[zt]谷歌地图领先苹果地图400年

[Elysees]

我们公司内部转发了一篇某专家写的评论，关于apple maps的。我惊悚的发现这位专家居然有建议apple买我们公司，呃......


http://blog.telemapics.com/?p=399

Google Maps announces a 400 year advantage over Apple Maps

September 20th, 2012 by admin
I had a call from Marc Prioleau of Prioleau Advisors this morning and speaking with him prompted me to look into the uproar over Apple’s problems with its new mapping application. So, this column is Marc’s fault. Send any criticisms to him (just kidding). While you are at it, blame Duane Marble who sent me several articles on Apple’s mapping problems from sources around the world.

In my June blog on Apple and Mapping , I postulated that the company would find building a high quality mapping application very difficult to accomplish. Among the points I made were these:

• However, it is not (mapping) San Francisco that will give Apple heartburn. Providing quality map coverage over the rest of the world is another matter completely.

• Currently Apple lacks the resources to provide the majority of geospatial and POI data required for its application.

• My overall view of the companies that it (Apple) has assembled to create its application is that they are, as a whole, rated “C-grade” suppliers.

• Apple seems to plan on using business listing data from Acxiom and Localeze (a division of Neustar), supplemented by reviews from Yelp. I suspect that Apple does not yet understand what a headache it will be to integrate the information from these three disparate sources.

• While Apple is not generating any new problems by trying to fuse business listings data, they have stumbled into a problem that suffers from different approaches to localization, lack of postal address standards, lack of location address standards and general incompetence in rationalizing data sources.

• Apple lacks the ability to mine vast amounts of local search data, as Google was able to do when it started its mapping project.

Unfortunately for Apple, all of these cautions appear to have come true. So much for the past.

In this blog, after setting the scene, I will suggest what Apple needs to do to remedy the problems of their mapping service.

Given the rage being shown by IOS 6 users, Apple failed to hurdle the bar that was in front of them. I have spent several hours poring over the news for examples of the types of failures and find nothing unexpected in the results. Apple does not have a core competency in mapping and has not yet assembled the sizable, capable team that they will eventually need if they are determined to produce their own mapping/navigation/local search application.

Perhaps the most egregious error is that Apple’s team relied on quality control by algorithm and not a process partially vetted by informed human analysis. You cannot read about the errors in Apple Maps without realizing that these maps were being visually examined and used for the first time by Apple’s customers and not by Apple’s QC teams. If Apple thought that the results were going to be any different than they are, I would be surprised. Of course, hubris is a powerful emotion.

If you go back over this blog and follow my recounting of the history of Google’s attempts at developing a quality mapping service, you will notice that they initially tried to automate the entire process and failed miserably, as has Apple. Google learned that you cannot take the human out of the equation. While the mathematics of mapping appear relatively straight forward, I can assure you that if you take the informed human observer who possesses local and cartographic knowledge out of the equation that you will produce exactly what Apple has produced – A failed system.

The issue plaguing Apple Maps is not mathematics or algorithms, it is data quality and there can be little doubt about the types of errors that are plaguing the system. What is happening to Apple is that their users are measuring data quality. Users look for familiar places they know on maps and use these as methods of orienting themselves, as well as for testing the goodness of maps. They compare maps with reality to determine their location. They query local businesses to provide local services. When these actions fail, the map has failed and this is the source of Apple’s most significant problems. Apple’s maps are incomplete, illogical, positionally erroneous, out of date, and suffer from thematic inaccuracies.

Perhaps Apple is not aware that data quality is a topic that professional map makers and GIS professionals know a lot about. In more formal terms, the problems that Apple is facing are these:

Completeness – Features are absent and some features that are included seem to have erroneous attributes and relationships. I suspect that as the reporting goes on, we will find they Apple has not only omissions in their data, but also errors of commission where the same feature is represented more than once (usually due to duplication by multiple data providers).

Logical Consistency – the degree of adherence to logical rules of data structure, attribution and relationships. There are a number of sins included here, but the ones that appear to be most vexing to Apple are compliance to the rules of conceptual schema and the correctness of the topological characteristics of a data set. An example of this could be having a store’s name, street number and street name correct, but mapping it in the wrong place (town).

Positional Accuracy – is considered the closeness of a coordinate value to values accepted as being true.

Temporal Accuracy – particularly in respect to temporal validity – are the features that they map still in existence today?

