61 replies
11h30m
Ha ha ha Apple still thinks 'the web' is Apple or Microsoft (https://support.apple.com/en-us/120585) and Firefox is not supported at all. It's time to shake the last rotten apple from the tree.
52 replies
11h9m
I never understood the value proposition of Apple Maps. Can you imagine being the executive, deciding to create Apple Maps? "Ok, how much does it cost to build and maintain? $BIG NUMBER. What? No way. We'll never make it back by selling adverts on the map." And, still, they built it. We have heard many times on HN that Google Maps (virtually) throws money out the window to keep it running so smoothly. Just keeping all the transit info correct for suggesting routes must be a nightmare.
19 replies
10h36m
Maps is table stakes for a smartphone, and having such a key feature provided by your main competitor is a huge risk. So purely on that basis, it could be worth it.
Then, on top of that, there is value in the data you're able to collect. Traffic data is really valuable. Tracking the movement of vehicles and pedestrians lets you create very accurate maps based on "real world" data, you could use it to figure out really specific things like traffic light timings, diversions, pedestrian crossings, parking space, layout of private roads...
At one point, Apple was working on a car, if you were making a self driving car, all that data would be useful for you, and beacuse of the value of it, competitors may not even sell it to you. So your only option is to generate it yourself.
As for transit data, that is fairly simple, most transit agencies will publish their timetables in GTFS format, there are tools to automatically export this in scheduling software. That will probably get your 90% of the way there, so you might have a few on the groud people in major cities to tweak and make it more accurate, which is nothing for a company on the scale of Apple.
10 replies
10h26m
Then, on top of that, there is value in the data you're able to collect. Traffic data is really valuable. Tracking the movement of vehicles and pedestrians [...]
...but then they decided to market themselves as "privacy-focused", so they can't really do that, right? Or are they actually doing it?
At one point, Apple was working on a car
...but then they killed the car project, so that goes out of the window too.
3 replies
8h2m
Collecting dots/vectors on a map doesn't necessarily invade my privacy. The problem comes with linking that dot with a person. As long as that link is lost and unrecoverable, I have no problem with Apple (or anyone) collecting it. The second problem is actually ensuring that.
1 replies
4h21m
I mean most of those vectors will converge on my home dot; with time data any vector intersecting with my home can tell a lot about my life. Additionally, is it anonymized per user (ie all my vectors are still a set just not identified as me) or each vector is an individual product unliked from all other vectors and user data.
0 replies
2h2m
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/apple-maps/
> Additionally, when you use Maps to make a navigation or directions request, details about your route are sent to Apple, including:
> [...]
> A random identifier, which is created when you ask for directions and exists for the duration of your navigation session0 replies
7h53m
The main problem with this is that the data is naturally linked to your phone, and you have to trust the provider to anonymize it. I suspect that's at least part of the reason for Apple painting itself as privacy-friendly: building trust with its users that they won't misuse their data.
3 replies
5h16m
but then they decided to market themselves as "privacy-focused", so they can't really do that, right? Or are they actually doing it?
Here's the genius behind Apple's marketing: when they say "privacy" they (mostly) don't mean from them! They are mainly talking about third parties. Apple collects a ton of first-party data, and nobody seems to be concerned about that. I also the pond Apple swims in (big tech) is so disgusting and polluted that even their minor effort at cleanliness seems pretty good.
2 replies
4h57m
Apple has a lot of technical solutions that mean data is collected, but is never associated with a particular user.
As an example, location data is shared with Apple, but it’s associated with a random unique identifier rather than your account. When your trip ends, your device switches to a new identifier. Traffic information is only shared if a certain threshold of users travel on a route [1].
Other examples include the entirely on-device photo scanning, the same rotating identifier system for transcripts of Siri interactions, etc. and, of course, being the only major cloud provider to offer E2EE on everything.
Not perfect, but a huge difference from their competitors.
[1] https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Location_Services_White_P...
0 replies
3h9m
You are implying that E2EE is "on everything" without mentioning that it's very far from being the default.
0 replies
3h6m
I do appreciate their sharing that, but I hate that it requires entirely just trusting them. They've so locked the user out of the device that it's difficult or impossible to verify anything for yourself, and even if you did, they could trivially push a change at any time because they have ultimate control over the device.
On the flip side, I tend to think a company so large would have at least one whistleblower or something on the inside, and/or would be so concerned about legal fallout that they wouldn't risk it.
On the flip side of the flip side, Apple is notoriously secretive (even among insiders) and very tight-fisted around employees sharing/leaking information. They also have some of the best lawyers in the world and a near infinite ability to fund any legal action, so may feel (and in fact, be) untouchable. And should Apple go evil, there aren't really great alternatives anyway for the average person, and they're generally so invested in the walled garden that walking away would entail a major disruption to their life.
I agree though, while not perfect, they are certainly much better than their competitors (not counting small players, e.g. GrapheneOS), and I'm grateful that at least they keep privacy at the forefront of conversation. If they abandoned it, there'd be nobody to pick up the mantle.
1 replies
10h17m
Allegedly, Apple have built in privacy features so they can't associate individual users with routes, or know what the entire route is[1]. Apple does show traffic data in the app, so they obviously do collect the data somehow.
When Apple built maps, the car project was still alive, so it would have been a factor in deciding on the investment. They could still partner with a car manufacturer and use the data.
I do suspect that my first point was key in green lighting Apple Maps. Google could have asked for more and more money to provide maps for Apple, or they could pull out completely, and force users to use the App Store app, which would have left the product direction of Maps completely out of Apple's hands.
[1] https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/13/apple-maps-navigati...
0 replies
3h36m
I haven't been an employee since 2015, but by then Google had already been doing the route trimming and splicing for live traffic data. (If you had location history enabled, some of that same data at lower granularity was stored in another service, of course)
5 replies
5h32m
Back in the days Google notoriously launched turn-by-turn navigation on Android only. They bet on this being a big enough differentiator for people to use Android over iPhones.
Apple then launched Apple maps - which at some point became quite good. Google quickly learned that they can't afford to make Android specific features in their apps or they risk losing large percentage of iOS users if Apple makes a competing product
If Apple didn't respond with making their own maps, then maybe we would see more and more Android specific features, to the point where Android would become the dominating platform
4 replies
3h12m
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Android is the dominating platform, except in the U.S.:
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/iphone-android-users
But this is also exactly the same game Apple plays against Android users. It's the same reason why iMessage bubbles are green for Android. Google won the maps round, but such wins are vanishingly rare against Apple.
2 replies
2h23m
iMessage bubbles are green for Android
There are non-Android devices that can send texts as well; they also appear as green. It's probably more accurate to say that encrypted messages are blue and unencrypted are green. Look at the recent AT&T hack to see why the difference matters.
1 replies
2h12m
Even if that was more accurate (I don't think it is), it's certainly not the way users see it.
In fact that's NOT the way Apple describes it, either (see the Apple article cited above), because Apple doesn't actually want to enable E2EE -- it only wants to be able to say it offers it.
In practice, ensuring that other users are pressured into choosing iMessage on iPhone is the only thing that matters to Apple.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/1241443505/green-bubble-shami...
And, this very simple trick works extremely well: at least 87% of teenagers in the U.S. (https://mashable.com/article/apple-messages-green-doj) are pre-programmed to buy an iPhone, even though they have the lowest disposable income of all. Meanwhile, less than a third of the overall global population owns an iPhone.
Is that because iPhones are better? As an owner of both a recent Pro Max and Pixel Pro, I can unequivocally answer, "no", but I do find all of the annoyances between cross-device communication accrue to the point of just wanting to switch to my iPhone full-time, even though it's arguably a worse experience in many ways.
0 replies
1h58m
You're addressing a lot more than I even attempted to address.
I was really just pointing out that devices like this:
https://www.hmd.com/en_us/nokia-2780-flip?sku=16WNDL11A01
and services like e.g. SMS text reminders from Internet services do no run on Android. The green is not a signifier of Android, just of non-encrypted. Or non-Apple, if you want to be less precise. (Apple devices where encryption is disabled also appear as green.)
0 replies
2h10m
iMessage doesn't support Android.
SMS messages are green, no matter if it's sent from an Android phone or an iPhone or an authentication service or a marketing service, etc.
1 replies
4h50m
I'm surprised they didn't launch earlier to ride the sentiment of avoiding Google services.
0 replies
4h12m
"Is it Apple Maps bad?" --Gavin Belson, Silicon Valley
After the fiasco from their initial app launch, I'm sure they would have preferred not to be a meme in a sitcom if possible on this go round. It is possible to release too early
6 replies
10h57m
I guess it gives them leverage vis a vis Google?
I like that it tells me what lane to be in, so it's my main mapping app. Also presumably better privacy than Google Maps.
4 replies
10h18m
Also presumably better privacy than Google Maps.
Yeah you might say that.
My Android-owning Irish mate got hammered one night. Had no idea where he’d been.
We launched Google Maps and it had a GPS track of his entire night. Like a dotted map with every step he’d taken.
2 replies
4h42m
iPhone does this too, though the location data doesn’t leave your phone unless you share it with an app that does that.
0 replies
4h14m
On iPhone I only see Signifcant Locations; on my phone I only see a list of 3 places (despite 400 records). Compared to Google Timeline it’s much more curtailed function.
0 replies
3h40m
Google intends to do the same by end of this year:
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/5/24172204/google-maps-delet...
