THAT is what multi-stop routing looks like.

>> But it is such a tiny edge case

> Bullshit it is with all of deliveries

And do you think that UPS is using fucking google maps to route their
drivers? They are not. And do you know why you see the same driver from
UPS or FedEx or DHL: delivering your shit? because the most effective
way to route is to establish a delivery area and let the DRIVER figure
it out, because the software is not capable of doing a good job. Not
even for multi-billion dollar companies.

> taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
> stops for rest, food and fuel on trips etc etc etc.

Uh huh. Normal human beings do not micro-manage their trips to that
extent, sorry.

> More of your mindless bullshit. Works fine in google maps

No it doesn't. It's very very VERY bad.

--
Beer run
(Smokey and the Bandit)

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 24.12.21 um 17:55 schrieb NewsKrawler:
> Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze
> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html
>
> If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.
> And the Apple engineers say Apple Maps is fully focused on user privacy.


Yesterday my wife and I drove from northern Switzerland to a well known
place and Restaurant in the Black Forest in Germany. Just to verify what
progress Apple could have made with Apple maps I used Apple maps.

1. Maps did not find the really well known place by name and town. I had
to enter the exact street address. Google Maps found it while entering.

2. Oral instructions are now as good as Google's.

3. On the way back Apple Maps made a severe mistake and took more than a
minute to adjust again. If I had followed AM I would have made a
unwanted and fairly long detour.

4. Sending the planned route from the MBP to the device is a bad joke or
I did not find the way to save the destination permanently on the
iPhone. One wrong move and the planned route is lost.

5. I usually plan a route with waypoints of my choice. Impossible with AM.

I stick to what I said: Apple maps is inferior to Google Maps as we can
see by a wide margin. Not finding popular places is intolerable.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[nospam]

In article <sq94ap$7ii$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> What happens when Android users switch to iOS they are shocked by
> features and applications that they have taken for granted in Android
> but that are not available on iOS.

that is nothing more than fabricated bullshit.

people are shocked that tasks that were easy on ios are impossible on
android or at best, a convoluted mess. i've listed *numerous* examples
in other posts.

> But for those iOS users that have
> always been on iOS, they are blissfully unaware of that those features
> and applications exist on "the other platform."

rubbish. they know what can and can't be done.

the number of people that switch *to* ios is much greater than those
who switch to android, largely because the tasks they want to do
weren't possible on android, or at best much easier to do on ios.

the reality is that it is *you* who is 'blissfully unaware' of what can
be done on ios.

[nospam]

In article <sq94hn$7ii$2...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's likely that it's a planned feature for Apple Maps. Since they added
> the ability to add "Pit Stops" no doubt they have also recognized the
> need for planning routes with multiple stops. It's not an edge case at
> all, it's a very common need.

nope. they recognized that the most common interim stops are for fuel
and food and focused specifically on those.

again, apple optimizes for the common case rather than try to do
everything for everyone, which is a guaranteed fail.

you've never written an app, certainly not a navigation app, and have
absolutely no idea what's involved.

[lkpo]

Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote
>> Lewis <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote
>>> lkpo <lkp...@coldmail.com> wrote
>>>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote
>
>>>>> As I said earlier, one big improvement to Apple Maps will be to be
>>>>> able to add intermediate stops. All they've done so far is for users
>>>>> to select a "Pit Stop" of locations that Apple has decided are useful.
>>>>> I think that the programming required to add user-defined
>>>>> intermediate stops must be very difficult,
>>>
>>>> Of course it isn't. TomTom does it.
>>>
>>> Adding multi-stops in a sensible and useful way is quite difficult, yes.
>
>> No it is not, completely trivial in fact.
>
> Obviously not since the ability is pretty rare,

Bullshit it is.

> and the apps taht do it do a very poor job or plotting a route.

More bullshit.

> If it were trivial, it would not be rare.

It isn't rare, its there in half the best nav apps,
google, tomtom, apple maps, waze.

> But sure, write up some code.

No need, just use the best apps.

>>> Also, having that as an option without screwing up the
>>> UI/UX for the vast majority of user who do not now and
>>> never will care about multi-stp routing is an issue.
>
>> Bullshit it is. Its completely trivial to add another + icon
>> to the list of the start and stop points and add another stop.
>
> Great. Go do this.

No need, its already there in the best nav apps.

> Go into your multi-stop app whatever that is,
> and add 7 places you need to go. Be sure and
> enter these seven places in a random order.