Thematic Accuracy – particularly in respect to non-quantitative attribute correctness and classification correctness.

When you build your own mapping and POI databases from the ground up (so to speak), you attempt to set rules for your data structure that enforce the elements of data quality described above. When you assemble a mapping and POI database from suppliers who operate with markedly different data models, it is unwise to assume that simple measures of homogenization will remedy the problems with disparate data. Apple’s data team seems to have munged together data from a large set of sources and assumed that somehow they would magically “fit”. Sorry, but that often does not happen in the world of cartography. Poor Apple has no one to blame but themselves.

Recommendations

1. Unfortunately for Apple, they need to take a step back and re-engineer their approach to data fusion and mapping in general.

2. I suspect that the data and routing functionality that they have from TomTom, while not the best, is simply not the source of their problems. Their problem is that they thought they did not have a problem. From my perspective, this is the mark of an organization that does not have the experience or know-how to manage a large-scale mapping project. Apple needs to hire some experts in mapping and people who are experienced in mapping and understand the problems that can and do occur when compiling complex spatial databases designed for mapping, navigation and local search.

3. Apple does not have enough qualified people to fix this problem and needs to hire a considerable number of talented people who have the right credentials. They, also, need to develop a QA/QC team experience in spatial data. They could establish a team in Bangalore and steal workers from Google, but if they want to win, they need to take a different approach, because this is where Google can be beaten.

4. Apple appears not to have the experience in management to control the outcome of their development efforts. They need to hire someone who knows mapping, management and how to build winning teams.

5. Apple needs to get active in crowdsourcing. They must find a way to harness local knowledge and invite their users to supply local information, or at least lead them to the local knowledge that is relevant. This could be accomplished by setting up a service similar to Google Map Maker. However, it could also be accomplished by buying TomTom, and using its MapShare service as part of the mapping application to improve the quality of data. I think something like Map Share would appeal to the Apple user community.

6. Speaking of acquisitions, Apple could buy one of a number of small companies that integrate mapping and search services into applications for use by telephone carriers. The best of these, Telmap, was snapped up by Intel earlier this year, but other companies might be able to do the job. Perhaps Telenav? Hey, here is an interesting idea – how about ALK, now being run by Barry Glick who founded MapQuest?

7. I suppose Apple will want to hire Bain or some other high power consulting group to solve this problem. That would be the biggest mistake they have made yet, but it is one that big business seems to make over and over. As an alternative, I suggest that Apple look to people who actually know something about these applications.

Conclusions

There is no really quick fix for Apple’s problems in this area, but this should not be news to anyone who is familiar with mapping and the large scale integration of data that has a spatial component.

Of course there appears nowhere to go but up for Apple in mapping. I wish them the greatest of success and suggest that they review this blog for numerous topics that will be of assistance to them.

If you want to know more about map data quality see ISO (International Organization of Standardization), Technical Committee 211. 2002. ISO 19113, Geographic Information – Quality principles. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. Available online from http://www.isotc211.org/

And, I urge Apple to keep a sense of humor about these problems, as have some of its users. I had a great laugh at a comment about Apple’s mistaking a farm in Ireland as an airport. The comment was “Not only did #Apple give us #iOS6… They also gave us a new airport off the Upper Kilmacud Road! Yay!”

Until next time.

[笑嘻嘻]

苹果要是买你们岂不是对大家都好的事情？

[tiffany]

4 ah

[stareye]

对呀，我s劲地点头。这样我就能找着回家的路了。

[Knowing]

四百年是怎么算出来的？我科学的问。。

[Elysees]

这400年肯定是瞎说的呗。在线地图本身的历史都不到100年，哪来的领先400年。
另外被收购了其实最大的可能是大批人被雷掉吧。

[笑嘻嘻]

那不一定，看谁的头掐死了谁的头；不过苹果这么有钱，怎么会裁员。

[Jun]

苹果不是 outsource 的领头羊么？几乎全部的制造都在中国进行，没有一样零件是在美国造的，这种公司裁员还会手软么？

苹果跟 Google 宣战就是为了报复和搞垮 Android，只不过现在才全面战斗来得及么？Pettiness 的程度还真罕见，我对苹果的地图 debacle 幸灾乐祸地旁观。

[Elysees]