0 replies
8h7m
Yeah, it's a feature enabled by default outside of the EU (in the EU it asks you if you want to enable it). Makes for some fun stats/recaps, and is useful for tracing back steps (wait, where was that awesome store/restaurant/park/whatever we went to while on a trip to XYZ?) at the expense of Google knowing a lot about you.
0 replies
8h8m
I like that it tells me what lane to be in, so it's my main mapping app.
Google maps does that too.
4 replies
10h34m
Apple's income doesn't come from adverts, it comes from selling iPhones
1 replies
8h55m
Yet Apple Maps and other services play a crucial role in enhancing the value of Apple’s ecosystem
0 replies
5h43m
Right, exactly! Improving Apple Maps is a good investment because it makes you:
1. less reliant on your worst competitor
2. get to give your users something everyone else has to pay for (with money or data)
1 replies
3h43m
Apple's income does come from advertising: https://searchads.apple.com/
Not all of it, but it's disingenuous to say Apple doesn't make money from ads.
0 replies
1h40m
Sorry, i didn't mean to be disingenuous. i meant, ads are not the main source of its income.
And in this context, that's why it is not a foolish choice to spend money on something that it's hard to sell ads on as long as it helps sell more iPhones.
2 replies
10h45m
It's defensive, (and it was built at a time when money was free).
The iPhone launched with Google Maps. Then Google decided to push feature updates skewed towards android phones, leaving iPhone users behind. Apple saw that a vendor could screw their users over (and potentially cause defectors), and decided to invest to ensure they don't have a dependancy.
The best part is that they can now offer it to App Store developers as a free iOS SDK (and paid API on web). Meanwhile the same developers would have to pay an exorbitant cost to use Google Maps. It's part of the moat that makes iOS the more profitable platform to develop for. You can also see this playbook with the release of free Weather APIs.
Yea Apple/Google maps has to be expensive to build and maintain, but at least for apple, they were able to buy their way to bootstrapping the map. What's impressed me is all the fly-over and custom 3D modeling they've done. It does really feel like they just wanted to make a good map at some point, even beyond what people needed or expected. That said, mapping products probably has good caching and fault tolerance you can design in to reduce cost - maps don't go out of sync that fast (for caching) and you'd never know if their "suggested routes" data was out of date occasionally, because you can never drive both routes at once.
0 replies
9h57m
At the time, Google Maps on iOS was written by Apple, not Google, and Google was holding back API access for Street View until Apple sent back more location/tracking/demographic data on users that Google wanted.
Rather than sell out their users, Apple dropped Google Maps as the backend and launched their own maps, and then let Google write their own Maps app where they could do anything they wanted.
0 replies
10h32m
The best part is that they can now offer it to App Store developers as a free SDK. Meanwhile the same developers would have to pay an exorbitant cost to use Google Maps.
Apple Mapkit is free up to 25K api call a day, after that you have to contact Apple for more (and pay I guess?).
2 replies
6h24m
I never understood the value proposition of Apple Maps.
They ship their operating systems with all the "common" apps pre-installed (e.g.: Email, Calendar, Reminders, Notes, Maps, etc). For the maps to work, they need some data source. That's what Apple Maps is.
Apple doesn't make money with the Email app directly, but its existence likely improves how users perceive iOS. This probably translates to return customers and more people recommending it.
1 replies
2h11m
Apple doesn't make money with the Email app directly, but its existence likely improves how users perceive iOS.
I dunno, have you actually used Apple Mail?
0 replies
53m
Yes and I prefer it over any other mail app.
1 replies
10h56m
Whilst I agree with what you say I'm so grateful for Apple Maps simply on the grounds that I try and use Google products as little as possible. Things like Apple Maps keep me in the Apple ecosystem as they add value to my life. I wouldn't use Apple CarPlay either if I had to use Google Maps (granted, I know Waze and others also exist).
0 replies
3h29m
Have a look at TomTom for iOS. It's paid but in my opinion far superior to Google Maps and Waze.
1 replies
9h48m
Google Maps had a total monopoly and Google could have leveraged that in the competition between Android and iOS. Maybe they even tried asking Apple for a lot of money to be able to use it on iOS.
It takes years, even a decade to get maps to a good quality (Apple maps launched in 2012). So I think it's a good thing that Apple started early enough. I'm sure it's crazy expensive to build and maintain. Apple can fund it from iPhone sales, and ensure that their ecosystem has an alternative for Google maps.
I don't think it's meant to turn a profit, I think it's meant as protection of their iPhone revenue.
0 replies
5h14m
I was wondering what the fallout would be if businesses had to pay Google to include their business on Google Maps.
Like, if McDonalds didn't pony up every year, they drop out of the list for Fast Food searches.
0 replies
5h39m
Privacy and a vastly better navigation experience is what makes me prefer Apple Maps for turn by turn nav. For finding local businesses Google Maps is better
0 replies
10h2m
Your not being serious? It's a core app, and the amount of data they get out of it, makes it worth it.
0 replies
4h14m
The Maps application on iOS used to use Google Maps. But then Google started to collect too much user data and withholding features like turn-by-turn navigation (while making it available on Android).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Maps#Initial_release
Becoming independent from Google for such a core feature was an important move.
0 replies
4h16m
One of the selling points of Apple devices is that their software is [1] just _nice_ to use, letting you do what you need to do, without having to keep you in and monetize you otherwise.
Is Mail.app the most powerful client on earth? No; but it is Good Enough, and I don't have to download and pay for a third party app. Is Weather.app the best weather app with all the bells and whistles possible? No; but I don't care about weather apps to download and trial fifteen other ones and It Just Works.
Maps are (orders of magnitude) more complicated; but arguably are also on the baseline level of functionality for a modern mobile OS.
And Maps.app is just so much _nicer_ to use than Google Maps. It has the same problems that all Apple products like it does (search is atrocious, POI db is bad); but it is just a much more pleasant product. It looks nicer, it _feels_ nicer, it has best-in-class transit directions, and doesn't shove ads in front of my face.
[1]: Arguably getting worse and worse at it every year; but still miles ahead of everyone else.
0 replies
3h43m
Not being dependent on Google for such a core feature in their phones makes it worth it for Apple.
0 replies
10h42m
Maps are core technology, which Apple prefers to own. Imagine wanting to release CarPlay (or a full blown car) and Google having you by the balls over maps and navigation. That wouldn't be a good situation. As to $BIG_NUMBER, they seem to be managing fine - Maps sucked pretty bad when it came out, but it doesn't suck now, I prefer it to Google Maps where I live.
0 replies
5h32m
Google Maps on iOS works terribly where I am. Current and previous phone. Going through the Caldecott tunnel would fast forward all the stops. Switched to Apple Maps and I’ve been very happy. Just a single glitch noticed (a light appears before a freeway onramp).
0 replies
2h21m
At the time Apple Maps came out, Google Maps on iOS was limited to bitmap tiles and had no turn by turn directions, whereas Google Maps on Android had both dynamic vector based maps and turn by turn directions.
Apple Maps forced Google to improve Google Maps on iOS.
Apple Maps data was definitely substandard when it was released, but it has improved considerably since then. I vastly prefer it to Google Maps, especially for turn by turn directions when I'm driving.
0 replies
10h56m
I'm guessing they want to give people an advert-free experience for such a basic function as finding directions and driving a route:
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-maps-pop-up-ad-34581...
0 replies
10h32m
Because it's like one of the most important app on your phone ?
How many people would still buy an iPhone without Apple or Google maps ?
23 replies
4h18m
Trying it with Firefox ESR...
Your current browser isn't supported
See Supported Browsers↗
https://support.apple.com/en-us/120585
On your Mac or iPad: Safari, Edge, Chrome
On your Windows PC: Edge, Chrome
No platform other than Apple-Microsoft proprietary ones?
No browser other than Chrome/Edge plus Safari?
Apple should really be more sympathetic to open standards Web. They might be one regulatory decision away from Google Chrome taking over as the popular browser on Apple products as well. One defense is to hold Google-Microsoft and sites to Web open standards, not bless the proprietary Web.
4 replies
4h9m
It appears to work perfectly fine on Firefox. They are only applying the user agent check on the root path, so if you hit https://beta.maps.apple.com/anything it will work on Firefox.
I believe I've tried all the (pretty limited) functionality and I haven't found any justification for blocking Firefox.
2 replies
3h14m
I haven't found any justification for blocking Firefox
They don't want to spend on QA for another browser
1 replies
3h8m
Struggling company like Apple simply can't afford to.
0 replies
2h44m
They don’t have the technology
0 replies
2h55m
there's absolutely NEVER any justification for blocking firefox except just like, complete hostility.
It's Apple though so of course, they get a pass.
2 replies
4h10m
That is why it is named beta.
0 replies
2h7m
Unfortunately, many users will gather from this experience the following sentiment: "if I want to access the latest cutting edge betas, then I should be using something other than Firefox". The net result of this is less browser diversity.
0 replies
2h48m
Presumably if it's a beta then you'd want as much feedback from users as possible. How is blocking Firefox in a beta going to help get this in a production ready state?
2 replies
2h43m
So weird to see a demand for adherence to open standards justified by... the desire to see Apple preserve the dominance of its decidedly-closed device ecosystem.
0 replies
2h40m
Life is weird. And in this weird case, Apple’s monopolistic insistence on denying other rendering engines on its phone has prevented the web from devolving into a monoculture.
C’est la vie.
