Exploring Local
Mike Dobson of TeleMapics on Local Search and All Things Geospatial

Apple and Mapping?

June 13th, 2012 by admin

I have been quite amused by all of the hoopla concerning Apple’s entry into the world of mapping and navigation. As I read the accolades pouring in as a result of the announcement, I could not help but wonder, “Do any of these people know anything about mapping?” Hmmm.

I watched a video of the “map” presentation at Apple’s WWDC and was struck by the fact that the presenter used the term “beautiful” to describe the map display on at least five separate occasions. Since my roots are in cartography, I appreciate a well-designed display, but only when the data represented on the display are a fair representation of the real-world. In other words, the most significant problem in creating a navigation/mapping application is data quality.

Yesterday, I read an article on CNN titled Apple’s Secret Weapon”, by John Brownlee. I thought it was an interesting an insightful view of what makes Apple great. Brownlee reasoned that it almost seems as if Steve Jobs and Apple created a time machine that allowed them to create products that are years ahead of their competitors. Brownlee hits the nail on the head when he indicates there is no “flux capacitor” at Apple, only the ability to actualize the, “…revolutionary, magical machines it dreams up.” Yes, iPod, iPhone, iPad, retina displays, etc. do show the ability of Apple to actualize dreams and make them realities that appeal to millions of potential purchasers.

Well, I guess this is true, if one is willing to make an exception for the mapping app that Apple intends to launch as a feature of IOS 6. Apple’s demonstration of the application at the WWDC showed little innovation and a lot of copying. However, since this is a software service, rather than a physical product, maybe Apple’s vaunted reputation for product development does not apply. After all, this is the company the brought you “Mobile Me”, a product that the even the late Steve Jobs described as, “Not our finest moment.”

It is my opinion that Apple decided to produce a mapping/routing/local search service on the basis of branding, not on the basis of this being an area in which the company possesses, or could ever hope to wield, a significant competitive advantage. Apple realized that it was losing brand recognition and revenue by using Google for its mapping needs and decided to bring in some “caulk” to stop the leak. The weakness with this approach is that Apple likely has little insight on what makes a great mapping application, or an appreciation that the development of a mapping application will be unlike anything else it has ever attempted. While its legions of designers and artists may be able to make the app beautiful, it is data quality and not image quality that is the major differentiator in the mapping arms race that they have entered.

Unfortunately, Apple has limited expertise in mapping, and may not understand the problems it faces. Further, it is unlikely to be able to “actualize” a new standard for navigation or local search that will reshape the industry in a manner that reflects Apple’s leading edge capabilities in function and design of products intended for the consumer electronics space. For those of you who are doubters, did you see anything in the WWDC demo of their mapping application that you have not seen before or of which you were completely unaware?

It is important to remember that what we saw at the WDDC was an early stage development representing San Francisco as a base. I wonder how many people were asked to QC that the map space before the demo? If I had a dollar for every time San Francisco was used for a map demo that I have personally witnessed, I would be a very rich man today. However, it is not San Francisco that will give Apple heartburn. Providing quality map coverage over the rest of the world is another matter completely.

Over the past three years, Apple has acquired several small companies that were focused on parts of the mapping equation (Placebase – GIS and database driven mapping, C3 – 3D imagery and mapping, Poly 9 – projection, web mapping). Note that these companies are not data companies. Currently Apple lacks the resources to provide the majority of geospatial and POI data required for its application. Traffic, however, will be based on the GPS paths recorded from iPhone users to build both historical and real-time models of traffic flows.

In order to develop its mapping application, Apple has scoured the world for content that would allow it to develop a comprehensive, up-to-date, map database with the coverage required to provide services to its worldwide markets. My overall view of the companies that it has assembled to create its application is that they are, rated as a whole, ”C-grade” suppliers. I have focused my comments on the two categories of suppliers described below, but note that their imagery and parcel data suppliers are of “A” quality.

Navigable Map Database Suppliers.

The data supplier of most importance to Apple is TomTom, a company providing the navigation database provided by Tele Atlas, which TomTom acquired in 2008. It is my sense that Tele Atlas has not prospered under TomTom ownership. TomTom’s fortunes declined as the market for PNDs unexpectedly, at least to TomTom, dropped shortly after the acquisition. Besides limiting the company’s expenditures on improving the quality and coverage of TomTom’s date, the drop in the amount of PND’s sold decreased the update data available to Tele Atlas for map compilation purposes from TomTom’s excellent Map Share product. Put another way, this is the company Google dumped because it was unhappy with the quality of the data delivered.

