A Tale of Two Maps: The Divergent Paths of Apple and Google
Exploring the Philosophical Differences Between Crowdsourcing and Curation in Mapping Technology
The year is 2023. No one in the world is confused by what Elon Musk is doing with Twitter, the generative AI fad died out, and Apple Maps is no longer a punchline.
OK, only one of those things is actually true.
Apple Maps is no longer a punchline. In fact, despite its disastrous launch back in 2012, Apple Maps is back in the ring as a legitimate competitor to Google Maps.
And its got Google Maps on the ropes at the moment.
While it certainly is a good thing for consumers to have these two tech behemoths go toe-to-toe on a product in the market, the resurgence of a streamlined Apple Maps in the last few years contrasts to the bloating of the Google Maps product during the same time frame.
Similar to the ongoing generative AI arms race, which is seeing moves and counter-moves by giant tech companies on a daily basis, Apple’s calculated reinvestment into its map product since 2012 was a move that put it in a better position to challenge Google in the map space.
What I like most about the Apple product now is that they are not trying to compete with Google Maps by trying to be Google Maps. That would be a good way to lose. As cartographer Jake Steinberg points out above, Apple’s map product is very much in line with what Apple is — a company that designs beautiful, intuitive, and carefully-curated products.
You can’t be something you aren’t. At least not convincingly. You can try that approach, sure, but people will see through you over time. Apple knows this — its why they issued a public apology and made sweeping changes to personnel after the 2012 debacle — and so does Google. Knowing who they are and why they do what they do is, perhaps, the reason Google and Apple are the household names that they are today.
Google thinks more is better. It’s why there is so much data, layers, and information available to Google Maps users. Often the shear amount of information available on Google Maps is helpful. Sometimes it’s not (see above and keep reading below).
Apple, in contrast, thinks better less is better, and this time they designed a map in line with that value. Apple went back to its WHY, as Simon Sinek would write it, in its second attempt at the map. This time they made an Apple map, not a Google clone.
It is therefore no coincidence that public opinion of Apple Maps is more favorable now than ever. The company acknowledged and responded to the faults of its initial offering, pouring time, energy, and resources into the product over the course of the past decade.
They did so to remake the mapping product in Apple’s own image. That kind of authenticity is more often than not a winning formula. It’s why the investment appears to be paying off now in the public arena.
Meanwhile for Google Maps the news is less good1:
I think it is a text book example of the main difference in DNA between Google and Apple:
Google is all about crowdsourcing.
Apple is all about curation.
Does the same kind of scamming happen on Apple Maps? I’ve not heard that it does.
Are places on Apple Maps infallible? Lord god, no, absolutely not. They’re OK in some regions of the globe, but in others they still suck.
But given this ease of spamming it still brings up the question: can Places on Google Maps still be trusted?
The emphasis in the quote above is mine, and highlights one of the biggest problems with bloated, crowd-sourced data: Quality control.
Where this goes from here is anyone’s guess. Having a viable alternative to Google’s mapping product is good for consumers though, and Apple certainly has the capital to continue this competition for the long haul.
One thing is for sure. Google is not going to bow out and succumb to Apple’s blows. Apple made its moves to get back in the fight, and you know damn well that Google is plotting its counter moves.
Story via the Lat x Long blog.