0 replies
1h32m
Agreed it's weird. But it's not the justification in general.
Apple is so accustomed to leveraging proprietary stranglehold, including sometimes being an outright totalitarian, that they need to realize the precariousness of their position of strength, and learn why most other parties have to at least pretend to believe in non-proprietary interoperation.
A school bully shouldn't wait until they get a debilitating sports injury, and they are suddenly the one getting stuffed into the trash cans, to start preaching&practicing the good word that no one should be stuffed into trash cans.
1 replies
4h9m
That’s weird because you’ve been able to use their embedded web maps for a few years now just fine with Firefox. Wonder what gotcha they ran into implementing the full thing that needed a browser check?
Edit: their browser check is just bad. I get it in safari too.
0 replies
3h52m
That’s weird because you’ve been able to use their embedded web maps for a few years now just fine with Firefox. Wonder what gotcha they ran into implementing the full thing that needed a browser check?
Likely nothing. "Unsupported" messages like that are usually not written based on what the website/webapp can run on, but rather what they have/not have testing for. So if they're only testing it on Windows/macOS/Chrome/Safari, even if their developers probably confirmed it works in Firefox/Linux, they'll add that message/block as their QA doesn't include Firefox or Linux.
1 replies
4h3m
I just tried it in Chrome on Linux and it didn't work. Even tried switching my user agent so it would look like i was on Windows but that didn't work either.
0 replies
1m
At Linux, I used Firefox AddOn "UserAgent Switcher and Manager" to change User Agent to macOS Safari. Then it worked.
0 replies
3h4m
Doesn’t even work with alternative web browsers on iOS which are just using embedded Safari.
0 replies
4h10m
Yes this is a huge miss. It's IE all over again.
0 replies
3h2m
Yeah this isn't a web app... this is a Chrome+Safari app
0 replies
3h33m
It feels like back in the “optimized for Internet Explorer” days.
0 replies
3h22m
I saw this same issue on MacOS... in Safari, so probably just a bug.
0 replies
4h14m
Maybe they will by the time they come out of beta? It only just launched.
The page you reference even acknowledges this:
Availability varies depending on region. To start, Maps on the web is available only in English. Maps on the web will be available for additional browsers, platforms, and languages soon.
0 replies
2h45m
Amusingly, it’s also unsupported on Mobile Safari.
0 replies
2h38m
Under the Helpful? option on that page, I chose No and submitted a comment expressing my disappointment that there was no support for Firefox or any other browser for GNU/Linux users. While I can access Apple Maps on my iPhone, I prefer to be able to view maps on my large desktop monitor.
18 replies
11h55m
Apple launching web apps? And Maps of all things? Suppose that's the logical order. (Should it have been mail first? Or a search engine?)
What year is it?
What's with the browser restrictions too?
8 replies
11h38m
Apple Music has had an excellent web app for a while
3 replies
11h20m
Excellent is something I haven’t heard anyone say about Music App related things, ever.
2 replies
10h22m
Genuinely curious, what do most people say about it? I use Apple Music near daily and I’m pretty satisfied
1 replies
9h18m
I use it too...but it's a really poor app. Search is incredibly slow and clunky, discovery is nonexistant, they've still got the same shuffle logic bugs they had in iTunes, etc.
The most annoying part is they CDN from California for UK/EU users. Start playing something not downloaded, hit skip a couple of times and enjoy 10 seconds of buffering.
0 replies
5h47m
Oh that’s what it is. That’s why I unsubscribed there’s a lag playing anything.
1 replies
10h44m
Is it better than the native Apple Music?
0 replies
10h18m
Not really, I haven’t noticed much of a difference to begin with. I only use the web app sparingly
0 replies
10h17m
The Apple Music web app is so terrible it made me doubt the engineering ability of the whole company. Can't sort collections, can't edit playlists, songs randomly getting skipped, etc. etc. It was like they actively hated the users and wanted to punish them for using the web app.
0 replies
11h28m
I just wish that Apple Music Classical would get a web app. That's the only reason why I'm paying $12 per month. Although I suppose most of the classical pieces are available on regular Apple Music as well...
2 replies
10h59m
Apple launching web apps?
KeyNote, Mail, Numbers, Pages and Photos have been available as web apps for years (and minor ones such as Notes and Reminders)
1 replies
7h55m
Do you regularly use one of them? I've been aware of them for years but I've been never motivated to activity use them due to overall poor UX. Sign-in is already a hassle there. Yet I appreciate them maintaining them because I once had recovered my access to my devices when I was almost locked out of Apple ID (don't quite remember the detail though).
0 replies
7h20m
I haven’t used them much, but when I did, I found them quite usable.
I think a main reason Keynote, Numbers and Pages web apps exist is for sharing with non-Mac users.
1 replies
11h40m
Mail was always available through icloud.com though
0 replies
9h52m
It even predates iCloud, web mail launched with MobileMe.
1 replies
11h9m
Just a theory. But I think they are preparing for the notion that there's a growing number of PWAs in their app stores. And most of those would be using things like maplibre or Google Maps. So, to address that (given that they can't really stop PWAs), it makes sense to make Apple Maps usable outside of the Apple platforms. This way, people can develop PWA apps and have some level of integration with Apple maps on IOS. Just a theory.
The browser restrictions are probably because developing hardware accelerated map rendering engines for the web is a bit of a project and the support for things like WASM and Web GPU in Safari is probably requiring dealing with some Apple specific quirks. Maybe they'll get around to that eventually. I think for most web developers, no Firefox support would be a show stopper. There's no point to this strategy unless they address that.
0 replies
10h36m
They already had MapKit.js as a mapping SDK available across various browsers, off their own hardware. It's been available on a variety of browsers, even Firefox, this is just a beta that doesn't support it.
0 replies
10h30m
As others have said, they already have a few (Mail, Music, iWork, FaceTime, etc). Like FaceTime coming to browser, and apple music going to android, this is probably an attempt to cast a wider net for their ecosystem. Also the EU DMA law is could be causing some strange behavior here.
I wouldn't be surprised to see apple try and release some expanded subscription that includes mapping features. Not sure what TBH and there have been no leaks, but they're searching for revenue streams, and the App Store is getting eyed by regulators.
Oh and the browser restriction is probably temporary - MapKit.js works on all major platforms, even Firefox, so its safe to assume this will get there too.
0 replies
9h3m
Mail might not have been a top priority given the existing solutions like iCloud.com
13 replies
11h10m
Your browser [Firefox] is not supported. See supported browsers
Welcome to 2007 I guess!
7 replies
11h5m
Not only Firefox is not supported, but even Chrome on Linux doesn't work. It's embarrassing for a company such as Apple.
4 replies
10h36m
> Not only Firefox is not supported, but even Chrome on Linux doesn't work.
Which strongly suggests that it makes use of H.265 content somewhere (the source code corroborates such functionality), likely as a carry over from content created for the iOS/macOS versions of Apple Maps where support is granted.
> It's embarrassing for a company such as Apple.
To be fair, it is still in beta. There is still plenty of time for them to recreate the content in a format with wider support before release.
Much more embarrassing is that we enable this state of affairs. The situation that keeps Firefox and Linux from jumping all over H.265 is not some natural property of the universe, it's just a social construct that we uphold by willing choice.
3 replies
10h5m
The situation that keeps Firefox and Linux from jumping all over H.265 is not some natural property of the universe, it's just a social construct that we uphold by willing choice.
Can you elaborate and/or link me to anything related to this?
0 replies
8h40m
Patents. To distribute the codec itself or content, you might have to pay patent fees.
For codecs, they are not flat fee[1], but per piece shipped. Which obviously, presents a problem for linux distributions. Even if they had money, they cannot count how many instances there are.
[1] Well, there is a ceiling, if you ship a insanely huge number of them. Linux isn't it. Cisco is, which is why we have openh264 binaries by them.
0 replies
10h3m
No. I'm good. Thanks for asking, though.
0 replies
8h37m
I think this has some info: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332136
Basically, H.265 is based on some patents and you would have to license them to be allowed to implement the Codec. Mozilla categorically doesn’t want to do that until they can implement it without any patents.
1 replies
10h1m
Embarrassing to not support something on day one of a beta? I wouldn’t feel any.
0 replies
5h37m
How is Chrome on Linux different than Chrome on Windows or macOS?
2 replies
11h5m
Yeah, I don't think you should expect people to support every niche browser.
0 replies
10h52m
I think you should expect Apple to follow web standards.
0 replies
10h47m
Ironic, considering that Safari is typically the odd one out that sites choose to ignore.
0 replies
9h5m
Firefox, while still significant, represents a smaller portion of users. But I think that the absence of initial support for Firefox doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t be supported in the future. Yet I hope so.
0 replies
9h52m
I understand they "cannot test every possible browser" and that "users may get subpar experience".
I don't understand why there isn't "continue at your own risk" button. Maybe with a scary warning. It's kind of stupid that I have to spoof UA for a website to let me in. And in most cases, everything just works fine.
Maybe one day I'll create a website to inform about the issue.
12 replies
10h59m
Out of curiosity, I removed "beta." part and see how it goes (using Chrome + Windows).
So apparently, any URL with a query parameter (e.g. https://maps.apple.com/?ll=41.77708546284588%2C-122.51487365... ) will redirect you to ... their competitor, https://www.google.com/maps . I have no idea why.
3 replies
6h49m
I checked with curl and no matter the user agent it will answer with a 302 to google maps, I don't know how it works that others say it will redirect them to the Apple Maps App.