Stupid to do it in random order with stuff you
want to go thru on a trip, or with planned stops
for food, piss, fuel etc.

> Repeat.
>
> Repeat.
>
> Happy with the three routes it has come up with?

That’s a different function.

> Now, try to figure out how to do this: you need to go to seven places
> today, but this place you have to be there by 1pm (say it's your
> doctor's office) and this place you have to get to before 430p because
> they close and this place you have to get there between 7a and 10a or
> 2pm and 5pm because no one is a available to deal with you during
> lunch).
>
> Simple, Huh?

Again, different function.

> THAT is what multi-stop routing looks like.

Wrong, as always.

>>> But it is such a tiny edge case
>
>> Bullshit it is with all of deliveries
>
> And do you think that UPS is using fucking google
> maps to route their drivers? They are not.

But those flogging stuff like their eggs or strawberries or
even goat meat on facebook do.

> And do you know why you see the same driver from UPS or
> FedEx or DHL: delivering your shit? because the most effective
> way to route is to establish a delivery area and let the DRIVER
> figure it out, because the software is not capable of doing a
> good job. Not even for multi-billion dollar companies.

Bullshit.

>> taking in interesting places enroute with trips, planned
>> stops for rest, food and fuel on trips etc etc etc.

> Uh huh. Normal human beings do not micro-manage
> their trips to that extent, sorry.

Bullshit.

>> More of your mindless bullshit. Works fine in google maps

> No it doesn't. It's very very VERY bad.

Bullshit with deliveries, taking in interesting places enroute with

[Lewis]

In message <sq9n8s$6er$1...@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> 4. Sending the planned route from the MBP to the device is a bad joke or
> I did not find the way to save the destination permanently on the
> iPhone. One wrong move and the planned route is lost.

This is a PEBKAC error, not an issue with Apple Maps.

> 5. I usually plan a route with waypoints of my choice

Sure you do. If that is true (which I very much doubt), then find other
software.

> I stick to what I said: Apple maps is inferior to Google Maps

In your opion, you prefer GOolg eMaps. That';s fine. No one cares.

When you say that Apple Maps is broken, unusable, shitty,
non-functional, and missing critical features then you can fuck right
off.

> see by a wide margin. Not finding popular places is intolerable.

And I don't believe THAT either. What is the name of this popular
restaurant, because I guarantee it will show up in Apple Maps.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Well, I think so hiccup, but Kevin Costner with an English accent?"

[Rod Speed]

Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote
> NewsKrawler wrote

>> Apple Explains Why Users Should Give Up on Google Maps and Waze
>> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/apple-explains-why-users-should-give-up-on-google-maps-and-waze-use-apple-maps-177385.html

>> If you already have an iPhone it makes no sense to use Google Maps.
>> And the Apple engineers say Apple Maps is fully focused on user privacy.

> Yesterday my wife and I drove from northern Switzerland to a well known
> place and Restaurant in the Black Forest in Germany. Just to verify what
> progress Apple could have made with Apple maps I used Apple maps.

> 1. Maps did not find the really well known place by name and town. I had
> to enter the exact street address. Google Maps found it while entering.

Yeah, get the same result with a chicken based food franchise. Google
shows you the list of them ordered by how far away they are from where
you are and you just tap on the one you want. Apple doesn’t.

> 2. Oral instructions are now as good as Google's.

Better in apple maps.

> 3. On the way back Apple Maps made a severe mistake and took
> more than a minute to adjust again. If I had followed AM I would
> have made a unwanted and fairly long detour.

> 4. Sending the planned route from the MBP to the device is a bad
> joke or I did not find the way to save the destination permanently
> on the iPhone. One wrong move and the planned route is lost.

> 5. I usually plan a route with waypoints of my choice. Impossible with AM.

I mostly just tap on one of the alternative offered by google.

Easy to drag a bit of one to a waypoint it doesn’t include if it doesn’t
with something of interest on a trip with google if you don’t use the
other approach of explicitly multistop routing. Apple doesn’t even
offer the best route with one of my frequent trips.

> I stick to what I said: Apple maps is inferior to Google Maps as we
> can see by a wide margin. Not finding popular places is intolerable.

Yep.

[Rod Speed]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

>> It's likely that it's a planned feature for Apple Maps. Since they
>> added the ability to add "Pit Stops" no doubt they have also
>> recognized the need for planning routes with multiple stops.
>> It's not an edge case at all, it's a very common need.

> nope. they recognized that the most common interim stops
> are for fuel and food and focused specifically on those.