Google财大气粗，若干年前就在北美地区摆脱TeleAtlas自己做数据，数据更新速度几乎无人能及，现在还跟OSM学习，加了Google Map Editor，允许用户自己填新数据，更新速度更是刷刷的。
Apple当年要是抢在Nokia之前把NAVTEQ买下来还能跟Google数据拼一拼，剩下这个唯一可用的被TomTom买掉的TeleAtlas，在数据上竞争力很小呢。StreetView连Bing Map都开始做了，Apple那边还没见，光做菜的原料要赶上都还得有一阵呢，别提后期polish了。而且apple现在还没有个配套的在线地图，而据说google很快就要搞个iOS的map app了——呃，如果允许上架的话？估计还没等apple自己改好，用户又都转回google map去了。

[笑嘻嘻]

我怎么老为苹果说话，我真的不是果粉哪。

美国制造不中哪，尤其是临时改动，还要按时发布的情况。苹果跟谷歌开战还真有影响，主要现在有瘟吧。微软历来大家都照别人做，他做得最好。瘟吧也是app申请审查的形式，安全性有保证。谷歌的平台和app store是开放的，有好处，也同样有缺陷。现在好像有手机公司就开始考虑瘟吧了。

[Jun]

Nokia 的 Windows 电话据说挺不错的，而且我本来也喜欢 Nokia，值得考虑。Windows 不可能也没兴趣跟 Google 搞无谓的意气之争。我们附近的 shopping mall 里开了一家 Windows 店，搞得象苹果店似的 --- 不知道会不会被苹果控告剽窃知识产权 --- 大概是为了替自己将出的 tablets 做准备。

我是果黑。

[simonsun]

我们附近的 shopping mall 里开了一家 Windows 店，搞得象苹果店似的

我们附近的 shopping mall 里开了一家 Windows 店，就在苹果店隔壁，比苹果店大三倍

[simonsun]

google的地图app出来了没有？还是正等着apple批准哪？

[Elysees]

美国制造不中哪，尤其是临时改动，还要按时发布的情况。苹果跟谷歌开战还真有影响，主要现在有瘟吧。微软历来大家都照别人做，他做得最好。瘟吧也是app申请审查的形式，安全性有保证。谷歌的平台和app store是开放的，有好处，也同样有缺陷。现在好像有手机公司就开始考虑瘟吧了。

为什么美国制造不行？因为没办法加班吗？
瘟吧现在还没出来，谁知道怎么样，拖了那么久，都把我的耐心拖没了，也不知道趁热打铁，到10月所有的人都进过爱疯5了，Nokia出来再好也没用阿。

Windows店开到苹果店附近那在好多mall里都有吧，大小来说倒是Windows店大很多，不过总是苹果店里人山人海，Windows店里人很少。

[tiffany]

我其实认真动心nokia手机了一下儿，不过哪，觉得安猪手机啥都连好了，全换也怪麻烦的。明年换手机的时候，要是良人没追求，我估计还是更新一个安猪的。

[Knowing]

已经有人哀叹怀念jobs 了
苹果是否已经江郎才尽？

http://cn.nytimes.com/article/opinion/2 ... c25nocera/

[Elysees]

人总是要死要退休的，总不能千秋万代的活下去，苹果搞到没他不行，那只能说明他在生时候没有好好把公司人员系统的培养起来。苹果摆脱谷歌进入地图想法是好的，但未免把地图这个行业看得过于简单，准备的时间太短了，QA的人也没什么经验（像New York那个莱克星顿街是个很典型的geocoding的QA例子，居然需要用户来发现问题，只能说明apple maps内部组里缺乏对geocoding特殊性有经验的人）。
我只能猜测如果Jobs在世，可能maps不会那么早发布吧。
其实google map刚出来的时候也是问题多多，直到现在不同resolution航片拼接，或者航片上有云有建筑物反射光点都还是可见的。大家对apple map失望，最大原因是之前期望值过高了，苹果传统上来说是只出成熟产品，这一次出来一个类beta版，所以纷纷掉眼镜。这些个问题要出在nokia map或者bing map上，反弹绝不会那么大。嗯，不过Nokia和Bing map毕竟有老牌NAVTEQ坐镇，我昨天上网查了查，Nokia Map的3D倒做得还不错(maps.nokia.com)，数据也大部分过关，起码在线看起来比apple maps精细多了，就是没人用也没人看。

[Jun]