2 replies
4h14m
That is not what https://httpstatus.io/ sees
With no query param it redirects to Apple sites. With query param, "Invalid protocol: maps:"
1 replies
3h16m
Probably because you're on Mac/Safari.
It shows 302 to maps.google.com here even using the website you give: https://i.imgur.com/y4jUdOn.png
0 replies
1h52m
Yeah what it's showing is that on iOS/Safari (user agent) it returns a maps:// protocol address. This makes sense of all the reports here - it's trying to direct you to whatever maps app you've selected. Redirecting to google maps makes sense if the server doesn't think the maps:// result will do that.
1 replies
10h43m
will redirect you to ... their competitor
For me, it triggered the opening of the (Apple) Maps.app desktop application. Which makes a lot more sense. On safari and chrome.
0 replies
7h38m
Also does that on Firefox on macOS
1 replies
6h52m
I'm guessing that's Chrome going to Google maps site. I recall a setting being there to disable this.
0 replies
3h15m
Based on other comments, it's more likely due to being on Windows.
1 replies
5h25m
no, it takes you to whatever defaults to your maps
0 replies
4h19m
No, my default app for maps is built-in app, Maps.
0 replies
10h45m
On my Mac, that (first) link takes me straight to the Apple Maps app.
0 replies
59m
That's crazy!
12 replies
11h33m
Seems strange Apple offering this for free for other platform users.
This also makes me wonder how much does it cost to run a Map services. I assume the actual server and bandwidth cost are negligible. But the updating and Data would be the most expensive part. But what incentive does Apple have to open this up?
1 replies
11h16m
Protomaps makes hosting maps pretty cheap for open streetmap vector tiles. Most of the cost is actually the CDN bandwidth. It's not going to be nothing depending on the number of users but it shouldn't break the bank for Apple and probably is relatively low to other content they distribute (e.g. Apple TV) or OS updates.
The way protomaps does this is by serving a single large file with all the map data via bucket storage and then using lambda functions + CDNs to extract tiles from there on demand. So, they don't pre-calculate the tile files and this simplifies the update process to replacing a single file. The CDN caches the extracted tiles so this is relatively cheap and doable even for small startups. So, this minimizes compute and storage.
Generating the map tiles requires a bit of compute obviously but it's a constant overhead; and they have to do this anyway for their native apps.
Probably the hardest part for them was building a hardware accelerated render engine for the web. Similar to Maplibre, Google Maps, etc. That would explain why it doesn't work on Firefox as well. And obviously Safari is a bit lagging with things like web GPU and WASM that I imagine would be useful for this.
0 replies
6h9m
It works on Firefox but you have to fake the user agent :)
1 replies
11h28m
One probably small thing: Having a cohesive ecosystem where you can share links makes a map app more useful.
0 replies
11h4m
I’m on both iOS, macOS and Linux. One thing that’s keeping me using Google Maps is not having Apple Maps in the browser (on Linux). This definitely could lower the switching threshold.
1 replies
8h59m
Apple's been kicking around the idea of adding ads to maps:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/08/21/apple-maps-could-...
Makes more sense if you consider that.
0 replies
3h19m
Yep; considering news from 17 days ago [1], I wouldn't be surprised that Apple is trying to have own slice of ads revenue/data from maps segment
0 replies
4h48m
A positive association with Apple would make me slightly more likely to switch to iPhone next upgrade cycle with frustrations with my Pixel.
0 replies
11h27m
> But the updating and Data would be the most expensive part. But what incentive does Apple have to open this up?
Seems you already figured it out: Access to more data / updates. Hence the "Have a Business on Maps?" being a prominent feature.
0 replies
6h10m
I fear running all these services is expensive too - not just the data & updates.
You need quite a lot of infrastructure:
1. map tiles
2. satellite view
3. geocoding. Where you have several services like forward, reverse, IP2coord. Likely also different services for different countries.
4. A-B routing. Again with several services like car, bike, walking and transit. Especially transit is a completely different thing. Also traffic data requires a different data pipeline.
5. ratings / reviews
6. user data (when logged in) for preferences etc
0 replies
5h23m
well it's not like all of this is brand new, they are already updating the data for iphones ... ipads ... macs ... vision pros ...
0 replies
10h33m
Probably to try to get reviews. I would think that is Google Maps' biggest moat.
0 replies
11h17m
I was also surprised to see that there is no cost for using Apple Maps (maybe because it's a beta?). How will this affect services like Google Maps, Mapbox, and similar providers?
12 replies
4h55m
I just tried it on Firefox with https://beta.maps.apple.com/abc, and all the POIs are incorrectly placed (at least in South Africa) and the roads are right-angled and un-named.
Also, Apple makes an absolute mess when contributing to the OpenStreetMap project. For example, their contributors make any informal / illegal shortcut part of a residential street when it isn't.
5 replies
2h14m
Firefox is not currently a supported browser.
3 replies
1h54m
Links like https://beta.maps.apple.com/abc still work.
2 replies
1h14m
Neither firefox nor chrome works on android with that link.
1 replies
1h4m
According to the linked support page, nothing except Apple OSes and Windows is supported; not even desktop Linux! That's quite an accomplishment in 2024. They really went above and beyond in not supporting any modern browser.
0 replies
49m
Interestingly that /abc link works for me on Linux (Brave), but the published link doesn't work for me on Linux+any browser, Chrome included.
Agreed, quite annoying. I own a bunch of Apple stuff, but when they do this crap i can't invest further into their ecosystem because it's unusable to me much of the time.
0 replies
29m
Works for me on FF dev edition. I bet WebGPU support is required (mainline FF does not support this).
4 replies
3h50m
Also, Apple makes an absolute mess when contributing to the OpenStreetMap project. For example, their contributors make any informal / illegal shortcut part of a residential street when it isn't.
This would be very bad, where are you getting this from? That their own maps implementation doesn't work outside of Chrome/Safari doesn't sound nearly as bad as if they're damaging an entire ecosystem like that.
3 replies
3h41m
I contribute to OSM, and I've seen it in my own local town. It's not so much nefarious as it is negligent. They don't have local knowledge, see a satellite image of what seems like a road and decide it connects to existing residential roads. If you spend time on it, you'll notice it too as it was common enough for me to notice it.
1 replies
3h38m
You have any concrete examples of this happening you could link to?
0 replies
3h18m
Probably not without self-doxxing.
0 replies
2h28m
https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues is where you can give feedback to Apple‘s OSM mapping team. There’s one thread per country
0 replies
27m
Firefox on Ubuntu works on my machine, but only using your link, and it displays "[App.AppleMaps.Title]" as the tabs title. The POIs seem to be correct in Switzerland.
8 replies
4h48m
Despite preferring Apple's ecosystem over all others, I've built up quite a robust collection of "Favorites" and "Want to Go" and 'Starred" places in Google Maps, which makes the switching costs to move to Apple Maps high.
Is there a way to export that data from Google Maps? Will Apple offer an import feature?
3 replies
4h31m
Only through Google Takeout. I am trying to build a tool that allows displaying and sharing them outside of Google Accounts or Maps, but the only reliable way to get them out is unfortunately still Takeout. Some browser extensions offered a loop/extraction but they mostly don’t work anymore I think.
1 replies
1h45m
Google Takeout is excellent; basically GDPR data downloads 5 years before GDPR was even a thing. Before moving anything to Apple Maps I'd want to be sure they offer a similar feature so I'm not locked in.
0 replies
1h12m
Just be aware google takeout contains everything except files uploaded to Google Drive.
0 replies
56m
The Takeout export from Maps is quite messy when I've done it in the past.
2 replies
2h16m
I accumulated 8,000+ visited locations on Google Maps, but they've been increasingly abandoning "power users". You might want to reconsider before "investing" or being emotionally attached to Google Maps's saved lists:
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1cfqk52/did_i_j...
[2] https://techissuestoday.com/google-maps-limits-entries-into-...
1 replies
1h1m
From that reddit thread:
Sharing some perspective on this (I was involved in the fix).
Basically what started happening at some point was that Maps had built in a “timeout” for the fetch of Saved lists. When the lists weren’t able to be downloaded/fetched in under X seconds, the system stopped trying, assuming that lists in general would always load in under X seconds.
For users with huge lists, and for some users with very slow connections, it would timeout and not show anything. The way to notice it was typically when sharing the list, because the receiving user would fall into that timeout trap. The owner of the list usually didn’t notice immediately because the places were cached on their devices.
It’s still being worked on, and being rolled out slowly.. Some changes will come though, not sure how it’ll be announced.
0 replies
56m
Was the fix to use a paginated API?
Also, as an aside, do you have any political sway over this decision?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/06/g...
Location history is extremely valuable to remember trips and retrace steps. I don't want this living locally on a device where it can go missing.
0 replies
54m
Collectively there are 100s of strings open across Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc asking for a clean way to export saved places on Google Maps, but other than Takeout (which for the average user is quite complex), there isn't really anything that works well.
There's ways to hack together a scraper that can go through and grab everything, but it's still quite messy. I think Google is making it hard on purpose in order to use this as their "moat".
8 replies
5h20m
I can’t wait for Apple Maps to dump yelp. Am I the only one that that thinks yelp reviews are useless?
2 replies
5h18m
Apple has nothing to replace it with. It's hard to imagine Apple adding reviews and trying to police that — policing their own App Store reviews seems to give the trouble (but perhaps is not a solvable problem).