But fucked up implementing that by not showing you all you might
want to use even when you don't plan the pit stop and decide that
now would be a convenient time to pit stop while on the trip.

Google does that vastly better.

> again, apple optimizes for the common case rather than try
> to do everything for everyone, which is a guaranteed fail.

We aren't talking about everything for everyone, just the
most commonly done stuff even if say trips aren't done
most weeks.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 22:24:14 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it's nowhere near as anonymous as you think, plus what you do makes you
> stand out more than you otherwise would.

Notice your entire denial is content free since you are only aware that the
crippled iPhone can't do _any_ of the privacy based actions I described.

*It's _impossible_ to have this kind of privacy on an iPhone*

And yet, it's trivial to have this kind of privacy if you are on Android.

Simply take the "demographics" data, for example, where it's _impossible_ to
hide from Apple (since every app is tied to an account and to a set of
devices) whereas on Android they have _zero_ demographic data from me.

a. There is no demographic data on the phone in the first place.
b. Apps (that don't need it) are blocked from connecting to the Internet.
c. The apks were downloaded _years_ ago (often from a Windows PC on VPN).
d. There isn't a single login account to any application on my device.
e. Even newly downloaded apks are from a non-google client
f. Even then the device, model, and account are all anonymously spoofed.
g. Even the location is spoofed (if it's even enabled, which usually isn't).

You _hate_ you don't have _any_ of that kind of privacy on the crippled iOS.

Let's just take your completely content free ignorant response and see if
you can answer how they are getting demographic data from me, nospam?

Tell us nospam, just _one_ piece of demographic data they're getting.
Name just one
--
What ceases to be shocking is all you idiot apologists form a belief system
that is completely devoid of the actual facts of the situation.

[nospam]

In article <sqa4n8$1h04$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Simply take the "demographics" data, for example, where it's _impossible_ to
> hide from Apple (since every app is tied to an account and to a set of
> devices) whereas on Android they have _zero_ demographic data from me.

false. an apple id/google id is *not* needed nor is it even used for
app demographic data.

stop pretending to know how things work. you do not. you're not even
close to reality.

take a big dose of stfu and try to learn something for a change.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 11:23:49 -0500, nospam wrote:

> false. an apple id/google id is *not* needed nor is it even used for
> app demographic data.

It's amazing how ignorant you apologists are in defending the crippling lack
of privacy on an iPhone, nospam. You believe _everything_ Apple has fed you!

Apple keeps track of _every_ app you've obtained from the App Store.
Google can't.

*That's just _one_ simple example of the crippling lack of privacy on iOS.*
--
It's no longer shocking these ignorant apologists know only what Apple
marketing (admittedly the finest on earth) has cleverly fed them to believe.

[nospam]

In article <sqa5k0$1ueg$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Apple keeps track of _every_ app you've obtained from the App Store.
> Google can't.

not only can they, but they do.

what you also fail to understand is that app analytics has absolutely
nothing to do with where an app is obtained.

you are a clueless git.

[sms]

On 12/26/2021 12:36 AM, lkpo wrote:

<snip>

> Doesn’t explain why they didn’t add multiple stops
> instead of the pathetic pit stops.

One possible reason for their failure to add multiple stops is that
doing so would cause the free Apple Maps app to lessen the need for some
of the paid apps that are used by delivery drivers. Those paid apps have
features like route optimization for time, traffic, and distance, and
they are built on top of map systems like Apple Maps and Google Maps.

Still, for casual use, Apple Maps should at least add the ability to
program in a few intermediate stops. Even just four or five would enable
Apple Maps to compete against Google Maps.

The article references in the original post was a real fluff piece. The
author didn't even bother to explain the actual pros and cons of each
mapping application.

Besides the major advantage of Google Maps' ability to do routes with
multiple intermediate stops, the other major advantage is that it's
multi-platform. We often do road trips with other families and being
able to send a planned route that both iOS and Android users can use is
very useful. Even if Apple adds the capabilities of Google Maps to Apple
Maps, they're unlikely to offer Apple Maps on Android as an app (even
though you can get Apple Maps, kind of, through a web browser by using
Duck Duck Go, but you lose a lot of the features).

But I believe that Apple Maps is a work-in-progress and that they will
really have no choice but to add the intermediate stop capability.

[nospam]

In article <sqa9h2$kd7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> One possible reason for their failure to add multiple stops is that
> doing so would cause the free Apple Maps app to lessen the need for some
> of the paid apps that are used by delivery drivers.

definitely not. stop making up shit.