苹果弃 Google map 而自己开发地图这件事，根本就是闹别扭耍小性子而不是有长期战略性的开发决策，匆匆放出导致结果乱糟糟，等于搬起石头砸自己的脚，跟产权案（表面是控告三星实际上针对 Google Android）都属于苹果近期一系列不顾后果乱耍脾气的做法，短期的好处掩盖不了长期的损人不利己的后果。如此大的公司和市场，决策如此儿戏和任性，让私怨而不是长远策略左右自己，这真让我联想起 Game of Thrones。

[Elysees]

你这个冰火迷根本什么都能联想到它吧。

[笑嘻嘻]

https://plus.google.com/app/plus/mp/407 ... ob3strp134
用希特勒骂人的这个前段就是冰火版的嘛。

[tiffany]

这个也太逗了。不过希特勒支持安猪，也不知道算好事儿还是坏事儿。

[笑嘻嘻]

美国制造不中哪，尤其是临时改动，还要按时发布的情况。苹果跟谷歌开战还真有影响，主要现在有瘟吧。微软历来大家都照别人做，他做得最好。瘟吧也是app申请审查的形式，安全性有保证。谷歌的平台和app store是开放的，有好处，也同样有缺陷。现在好像有手机公司就开始考虑瘟吧了。

为什么美国制造不行？因为没办法加班吗？

主要整个产业链都在中国，当然中国便宜。中国制造可以灵活机动地快速做小量产品。不过这个苹果不需要。个人觉得做高端电子产品不能完全算劳动密集性，可以算资本密集性。做一个模具非常贵，做完了在改很麻烦。各种上下游资源都在深圳，当然在深圳做最快最便宜。那从劳动密集性讲呢，如果真需要，我相信富士康公司大，有能力随时调上千上万的人短时间做苹果一个东西。美国制造通常不这么便利。

[笑嘻嘻]

已经有人哀叹怀念jobs 了
苹果是否已经江郎才尽？

http://cn.nytimes.com/article/opinion/2 ... c25nocera/

这个吧。我觉得美国企业很难做到精雕细刻地做个产品。光靠现代管理绝对不够。当年随身听日本牌子越做越薄越做越小，那得靠一个民族都偏执于精细。虽说技术上苹果手机出来前已经成熟了，但此前大家也就有商用的黑莓。现在看各家聪明手机在广告里都类似的性能互相掐，的确会让人，也就是我产生时无英雄，让竖子成名的感觉。

[笑嘻嘻]

我觉得按照科技大公司的历史，只要谷歌进军聪明手机市场，越长越大，占第一份额的苹果与第二的谷歌就必有一战。就看谁先跟谁打了。一旦打起来，苹果就得自己做地图，或者还有第三方做地图。Nokia 地图做得好可是也是竞争对手啊。两边掐的这个时间很可能最后的赢家是瘟吧呢。听说nokia的手机评价很高。毕竟是老牌手机硬件公司了。

[Jun]

我不太同意笑嘻嘻上面的说法。现代产品互相竞争的同时又互相牵扯、分享、兼并是免不了的，不可能因为要竞争就彼此撇清，彻底不交集不共享技术。苹果虽然一直跟PC竞争，但其实电脑里还是装上了PC使用的Intel的chips，而且软件上也跟微软的一系列办公室软件兼容配合，否则就没法扩大市场占用率。现代市场的竞争不能时刻以你死我活为准则来进行，而是尽量扩大自己的市场占有率。在过去十几年里，苹果的走向并非其表面的孤立主义，全套主义，而是扩大了与PC和微软的兼容。

其实iPhone和Google一直有很多合作，直到Android OS市场占有率超过了苹果（是的，苹果并非第一）才开始向Google发动各种攻势，很明显是出于嫉妒和意气之争，因为这些攻势本身对苹果自己的市场占有率并无重大好处（例如开发地图，状告三星），反而损害自己的业内口碑（从三星那儿讨来的罚款恐怕还不够律师费的，业内大部分人都认为胜诉的后果对整个行业都不好）和产品质量（地图出来拿用户做他们的QA），自打耳光。苹果现在就是仗着手里有大把现金，遇到自己没有expertise的领域就往里一味砸钱要自己开发，其实自己开发没有expertise的东西，而off-the-shelf技术已经非常成熟又不昂贵，这是很没有效率的做法，浪费钱浪费时间浪费人力资源。这几年苹果的崛起证明他们的expertise在于1) 设计美观，2) user experience舒服，他们的长处不是do everything。连这点都搞不清，只能说是现在的领导团自我膨胀头脑发昏的迹象。这不是国与国之间的竞争，Google有什么好东西又不会藏着不卖给苹果用。Eric Schmidt 最近在公开场合提起苹果的语气就半带幸灾乐祸了，一点也不奇怪。如果我手里有苹果的股票，现在可以unload了。