0 replies
5h2m
I would argue over a certain threshold of human comments/reviews/inputs this is invariably an unsolvable problem
People rightfully give FAANG crap for improper policing (as they should) but in their defence I have yet to see a single solution successfully implemented platform wide, ever
0 replies
5h4m
They could surely negotiate something to get access to Google's reviews. A nice thing about Apple's position is that they have enough money to build or buy whatever they want, depending on how strategic it is. If they buy google's reviews then they get to have access to the best data, and also inject themselves as a middle-man which can allow them to collect their own useful data and know exactly what people are looking at, but also able to claim privacy benefits because they shield people from Google (i.e. stop Google and their evil privacy invading tracking). If content in reviews is objectionable, they can just say "our partner didn't filter as they should, it wasn't us." I think it's actually a pretty good position to be in.
1 replies
5h14m
Yelp was high value in the past - its going to low value in the recent years. It's also regional in its value.
0 replies
5h11m
yelps relevancy had already declined by the time it was included in apple maps
0 replies
4h59m
Is there anything better to replace it with? Even if they could use Google's reviews, I don't feel they are much better. I guess they could do a deal with TripAdvisor, which is the only other site I can think of that has fairly comprehensive coverage of reviews, but is TripAdvisor really a step up from Yelp?
0 replies
5h7m
They've added ratings to the Maps app for certain categories of businesses (or maybe it's for businesses not in Yelp, dunno). It looks like they are testing it out. It also supports picture upload.
0 replies
4h50m
A one star place on Yelp is a warning, especially if there are implied health code violations. But anything else between two and five, I look at the pictures of the food and decide for myself. There's gaming going on for years but pictures can tell a lot, even if it's not everything.
The anti Yelp restaurants that delist themselves from various sites for whatever reason do not exist to me and will never get my business because I will never even think about them when I am thinking about where to eat.
6 replies
11h40m
Sadly the best feature of Apple Maps, the excellent transit overlay, doesn't seem to be available on this web version yet.
4 replies
11h8m
Google Maps also transit overlay. Is it measurably worse that Apple Maps? It seems fine to me.
1 replies
9h39m
Apple Maps transit is easier to read when zoomed out IMO.
0 replies
6h7m
This -- Apple highlights rail lines in their appropriate colors, which is an amazing way to visualize how lines are routed. Google's is kind of half-baked in comparison, IMO.
1 replies
10h38m
Transit data on Google Maps in Sydney Australia has been broken for ages. It's correct (and more clearly illustrated) in Apple Maps.
0 replies
5h35m
What's broken with it? Seems to be working fine here.
What I have noticed is that the satellite view for Sydney is over 3 years old.
0 replies
11h34m
I noticed this too and I am afraid they wont ever release this on the web app since they seem to have the best lane and road mapping data.
6 replies
9h45m
I much prefer Apple maps over google when I'm driving. Nice to see this. Shame I had to use a user-agent switcher though.
5 replies
6h19m
Why is that? Having Google's ability to navigate with live traffic data isn't a valuable feature to you? Apple's traffic-flow is mostly a joke to me, and I've never seen anyone trust it.
0 replies
3h57m
my colloquial evidence … apple maps is the most accurate in predicting time to destination and handles network instability in a way i prefer (keeps you on the track and just notifies you’re in offline mode)
google maps suggests more alternative routes that may save me time but their predictions are generally less accurate. network instability seems to cause the application to “panic” and it just starts spinning around - especially when walking through downtown areas
while google has a sleeker presentation of traffic and shows the “red highlighter of misery and frustration” on my map more precisely, it’s timing is generally wildly incorrect and apple has already routed me around the problem and with more accurate time to destination estimates
0 replies
4h40m
(I live in the Bay Area) It’s been mostly fine for me
0 replies
1h27m
Apple gives better verbal instructions, e.g. "go past this light, then at the next, turn right" and it neatly shows which lane to be in. I can get where I am going even without looking at the map. Last time I used Google Maps it would give you no clues until it was basically "MAKE A HARD RIGHT NOW".
0 replies
4h40m
It works fine, and I live in a city with some of the worst traffic in the US.
0 replies
5h30m
Anecdotally: I use Apple Maps when I need directions (mostly because it’s native/integrated and not google), for drives over an hour my experience is that the ETA time is +/- 5min even when there is lots of traffic.
Except in one edge case where my girlfriend and I were doing a 7 hour drive traveling east late at night on an empty highway and our eta increased by an hour then a little while later another hour, we were so confused and thought we might be driving in the wrong direction! Until we figured out we had crossed a time zone and it was also day light savings!
5 replies
11h24m
Weird. They claim Firefox is not supported, but with some user-agent switcharoo it seems to work fine.
Ugh.
2 replies
10h17m
Well isn't that exactly what "supported" means?
It may or may not work, but since that is a bad user experience, they disable it.
0 replies
8h21m
"Not supported" on its own does not mean "actively blocked/disabled", which is what this is.
"Supported" means that they provide a certain effort for make the configuration operational for their users, by designing said support if needed and providing assistance as required.
0 replies
5h23m
That's a stupid reason to block a user. Just show a warning that your browser is not yet tested.
0 replies
2h54m
Yeah they are just being lazy and not testing it... so rather than verify it works and fix bugs, they just check your browser agent and redirect you if you aren't using Chrome or Safari. So ghetto! Reeks of the late-90s/early-2000s "Use IE6" messages that companies used to put out when they built a site using Microsoft web components or proprietary APIs.
"Hey look, I can save my PowerPoint as a web page! And it even has the animations!" Except it's 2024, and we have standards, and for them to say, "Oh we don't adhere to the standards" is shockingly bad.
0 replies
10h17m
"Works through hacking" is not the same as being supported. See Hackintosh.
5 replies
7h28m
Very sad Firefox is not supported from day one, even in beta
2 replies
4h58m
if you go to something like https://beta.maps.apple.com/asd you bypass the browser check.
works on firefox, but it's a big sluggish.
0 replies
2h59m
This doesn't work for Brave.
0 replies
2h11m
It works for a second, then I get redirected to the unsupported page.
0 replies
7h10m
In my mobile Safari it doesn’t work either.
Edit: looks like iphone is not supported yet, https://support.apple.com/en-gb/120585
0 replies
5h20m
Agreed, but it was even more disappointing to also see the "unsupported browser" when I tried it in Safari.
5 replies
10h54m
Firefox users are being marginalized within a few days by X and now by Apple. A sign of things to come?
1 replies
8h43m
Firefox is being marginalised mostly by Mozilla corporation others seem to just don't care much about dying browser, it is weird that it is broken on Safari with iOS for some folks as it is Apple product.
0 replies
8h41m
it's also weird because Apple maps on the web have been available on Duckduckgo for months and it's worked just fine on Firefox.
1 replies
10h20m
How were Firefox users marginalized by X?
0 replies
8h42m
"X.com refuses to open with Firefox strict tracking protection enabled"
0 replies
10h45m
The Advent is neigh.
4 replies
4h30m
Just give us airtags in icloud.com/find please, so that I can use them while having an android phone. I don't need apple maps in browser.
3 replies
4h27m
Why not just get a tile?
1 replies
3h53m
Same problem - Tile doesn't have a webapp / site
0 replies
1h53m
Oh but does have android app. Sorry didn’t realize you just wanted no app, I definitely sympathize.
0 replies
51m
The Tile network is not great, in my experience.
4 replies
2h25m
Why are mapping services so stingy with custom lists of pinned location? This announcement from Apple made me excited because Google Map's saved list has become unusable for me. I have 8,000+ favorites (used to mark places I've visited) on Google Maps and behavior above 500 is undefined. On Mobile, Google Maps loads an arbitrary list of 3,000 pins. Unfortunately, Apple is even worst with a limit of 100 [2]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1cfqk52/did_i_j...
3 replies
2h9m
You can put items in guides, i'm not sure the limit of items you can put in a guide or how many guides though
2 replies
1h56m
"Total number of places across all Guides: 300"
These limits wouldn't be an issue if Google Maps API actually allowed fetching saved list features.
0 replies
55m
I have over 2,000 places saved in Guides in the Apple Maps app. Not sure what that 300 place limit is referring to, but I haven't had any issues.
0 replies
1h4m
AFAIK the API doesn’t even let you log in as your Google user account.
3 replies
11h35m
It's weird that this doesn't work in Mobile Safari - and disappointing that it doesn't work in Firefox.
2 replies
9h21m
Worked fine on an iPad, or is that not Mobile Safari?
0 replies
4h6m
Sorry I should have said iPhone Mobile Safari.
0 replies
5h17m
Probably they are referring to iOS, which it doesn’t appear to work on either the latest (17.5.1) or 18 beta as of the time of writing this post.
3 replies
4h41m
I love Apple Maps and use it every day in NYC. Hope they will make it require a slightly longer press to drop a pin. I can't be the only user accidentally doing this ~a dozen times a week. Happened just now in the browser, trying to drag the view. Rooting for the product.
0 replies
1h15m
Yeah and the process to remove a pin is a little clunky I find
0 replies
1h37m
Their current browser experience doesn't include transit or cycling, which makes it not terribly useful for NYC.
0 replies
52m
After the initial gaffes, I was reluctant to use it and stayed with Google Maps for a long time. But a couple years ago someone mentioned it had improved, and I'd already been trying to gain some distance from Google... and it's pretty usable. I'll just remember to be a little skeptical if it tells me to drive across the Australian desert.