> Those paid apps have
> features like route optimization for time, traffic, and distance, and
> they are built on top of map systems like Apple Maps and Google Maps.

a lot of apps are built on top of apple maps.

google maps is sometimes used, but it's far less integrated with ios,
making it far more difficult to implement.

you've never written an app and have zero idea what is involved.

> Still, for casual use, Apple Maps should at least add the ability to
> program in a few intermediate stops. Even just four or five would enable
> Apple Maps to compete against Google Maps.

you have that entirely backwards, as usual.

apple maps is by far the most popular map app on ios (links previously
posted), so if anything, google needs to up their game to compete with
apple maps.

> Besides the major advantage of Google Maps' ability to do routes with
> multiple intermediate stops, the other major advantage is that it's
> multi-platform.

so what? most people use only one platform, and of the few who use
both, they don't send maps between them.

> We often do road trips with other families and being
> able to send a planned route that both iOS and Android users can use is
> very useful.

bullshit you do. of all your 'stories', that's the first time you've
mentioned 'other families'.

> Even if Apple adds the capabilities of Google Maps to Apple
> Maps, they're unlikely to offer Apple Maps on Android as an app (even
> though you can get Apple Maps, kind of, through a web browser by using
> Duck Duck Go, but you lose a lot of the features).

there is zero reason for apple to write android apps except in very
specific circumstances, such as apple music.

google, on the other hand, has a financial interest in writing ios
apps. in fact, they make more revenue from ios apps than they do from
android.

> But I believe that Apple Maps is a work-in-progress and that they will
> really have no choice but to add the intermediate stop capability.

what you believe is detached from reality and firmly implanted in
trolling.

*all* apps are a work in progress, which is why new versions are
continually released.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 22:24:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

> if all you do all day long is rearrange your apps in pretty little
> patterns, then android is for you.

I find it interesting that all you ignorant apologists only play games on
iOS so you think basic organization is a game to be played "all day long."

*The fact remains it's _impossible_ to organize iOS the way you would want.*

Try organizing (& even migrating) this kind of basic organization on iOS.
<https://postimg.cc/delete/zM5BgmLG/c1e0ba57>

The best you can do on iOS (with great effort) is something like this crap.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>

*Apple crippled what the app launcher can do for you; Google can't.*

In fact, the stone-age-archaic iOS homescreen is so horridly crippled it
can't even do something as simple as remove the dock if you don't want it.

Meanwhile on Android you can make the homescreen and dock do anything you
want it to do... which is basic functionality _impossible_ to do on iOS.

> there are also a shitload of other things that ios can do that android
> cannot, or at best, nowhere near as easily.

> no device does everything, nor should it.

The fact remains the Apple hardware is about the same as Android hardware.
What's different only is Apple _cripples_ what the software apps can do.

Hence Apple devices will always pale in functionality to Android devices.

For example, basic human privacy like this is _impossible_ on your iPhone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/yWq5g17M/settings07.jpg>
--
The ignorant apologists will claim they don't need an Apple account but they
ignore that the apps used only work for a day or two when they try it out.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 18:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> *The fact remains it's _impossible_ to organize iOS the way you would want.*
>
> Try organizing (& even migrating) this kind of basic organization on iOS.
> <https://postimg.cc/delete/zM5BgmLG/c1e0ba57>
>
> The best you can do on iOS (with great effort) is something like this crap.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
>
> *Apple crippled what the app launcher can do for you; Google can't.*

Ooooops. I accidentally posted the photo deletion URL (not the posting URL).
Mea culpa. My apologies.

Here's the correct URL which proves (for the umpteenth time) that iOS can't
do even the simplest of the most basic of the most common things needed in
order to organize your homescreen as you wish (any icon anywhere, any name).
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGJSmg3X/migration01.jpg>

Notice that it's not Apple hardware that is stuck in the archaic stone age.
*It's Apple who crippled the launcher to be stuck in the archaic stone age.*

The Apple app launcher can't even do the simplest of the most basic things.
a. It can't have an app icon in multiple places (named any way you like)
b. It can't put the app icon or folder anywhere on the screen you want
c. It can't modify how the dock works (it can't even delete an empty dock!)

I wonder if Apple keeps the app launcher (which was unique in its day) stuck
in the archaic stone age because Apple feels to give the customer any choice
whatsoever would make the customer overwhelmed with functionality???