[tiffany]

jun你没听说过Mac初装intel CPU的时候，多少苹果铁杆儿唉叹说苹果再也不是苹果了。

[Elysees]

苹果现在跟PC兼容也是不得已为之吧，类似于Office这样的软件苹果自己也做了一套，好像是叫iWorks还是什么，架不住MS的Office用户又多又主流，根本没办法跟人竞争，只好也允许MS开发的Office苹果上。Jobs在世的时候也尝试过别的行业，那什么apple TV不就是他的idea嘛，不过不那么成功就是了。
再有就是，iOS6失败的只是地图而已，其他的应该都还不错吧（笑大来说说？），不是说iPhone5早已经卖空了，股票表现也还不错啊。果粉的信仰力量还是不能小视的。

[tiffany]

对呀，象啥PS啊illustrator啊特流行的大家都用的软件都有mac版，还有一挺好用拿来做ebook的epubbuilder是cnepub自己开发的，我看见颇有些人苦苦恳求他们给开发一mac版。

我很好奇的问，他们换一个cpu的话，不是很多代码都得重写？从硬件儿到软件的接口啥的。

[Elysees]

Adobe PhotoShop这样的软件是从Mac上开始的吧？其实我挺吃惊白博你居然不是mac用户，我的印象里，生物和图形设计是mac的大用户群呢。我看一个儿童摄影师的博，她还挺逗的，抬头第一句就是说，Right, I am a PC user，so what？应该是摄影图片处理界PC用户少的缘故。

[tiffany]

这个吧，得看出身，我们做电生理出身的都是pc的，基本上。基本上大家都用过dos program，有人现在还在用dos program。到现在主要的几个做电生理用的收集数据的程序都是pc程序。mac程序我就见过一个，还是好姐妹用的一个古董级别的mac上的。那个程序我觉得缺陷很多，只能实时记录测量数据，不能储存波形，没法儿以后在把该纪录拿出来分析。很不方便。mac一开始用的多的是分子和细胞的。

啊，原来ps是mac转嫁到pc上的哈。。。。

[豪情]

powerpoint也是。

[笑嘻嘻]

这个事儿吧，当初苹果进军聪明手机市场的时候大家也不看好。所以将来的事儿很难讲。苹果能做好手机，毕竟他是老牌硬件公司还是有基础的。谷歌是软件公司，设计思想都是从软件出发，哪怕是自己做的数据中心。有了问题也用软件思路解决，很新颖。说个不是特别相关的，我记得（岁数大了记不清楚了）对数据中心的搭建原先也俩大流派，专门优化的硬件，用硬件加速scale up, 或是普通硬件堆出来scale out, 需要优化用软件优化。这类争论也不是说谁对谁错，但市场在某段时间就会有一种占主流。iso 和按住也有类似区别。ISo 是针对专门硬件，所以能够深度优化。苹果的手持设备始终比按住的视频播放流畅就是这个理由。按住不是为某一种特殊硬件设计的，既然苹果手机出现之前各技术实际已经成熟，苹果打开了一个大家说了半天却没做的市场，那其实其他厂家也可以做。尤其是传统手机硬件厂商，做了硬件，用按住做软件就好了。这种拼接，不容易做深度优化，同时按住开放app store, 那其实面临普通PC 同样的安全问题。但大家唱好移动设备，就是因为使用者会在移动设备上上网买东西，人买东西的行为会改变。谷歌曾经宣称他们拥有网络，这种个性化的移动市场怎么可能放弃。谷歌自己不做硬件，但是仍然可以通过硬件厂商对按住的使用得到用户的使用数据。可是手机比pc拥有更多的个人信息，安全性非常重要。不加审核的app 还是很危险的。另一方面手机的移动性让个性化社交、买卖都能跟地图连上，放弃地图，相当于最终把自己放在pipeline的地位，把个性化的数据都给了谷歌。苹果这么干就白领先一场了。
最后我用iPhone5的感觉就是明显地快，可见虽然没加新feature, iPhone5 做了大量深度优化，这正是按住的短处。