I wish I was even half as happy about DDG though.
3 replies
10h16m
If you put something random after the URL it seems to skip the browser checks: https://beta.maps.apple.com/bleh
1 replies
7h25m
They seem to have fixed that now. At least on Firefox on Android
0 replies
2h36m
Still working for me - Firefox on Win10
0 replies
8h52m
True! That's quite funny and shows how utterly pointless browser restrictions are.
3 replies
10h29m
First problem: the searchbox does not get focus upon opening. Looking for a place is the main thing you do. Why does it require mouse handling and handling at all?
No keyboard response to Escape. It's basically the maps widget with a user unfriendly, but nice looking, drawer
Same with the Contacts app on macos, it's slow, crashes, and I doubt anyone uses it
1 replies
9h28m
Contacts app: it's fine, doesn't crash for me, and I use it. So there go your assumptions about its entire userbase.
0 replies
2h33m
I get multi second(15sec) delays, the ui suddenly cancels edit mode. It’s just one big abomination when they switched ui frameworks
0 replies
2h16m
Wait, what? Do you enter all your email addresses by hand in your mail app? How do you add new addresses?
3 replies
4h0m
I’ve been using Google Maps forever. When Apple Maps came out, I experimented with it a bit, even tried using it as a default, and it was terrible. Several locations it couldn’t find, or just was in the completely wrong location. Even businesses were missing.
Every now and then I try it out, and it will seem improved a bit over the previous time, but it won’t take long before I run into an address that is again missing or incorrect.
After a while, I gave up on it altogether. But sometimes on CarPlay, I will accidentally end up on Apple Maps, and will realize it after it either has me going in the wrong direction, or it can’t find the place I’m going.
Even my last trip a couple weeks ago this happened.
I’m surprised it has the usage it does, because still to this day, I — admittedly anecdotally — still have issues with the data.
I think maybe in larger cities it functions better. But outside of large cities, I think the data is still quite a bit behind Google Maps.
0 replies
3h13m
I switched to Apple Maps a couple of years ago. I live in Seattle and haven't had any problems with it.
Also, if you didn't know, you can delete Apple Maps entirely if you dislike it. iOS definitely tries hard to enforce those default apps.
0 replies
3h58m
Your last line is right, it's definitely a location thing. I've been using Apple Maps for years in the various big cities I've lived and I strongly prefer it over Google Maps, but whenever I'm on vacation I'll switch to Google.
0 replies
2h56m
I used to be extremely loyal to google maps but they simply haven't added any notable features in more than a decade. They still end the route automatically "at destination", even if you missed your turn and now are driving miles past your destination, which made me frustrated enough one day to dump it and never look back.
Apple maps does something similar but they enter "parking mode" rather than just summarily ending navigation. A little change but a huge difference in usability.
3 replies
8h42m
There doesn't seem to be any reverse geocoding available. "Current location" puts me over 200 miles from where I am. You can't click anywhere on the map to get directions, you have to either click a location (already identified as such, with a name and icon) or type in an address. It's unclear that said locations are even clickable because the mouse icon doesn't change to a pointer. Directions are in miles only and I couldn't find an option to switch to metric; and they take a couple of seconds to be generated. No bike option. Many browsers aren't supported. (And of course no street view either).
It looks more alpha than beta.
2 replies
6h22m
Current Location has nothing to do with their implementation or reverse geocoding and the browser does the work.
1 replies
6h1m
Google Maps in incognito says my position couldn't be determined. Apple Maps seems certain I'm where I'm not. Looks like a bug to me.
0 replies
5h15m
I would sooner attribute the former to "didn't work at all" than "was smart enough to cross check and be confident enough to figure out the location data was inaccurate and hide the result from the user".
2 replies
8h28m
Interestingly it is user-agent blocked on Firefox, as noted in sibling comments. But Kagi (the search engine) has been using Apple Maps on their site (kagi.com/maps) for a good while now.
1 replies
7h40m
So has DuckDuckGo (the search engine) https://duckduckgo.com/?iaxm=maps&q=Manchester
0 replies
5h2m
Indeed, I was surprised this was news because I'd been "using" Apple Maps on the web for quite some time through Kagi and DDG. I say "using" because as soon as I realize it is Apple maps I !gm to get to Google Maps instead, but I've gotten deep enough to know that it (at least seemed to) work.
2 replies
11h31m
Hasn't Kagi been using this for their maps offering for a while now?
0 replies
11h30m
Web embedding for Apple Maps (via MapKit JS) has been around for a while now, but this standalone product is new.
0 replies
10h56m
I know that DuckduckGo has been using it.
2 replies
1h24m
What is the strategic rationale for offering Apple Maps on the web?
1 replies
1h18m
I would imagine that people who need Google Maps on the web are more likely to stick to that one platform everywhere. Offering Apple Maps on web makes needing to stick to Google Maps less necessary.
It’s the same reasoning as iTunes on Windows.
0 replies
26m
Agreed. But historically, Apple pushed users really hard towards their native apps. I’d be personally happy using a better web version of for example Apple Notes when I’m forced to use Windows.
2 replies
2h0m
I want to use Apple Maps. In a few areas I find they beat google. Airport Maps, Transit.
But Google has deep integrations with a lot of things that just make it nice to use. For example, Apple Maps has bike directions. Google maps has bike directions that integration directly with the local bikeshare. So you can an ETA that includes walking time to/from the bikeshare stations for picking up and dropping off bikes.
Right now Google Maps is at the "It just works" phase and Apple is not there, though they are improving quite a bit.
1 replies
1h53m
I live downtown in a busy neighborhood and Google has a "How busy is it right now?" thing, as inaccurate as it potentially is, is super helpful so I don't walk over to a bar/restaurant and find out its packed to the brim with people singing Titanic over karaeoke.
0 replies
35m
Precisely. For Macs Apple made a Pro Workflows team that looked at a bunch of specific tasks done by photographers, videographers, programmers etc and worked to make macs, ipad and iphones better for those specific things.
They need a team like that for Maps. Run someone through "I want to go to a bar tonight" on Google Maps, have them try it on Apple Maps, spec out what is needed to actually make it work, and repeat for a couple dozen use cases.
They really have been able to do this for a few areas within maps. If they broaden this out they'll be a serious contender for Google Maps. They already have them beat on privacy, speed, ios integration etc
2 replies
9h2m
Google Chrome Linux in English Version 127.0.6533.72 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Your current browser isn't supported
0 replies
8h57m
I mean this seems like the same thing that happened to the rest of the market already… the consolidation is just happening within the chrome ecosystem rather than it happening to the alternatives.
Almost as if it was a bad idea to kick away the last check against chrome monoculture. Maybe more mono than people anticipated.
0 replies
5h22m
It's a early beta. It's not surprising to limit testing to what you know first.
2 replies
9h32m
I know people are complaining about lack of Firefox support, but the page also blocks Apple’s own Safari browser on the latest iOS 18 beta.
So I think it’s more likely it’s just beta bugs (site not OS) and reducing their support matrix down during that time.
0 replies
9h1m
Agree! The current limitations are more related to beta bugs and development constraints rather than deliberate exclusion of specific browsers.
0 replies
5h25m
It’s not just their beta iOS, I tried on 17.5.1 and I also get an unsupported browser error.
2 replies
3h53m
Don't know what I was expecting, but Apple Maps seems to be as noisy as Google Maps, maybe event more. So many businesses listed, some with long names taking 5 lines. Good thing this is "not supported" on Firefox, I might've found even more issues.
0 replies
49m
That’s the best feature of Apple Maps. Google hides a ton of businesses, even at max zoom.
0 replies
1h53m
For all of these companies lipservice to A.I., mapping still requires a high degree of human involvement to normalize.
2 replies
11h41m
Your current browser isn't supported
Supported on your Windows PC: Edge Chrome
1 replies
11h39m
Same for me, and I am using an iPhone X with Safari
0 replies
11h35m
Ditto on Safari iPhone 15.
2 replies
1h36m
Apple maps requires js to work. Google maps and Mapquest don't require js.
While most people use js by default, this requirement indicates that Apple requires a greater footprint to run maps than Google or Mapquest.
1 replies
1h31m
Why should they optimize for the <0.1% of people who don't have JS enabled?
0 replies
9m
Why should they optimize for the <0.1% of people who don't have JS enabled?
Because their competitors do that.
Most counts place non-js users (which is not always their choice) between 1% and 4%.
That means that for every 10,000 users, there will be between 100 and 400 that don't have js enabled. It's been estimated that buzzfeed, which we use as a traffic example, gets over 10 million requests that don't support js per month.
1 replies
11h31m
Firefox is not supported. Move along. Nothing to see there.
0 replies
10h58m
Pretty much. Even as a disillusioned mac user I wouldn't rely on their maps app but no compatibility with my browser of choice means that I'll never bother using their product under any circumstances.
1 replies
10h34m
Map looks terribly (like ~5y) outdated.
0 replies
3h42m
You need to be specific. It's very much location based in terms of data quality and how current it is. It's great in the SF Bay Area, which isn't surprising given where Apple is based.
1 replies
5h41m
On one hand, this is a beta product, so perhaps understandable that they're not supporting all platforms out of the gate.
On the other hand, if you're serious about getting your application tested, people running open source browsers and operating systems are going to provide the most thorough testing and detailed problem reports.