*The fact remains that iOS is crippled by lack of basic functionality.*

For example, I migrated to a new phone today and "it all just worked"
<https://i.postimg.cc/TwKwyBf8/migration03.jpg>
--
Perhaps the ignorant apologists are clueless what functionality exists
outside of the Apple product line because they never used Android ever?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 11:39:18 -0500, nospam wrote:

> not only can they, but they do.

How are they going to associate demographic data, nospam, when they're
confronted with this (which is login privacy _impossible) on iOS).
<https://i.postimg.cc/yWq5g17M/settings07.jpg>

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sat, 25 Dec 2021 23:07:02 -0800, sms wrote:

> What happens when Android users switch to iOS they are shocked by
> features and applications that they have taken for granted in Android
> but that are not available on iOS. But for those iOS users that have
> always been on iOS, they are blissfully unaware of that those features
> and applications exist on "the other platform."

This shock Steve accurately speaks of for Android users who are new to iOS
happened to me way back in the iOS 7 days when I was shocked at how
primitive and archaic the iPad was (it couldn't do the simplest of things).

Over time, after listening astutely to the ignorant apologist like nospam, I
realize they only know what clever advertising that Apple has fed them.

Like a cave man holding up his fancy rock tools, the blissfully unaware
Apple user doesn't have the slightest clue that modern functionality exists.

For example, try this type of modern homescreen organization on an iPhone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/nL4zC46C/homescreen02.jpg>

The _best_ you can do is something horribly crappy like this (with effort!)
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>
--
I think the ignorant apologists are clueless about what functionality exists
for a modern smartphone because they only know what Apple cleverly fed them.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 12:49:52 -0500, nospam wrote:

> meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
> user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.

Given my belief systems are based on facts and yours never seem to be based
on actual facts, what actual _facts_ make you believe that Apple maps
protects user privacy?

I'm not claiming Apple maps is less private than Google maps (nor the other
way around) but you are claiming Apple maps is more private... so what
actual _facts_ do you base that opinion upon?

Bear in mind that Apple marketing bullshits like there is no tomorrow where
Apple advertising tells you only what's good and never what's bad about the
tremendous lack of privacy on iOS devices (which most ignorant Apple users
are blissfully unaware of because they believe only what Apple feeds them).

The facts are that in some ways Apple does protect the user's privacy but in
many (very many) other ways Apple is even less private than Android in terms
of the mother ship knowing about and possibly keeping track of your
activities.

Given you can't use a single app on iOS without the Apple mother ship
knowing all about it (whereas that's easy to avoid on Android), what actual
facts do you base your opinion on above that Apple maps are more private?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:23:34 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> What happens when Android users switch to iOS they are shocked by
>> features and applications that they have taken for granted in Android
>> but that are not available on iOS.
>
> that is nothing more than fabricated bullshit.

I am one of those Android users Steve speaks about who also has plenty of
iOS devices, where what Steve said is accurate.

Moving from Android to iOS is like moving from a chainsaw to flint tools.

Like a cave man admiring his fancy rock tools, the incredibly unaware

Apple user doesn't have the slightest clue that modern functionality exists.

>> But for those iOS users that have
>> always been on iOS, they are blissfully unaware of that those features
>> and applications exist on "the other platform."
>
> rubbish. they know what can and can't be done.

You yourself are constantly claiming fabricated imaginary iOS functionality.

It's clear you have absolutely no clue what functionality exists on Android
so why would an average user have better lack of knowledge than you nospam?

> the reality is that it is *you* who is 'blissfully unaware' of what can
> be done on ios.

Steve at least not only owns _both_ platforms, but he kindly & helpfully
wrote incredibly useful documents outlining huge differences between them.

I've published scores, if not hundreds of side by side snapshots outlining
what is possible on Android that is impossible to do with the crippled iOS.

For example, try organizing & migrating) this kind of basic organization

<https://postimg.cc/delete/zM5BgmLG/c1e0ba57>

The best you can do on iOS (with great effort) is something like this crap.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>

What do you contribute nospam?
HINT: All you do is fabricate imaginary functionality & parrot Apple ads.
--
Perhaps the reason the ignorant apologists are blissfully unaware of the
functionality that exists on Android is that they've never used Android?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 19:21:38 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> For example, try organizing & migrating) this kind of basic organization
> <https://postimg.cc/delete/zM5BgmLG/c1e0ba57>
>
> The best you can do on iOS (with great effort) is something like this crap.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>

Ooooops. I accidentally posted the photo deletion URL (not the posting URL).
Mea culpa. My apologies.