0 replies
12m
Even for a beta this is clunky and practically unusable compared to Google Maps. It's pretty obvious that Apple still has a very long way to go to offer a competitive maps product. Google is just so far ahead of whatever this beta is.
For example, I centered the map on my location in Los Angeles, CA and then clicked search for "Gas Stations", and it promptly reposition the map and gave me all the gas stations in San Jose, CA, a city hundreds of miles away. WTF? This is probably one of the most common use cases and they can't get it right.
I managed to drop a pin somehow, not sure, and now I can't remove it and the map is stuck focusing on this random pin point. I don't see any UI for removing the dropped pin. I can't move the pin, or do anything to change where the pin is. Ugh.
1 replies
2h35m
I just wish Apple Maps would drop Yelp .. I hate Yelp
0 replies
1h18m
What alternative do they have? Google Maps reviews?
1 replies
11h32m
Um, I'm confused. I didn't think Apple treated Web as a significant part of their strategy.
0 replies
11h22m
Does this in some way imply that the web is a significant part of their strategy?
The button in the bottom left explains why this exists: It's a gateway to get more information about businesses and other attractions from entities out there in the world that don't live in the Apple ecosystem. Apple Maps ultimately needs a direct line to the real world to be maximally useful, especially against its competitors, and this is their attempt to build that bridge.
1 replies
6h6m
assuming apple maps was written in Swift or objective-C. you would think with the resources Apple have - it would have ported majority of their apps to the browser.
since the languages they use easily compile to wasm. just like how google earth uses c++ etc.
0 replies
4h41m
I haven’t looked at these closely but Apple has some WebAssembly powering some of their iWork on web stuff
1 replies
16m
I live in a city in Canada, every 6 months I tend to give Apple Maps a try.
Inside of this year there have been multiple times where the Apple Maps route is 3x longer.
15 min vs 45 min
55 min vs 1 hr 25 min
I want to use Apple Maps, but don't let these comments from NYC, LA, etc make you think its close to par with Google Maps.
Because its not.
0 replies
14m
Is this due to it having inaccurate traffic estimates, or is it just picking bad routes independently of traffic?
1 replies
2h37m
Type "double bedroom" in to search. Is that booking.com spam?
0 replies
2h17m
Weird results. Looks like bad data fed in.
0 replies
3h34m
The more time moves on the more Apple's "App First/App Only" approach seems to feel like a mistake.
While yeah there has been a handful of benefits to it on iOS specifically, the move of real work to iPads never materialzed so real work still gets done on Macbooks and therefore searches for locations, calendars, documents, etc all end up in Google infrastructure instead of Apple.
0 replies
54m
What I miss the most from Apple Maps is their lack of user content (at least in Germany). While I can find many pictures and reviews of every tiny store on Google Maps, Apple usually only has a handful of reviews and almost no photos submitted.
0 replies
3h38m
the only thing I like in Google maps more than Apple Maps is reviews. Yelp integration in Apple is annoying as it asks me to open an app to view photos from a place.
0 replies
8h5m
… is compatible with Safari and Chrome on Mac and iPad, as well as Chrome and Edge on Windows PCs.
So Apple forces you into walled gardens and leaves you to be spied upon. So much for their pro-privacy stance. Firefox isn't just not supported, it is being actively blocked: “Your current browser isn't supported”!
More evidence that the relationship between a user and a megacorp can only be adversarial (not that this is news).
0 replies
8h1m
Apple: Launches beta product
Hacker News users: oh ma gad they can't guarantee it works on my Netscape fork
0 replies
2h25m
Safari on iOS is not supported?
0 replies
4h48m
I have to say, this is pretty bad even for a beta.
* the map is downright unreadable on a 34 inch ultrawide screen on Chrome/macOS, in dark mode - it's very dark grey on black, with small text in a weird font
* the UI is obviously mobile-style, badly inspired by Google Maps, with a tiny bar to the left; even when clicking on submenus (guides -> one of the guides), it stays miniscule even though there's a massive real estate to work on
* there's only by car and by foot, which means it's useless for a lot of the world that uses public transit or biking
* for some reason it defaults to the wrong measurement system even though my locale and location should be enough to deduce I don't care about miles
0 replies
9h47m
Good job apple team! Very smooth experience. Fyi you may want to sanitize some of your response headers because one can easily tell Envoy is running at the edge. Upstream service latency looks healthy though :)
0 replies
11h9m
No support for any browser on Linux. Yeah, goodbye.
0 replies
6m
Pretty interesting how many things are clickable, but don't appear so. The cursor doesn't turn to "cursor: pointer".
0 replies
6h3m
I'm quite happy to see this, since a long time ago I worked with various mapping providers (back when telcos had their own map and driving apps). One of the folk I worked with went to Apple, and I suspect this is their work :)
0 replies
8h38m
Good, this is one of the last reasons I used google as a default search engine. Hope we see it as an alternative in other search engines.
0 replies
2h34m
Doesn't duckduckgo already use Apple maps and work on Firefox?
https://duckduckgo.com/?iaxm=maps&q=washington+dc&bbox=-77.2...
0 replies
7h40m
With all this front-end elaborate architectural smartassery, supporting Firefox is too difficult. Was it developed in Berlin?
0 replies
11h54m
So weird! I was just looking for this 2 days ago, and was like, "Huh, I thought they had a web app??" Turns out it was always for devices native only. I had no idea this was coming but 2 days ago was the first time I was looking for a web version! Hahaha! :)
edit: Just tested it. Nice! Faster than Google Maps in my estimation. (panning and zooming the map builds and focuses faster). Google, please don't delete my account for criticism! hahaha! :)
0 replies
6h35m
The way I see it--and I mean this in a non-pejorative way--Apple as a company has autism. Google has ADHD.
Apple Maps launched in 2012. That's 12 years that Apple has been plugging away at this. I think we've seen just how much effort is required to catch up to Google Maps. Google actually does a ton to clean up and integrate data from different sources. It adds up.
Apple sticks with things they start for the most part (Ping anyone?). Apple Pay is the poster child for this. Every week there's an announcement where some bank in Estonia has been added. They've slowly built out an ecosystem.
That's what I mean by autism.
Google OTOH has ADHD. If something doesn't immediately work, they lose interest and it gets cancelled. They've reached a point where doing anything requires commitment.
Most of Google's successful products are acquisitions. Android, Maps, Docs, Youtube are obvious examples. Exceptions include search (obviously), Chrome and Gmail.
There are areas where it's almost a joke how many variants of a product have existed and been shuttered over the years. Payments and messaging springs to mind.
Apparently Apple has decided that Maps is core to their business and they've stuck to it. I don't disagree. Good for them. Still, not supporting Firefox? Hopefully that's temporary.
0 replies
8h11m
Wow, after playing with it for a few minutes, I find it to actually be better than the horrible desktop version in Sonoma, where click-and-drag to move the map around inexplicably _drags place labels_ if you accidentally start the drag on one, and where clicking on a category search like "supermarkets - search nearby" always recenters around your current location instead of honoring your current map view.
0 replies
9h2m
I’d use Apple Maps more frequently, but business data and reviews are just not very helpful compared to Google Maps (at least where I am).
0 replies
10h3m
Interestingly, the web version uses newer satellite data than the app version, at least for some areas.
0 replies
2h56m
Doesn't work with Firefox?! Are we back to this shit where all the companies want us to use IE6? Come on, this is so janky. Especially for a company like Apple.
0 replies
3h41m
It has no public transit support? or did I miss a button? I mean it's one of the only use I have for a desktop map, plan your route ahead, see where to go, and how to go there.
0 replies
2h14m
Where do they source their data? I've contributed a lot of hyperspecific information to OpenStreetMap about my location that Google gets very wrong. It looks like Apple took some of it, slightly tweaked some stuff, and completed ignored other bits.
0 replies
5h18m
Running Safari on MacOS (latest) I see in the console:
[Error] Could not connect to the server. [Error] Fetch API cannot load https://xp-qa.apple.com/report/2/xp_amp_web_perf_log due to access control checks. [Error] Failed to load resource: Could not connect to the server. (xp_amp_web_perf_log, line 0)
Looks like a beta bug.
0 replies
4h0m
Nice. With the current trajectory Apple Maps will be a serious competitor to Google Maps.
When it first came out we all made fun of it and it deserved that fun to be made. It was absolutely terrible.
Fast-forward to today: I live in Turkey, Google Maps' satellite view is extremely blurry at an unusable level, and Apple Maps displays satellite view perfectly at a nice resolution. There has been a change in street numbers about three years ago here. Apple Maps displays the current new street number while Google Maps still displays the old street number. And before you say Apple is only good at first-world metropolitans: I live in a small town in Turkey, barely more populated than a village in winter.
The only reason I keep Google Maps is compatibility especially when sending location etc to others with Android devices, otherwise I'd have long deleted it.
With this upgrade I might actually indeed delete Google Maps which has one of the worst UX I've seen (well, it's a Google product so that's expected) and very bad data, at least for all my practical purposes.
0 replies
2h29m
- A lot of retail businesses listed in my neighborhood that don't exist. I am guessing they are pulling from corporate registries to find these?
- The directions feature is about 14 years behind Google/OSM. No transit, no cycling, and no traffic visualization.
0 replies
2h33m
"Your current browser isn't supported" Okay.
0 replies
3h43m
Heaven knows Apple would never give me anything for free. So, Apple will have to PAY ME to try their beta product. The era of free work is over.
0 replies
1h21m
Apple? The Web? What?
0 replies
6h30m
Your current browser isn't supported
From the "Supported Browsers" section, they only seem to support macOS and Windows. Somehow I suspect that this is overzealous User-Agent sniffing.
0 replies
3h39m
Is there a way to use light mode?
0 replies
5h38m
I've sometimes used Apple Maps on a desktop browser, with the URL https://maps.apple.com/imagecollection/map?path=anything (hold ctrl while scrolling to zoom)
I'm quite glad there's now official support.
0 replies
7h0m
When I see the low level of support that Apple provides for various less popular web browsers, it reminds me of a certain story:
A friend of mine once worked a long time ago at an IT company that was building an online store. He wrote a script there that displayed a message whenever someone accessed the site using Netscape "Get lost, jerk, with that Netscape and go straighten bananas on a tree”.
The company was quite popular in my country, and that message caused a lot of outrage on Usenet groups.
Firefox only has a marginal market share, so I can understand it's not a high priority target platform.
Everything works if you use User-Agent switcher extension. So they went through the trouble of making an "unsupported" page and redirecting you to that page instead of doing nothing
This is Apple. They don't expect their users to know what a User-Agent is (and even less how to install a User-Agent switcher extension).
To be fair, Safari has a user-agent switcher built-in. Just enable the developer tools.
Not all Apple users are clueless.
It’s called Developer Tools and not User Tools for a reason
Isn't it just a name?
A user can easily enable the developer tools if needed, same way I'm not a mechanic but can open the hood of my car.
You can open the hood of your car, but there’s probably not much you can do there.
Of course I can. Add cleaning water, check oil levels, replace a light bulb. No much else I can do, but others may, and other won't even do any of this.
Point is, this is not a binary choice. Between user and developer there are many people with varying skills that will use a user-agent switcher if needed.
It’s not about capability, it’s about interest.
Most people could do a bit under the hood of a car, but they simply don’t care.
It’s the same thing with computers. Most users are savvy. They just don’t care.
In my experience (systems engineer/devops for both Windows and Linux for more than 25 years), very few users are actually savvy. Even those working in tech.
What do you think Firefox calls it?
The same, for the same reason
Yep, and this philosophy has been a significant factor in Apple's widespread success
there is a good reason that most of the people prefer apple for its simplicity, its because apple only shows you what is required. i agree with you there.
Extremely frustrating. If a user is smart enough to use Firefox, they're probably also smart enough to open another browser if a site does not happen to work on Firefox. (Which I haven't experienced for a while, except when using ESPHome which requires WebSerial)
“We’re not sure if this will work or not, and we don’t want to deal with you if it doesn’t, so we’re not even going to let you try.”
That's still around 200 million people using Firefox.
I guess the interesting metric for Apple is how many of those are current or potential customers.
Google maps works fine.
The point of "standards" is that you don't need to target platforms.
I'm impressed with how well they've enforced that as well. I tried spoofing my UA to be safari (which I fully expected to not work), but it also didn't accept when I set my UA to Chrome.
What's especially odd is that Apple acknowledges Firefox's existence in their WWDC videos about web features, when they mention browser compatibility or who they're working with.
To be fair, it’s a beta version and browser compatibility could be something for the launch.
I’m a disappointed Firefox user but I also know what Beta means.
It's extremely hard to retrofit compatibility onto products. Case in point: all the "we only work in Chrome" sites that use Chrome-only APIs.
Like others have pointed out, it seems to work fine in other browsers once you trick it into letting you in. General compatibility doesn't seem to be an issue. So, what is it that Firefox and Chrome on Linux (and only on Linux) don't support?
H.265 is what they don't support. I'm not an avid enough user to know where Apple Maps makes use of media, but the source code contains media player controls, so it must somewhere. Retrofitting compatibility by launch may be as simple as re-encoding the H.265 content. Not at all worth the effort for beta 1, but with an obvious path forward.
Do codecs need to be supported by the browser itself? I thought this was unloaded to some media decoding framework. Linux does have h.265 support at least in mpv.
> Do codecs need to be supported by the browser itself?
Not necessarily. The browser could defer to licensing established by the operating system vendor, but Firefox places the expectation upon itself to have parity across platforms and to not support encumbered technologies.
> Linux does have h.265 support at least in mpv.
And if you've negotiated the licensing fees you can even use it, but chances are... Microsoft and Apple have dealt with the licensing for you on their platforms, so the ballgame is different there.
They to promise addtional browser support though:
You cannot fix bugs if you don’t collect them. Neither Mozilla. If you have not enough resources, just collect and track. Fix them when more people are available.
Same for native application ports, ship them as early as possible. Just mark them beta or alpha. At least you collect bugs. Bonus, you filter which are generic issues and which are platform dependent issues.
You don't have to get them from users by giving them a bad experience, though. You can get them in-house.
If it is in such immature condition it should be kept internal.
If it doesn’t work at all in a web-browser which handles HTML5 and modern CS it is probably not a website - but a proprietary protocol which needs a special client-application.
This is indeed how many bad/junior engineers approach this issue but it's backward - anyone with any experience doing launch QA knows well that browser compat needs to be built in from Day 1 - retrofitting it is disastrously expensive from a launch-delays perspective.
It works fine on firefox with a safari UA; but not if I turn the resist fingerprinting setting on. Maybe that is your issue too?
Works fine here with a Chrome User-Agent in Firefox
https://imgur.com/LtS3jXD
I thought the same, until I realised I still had `/unsupported` in the URL. Spoofing a Chrome UA and dropping that path from the URL let me load (and use) Apple Maps fine under Firefox.
It's not financially worth supporting, Firefox has 6.53% of desktop and 0.53% of mobile marketshare (Statcounter), with a switching cost of zero if users encounter a breaking issue.
Not surprising it got to this point, Mozilla has been stagnant on features most users care about and catered exclusively to the privacy crowd for years - which isn't a large group and competes with Chromium offshoots (giving it a smaller niche, privacy but demanding an alternative rendering engine).
It's a non-zero switching cost for me. Every site that doesn't work in Firefox is a pain to use and I mostly don't bother.
Most normal users will simply switch away from Firefox, often permanently, if things break in Firefox.
Most normal users aren't technology experts. This makes supporting the free web that much more important for those in a position to know better.
Not even that. Firefox on iOS doesn’t have an integrated adblocker. It’s been requested for years at this point, and browsers like Brave do have one. Pure unwillingness. It’s why I got all my non-techie family and friends to switch to Brave.
From the announcement
This is a beta. You have to start somewhere.
Then why why not an "I understand, continue anyway" button? Hide the feedback button for those users, if you must.
Because Apple: Something either just works or it’s not a thing. They don’t do ‘maybe works’.
You don’t want broken screenshots shared. Also, people will click through and still open support tickets.
Even Chrome on Linux isn't supported.
Works fine on Linux if you set useragent to Chrome on Mac.
...which only underscores how pointless this is: if it works in Chrome on MacOS and Windows (https://support.apple.com/en-us/120585), it will also work on Linux, so why exclude Linux?!
Chrome on Android is not supported.
I normally find that stuff I build for the web just works in Chrome and Firefox and it’s Safari that requires hacks and workarounds, even when I’m using standard APIs that are widely supported. I’d have to go out of my way to have something work in Chrome but not Firefox.
For a while apple.com itself had a hack to force a DOM re-render because of a Safari bug
Interestingly it works on Opera although the colours are weird (lots of dark greens and blues). On both versions (Edge and Opera), my local bakery is mis-located (by hundreds of yards) compared with its (correctly) reported location on an iPhone.
Strange, I can't get it to work on any Chromium offshoot. I've tried 3 variants including vanilla Chromium.
And even in their supported browsers (Chrome at least) I got the "unsupported browser" on Fedora Linux.. Wonder what makes a online map need such a specific (even if its widely used) setup.
Apple says that MapKit.JS works on Firefox, so this beta web page is probably just working out bugs before they release for FF. Perhaps a rendering issue?
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/mapkitjs/
Seems like a baseless restriction. I can't find anything wrong with Firefox support itself as I changed my user agent under Firefox and Apple Maps works fine.
It sucks when companies restrict normal access to a website when it's uncalled for. It's not the first time I've gotten "Use Google Chrome" for no reason.
Beta version supports Mac, iPad or Windows.
So you cannot view maps from Safari browser on iPhone.
I am curious what they use that Firefox is not supported…
We only support Firefox, because people on the team care to spend some extra cycles.
Its dwilling 3% market share means it no longer makes into project delivery acceptance browser matrices.
It is the good will of some that keeps it around.
The iCloud web apps work just fine in Firefox, I use them all the time on Linux. They'll get there.
Not only does it not support Firefox, but all Chromium variants are broken.. it only supports the Chrome spyware browser
Blocks deliberately:
What year is it? 2001?No web developer should be allowed to “block” webbrowser. Test for features and say “this thing doesn’t work because of and I don’t care about another solution”. Same shitty experience with Microsoft Teams which blocked - at least some months ago - the call buttons for Firefox, despite everything works fine. And Confluence which claims they don’t block but started, Epipany is now hiding as Safari and…surprise…everything works.
Odd, since the underlying MapKit JS supports Firefox.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/mapkitjs/
1-2% browser share is a common cutoff for support and Firefox is hurdling towards it. Maybe they’re looking ahead just a few months.