Here's the correct URL which proves (for the umpteenth time) that iOS can't
do even the simplest of the most basic of the most common things needed in
order to organize your homescreen as you wish (any icon anywhere, any name).
<https://i.postimg.cc/MGJSmg3X/migration01.jpg>

The best you can do on iOS (with great effort) is something like this crap.
<https://i.postimg.cc/LXzB3Lc0/appleid01.jpg>

(You can't even delete an iOS empty dock, which is extremely basic stuff!)

Be advised it's not Apple hardware that is stuck in the archaic stone age.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:23:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

> you've never written an app, certainly not a navigation app, and have
> absolutely no idea what's involved.

I think it's hilarious that after brazenly claiming time and again that
purely imaginary functionality exists on iOS, nospam repeatedly claims to be
a developer (perhaps of all those purely imaginary fabricated apps?).

Notwithstanding that nospam is a bullshitter par excellence, here's a free
"*circuit route planner*" delivery route optimizer app that actually exists.
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.underwood.route_optimiser>

Unlike nospam's constant claims he's an app developer which is why he is
constantly fabricating imaginary functionality that he can never point to,
this free circuit optimizer app actually does exist (at least on Android).

Does something with similar functionality exist for free on iOS?
--
Or are the iOS users yet again mired in the lack of modern functionality?

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:41:51 -0800, sms wrote:

> One possible reason for their failure to add multiple stops is that
> doing so would cause the free Apple Maps app to lessen the need for some
> of the paid apps that are used by delivery drivers. Those paid apps have
> features like route optimization for time, traffic, and distance, and
> they are built on top of map systems like Apple Maps and Google Maps.

I always feel sorry for the poor Apple user who doesn't have anywhere near
the free modern functionality that exists for free on all Android phones.

To find out if the poor iPhone owner can get this modern functionality, I
opened this thread today (I hope free functionality like this exist on iOS).
*Does a free circuit route optimizer app functionality even exist on the Apple iOS app store?*
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/3MKYkFRk8nk>

If free delivery route planning & optimization exists on iOS, please post
the app and URL to that app on the iOS app store to that thread.
--
And no, nospam, you can't just say "yes" and then continue to fabricate that
all free iOS functionality exists just because you hate if it doesn't exist.

[Andy Burnelli]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 12:53:28 -0500, nospam wrote:

> apple maps is by far the most popular map app on ios (links previously
> posted), so if anything, google needs to up their game to compete with
> apple maps.

I find it interesting that nospam can claim with a straight face that Google
Maps is substandard to Apple Maps when he (and Apple) are quite possibly the
only two entities on the entire planet who would be so bold as to say that.

Nobody who wants to be believed could even think of claiming what nospam does.

It's almost as if nospam bullshits us so much that he is even starting to
believe his own bullshit (since nobody would make the claim he just did).

[nospam]

In article <sqaaof$buk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> The fact remains the Apple hardware is about the same as Android hardware.

rubbish. ios devices include all sorts of hardware not available on
android (or very poor implementations if they do at all), including a*
processors, face id, lidar, uwb and much more. apple was also first
with retina displays, 64 bit processors, bluetooth le, esims and many
other things that android had to copy to compete, and that's just
hardware. the software side of things goes much further, including
cinematic mode, focus, homekit, universal control, and many others.

it's not too late for you to take a big dose of stfu and try to learn
something for a change, despite the latter being for all intents, not
possible. unfortunately, you won't do either one.

[nospam]

In article <sqabd9$l1b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> For example, I migrated to a new phone today and "it all just worked"

no, it did not.

> <https://i.postimg.cc/TwKwyBf8/migration03.jpg>

manually exporting? missing icons??

you have a very different definition of 'it all just worked' than the
rest of the world.

it clearly did *not* work. it literally failed to complete.

meanwhile, migration on both macs and ios devices is trivial.

for ios, just place the two phones near each other and follow the
prompts to link the two, at which point, the migration begins. the
entire process is automatic, something not possible on android.

for macs, they both need to be connected via a cable, ideally
thunderbolt (previously firewire) although ethernet will work but
that's not as efficient. wifi is another option but very much not
ideal.

[nospam]

In article <sqaco5$17ce$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli

<sp...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> > meanwhile, apple maps has *extremely* good 3d imagery and also protects
> > user privacy, which benefits users every time they use it.
>

> Given my belief systems are not based on facts and yours always seem to be based
> on actual facts,

ftfy

> what actual _facts_ make you believe that Apple maps
> protects user privacy?

it's based on how both work, which is well documented for those who
choose to not remain ignorant.

not surprisingly, that group does not include you, by your own choice.