While TomTom through Map Share had the promise of revolutionizing the navigation map industry, the progress has not met the promise. Tele Atlas has lost many of its key employees and it is my impression that its data quality has declined since 2008. I question the use of Tele Atlas data as the backbone for the Apple mapping service. It may be that Apple felt that TomTom was the only viable alternative, since they had already ruled out the use of Google and Navteq is tied up with Nokia, although I suspect that association may soon change. Apple may learn the hard way that choosing data suppliers based on brand strategy and not data quality does not result in the best possible solution.

In coverage areas where TomTom does not have the appropriate data, it appears that Apple will turn to other suppliers such as DMTI, a company that does provide relatively high-quality data for Canada, or Map Data Sciences, a company providing quality data for Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately other map data suppliers involved, in my opinion, do not meet these same standards and I would expect Apple’s map data for much of the rest of the world to be lacking in detail, coverage and currentness.

I understand that Apple is planning to use Waze and perhaps OSM where appropriate (appropriate in this case likely means where TomTom does not have data). Those of you who have read other items in this blog know that I am a proponent of hybrid-crowdsourcing that blends traditional compilation techniques with both active and passive crowdsourcing. However, Apple does not have the assets to advantage themselves in this area and must rely instead on importing crowdsourced data that may not meet their standards. Time will tell, but a major issue that Apple must address is related to how the company works with its suppliers to update areas where users have noted errors.

I suspect TomTom will be responsive to making changes, as it needs the business. As most of you know, there is no organization behind crowd-sourced systems that can guarantee that a map error will be researched, recompiled and pushed to live in a specific amount of time. Of course, one of the things Apple has not revealed is how its database correction procedures will be implemented. Passing vectors to be rendered on the user device may portend a “live” mapping database behind the scenes at Apple Central, but as of now, this is conjecture on my part.

Business Listing Suppliers

Apple seems to plan on using business listing data from Acxiom and Localeze (a division of Neustar), supplemented by reviews from Yelp. I suspect that Apple does not yet understand what a headache it will be to integrate the information from these three disparate sources. Hopefully they will need to employ the readers of this blog to solve this problem, because it is one that can destroy the efficacy of their business strategy for mapping.

While Apple is not generating any new problems by trying to fuse business listings data, they have stumbled into a problem that suffers from different approaches to localization, lack of postal address standards, lack of location address standards and general incompetence in rationalizing data sources. But, hey, this is one area where having billions in the bank might help, at least it might help if you had some idea of what you were doing. As you may have gleaned from the tone of this blog I am not sure Apple understands the mess it is creating, at least at this stage of the development.

Futures

Mike Blumenthal, author of a popular blog on Google Places & Local Search, http://blumenthals.com/blog/ recently asked me if I thought that Apple was in the same place as Google in 2007 when it was using Tele Atlas data. Mike’s interest was in pondering whether Apple, like Google, might be on the road to developing a navigable map database.

This is an interesting question. I think Apple has more problems to solve and a lack of ability to solve them relative to Google in respect to creating a navigable map database. Among my concerns are these:

1) Apple lacks the ability to mine vast amounts of local search data, as Google was able to do when it started its mapping project.
2) Apple does not have Sebastian Thrun working for them, a world famous robotics brain (and professor at Stanford), who developed Street View and Google’s fleet of autonomous vehicles that now gather map data.
3) Apple does not currently have a program like Google Map Maker that has been a valuable source of local data for Google. Using OSM as a substitute may cause Apple major headaches. (Speaking of headaches, I get one every time I try to read the interchanges in the Legal-talk Digest that discusses OSM licensing issues.)
4) Google developed mapping as another way to forward integrate into advertising. Google is in the mapping business only because it advantages their advertising business. I do not see the correlate at Apple, since their ability to penetrate the mobile advertising market appears limited, at least at present.

Summary

Apple has a long road ahead of it in the company’s attempt to create a competitive navigation system aimed at mobile devices. However, one measure of the greatness of companies is how well they respond to significant challenges. Perhaps Apple will hurdle the bar in front of it and set a new standard for maps and navigation. After all, someone should.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Apple, Authority and mapping, Google, Google Map Maker, Google maps, Local Search, Mapping, Microsoft, Mike Dobson, Navteq, Nokia, OSM, Tele Atlas, TomTom, Volunteered Geographic Information, crowdsourced map data

8 Responses

  1. Eric van Rees

    A very good article.

    TomTom’s recent Geocoder product will solve some of the problems you mention, since it promises more mapping updates and standardization for addresses. It also tells them where map problems are so they know where to map.

    ‘Google developed mapping as another way to forward integrate into advertising. Google is in the mapping business only because it advantages their advertising business. I do not see the correlate at Apple, since their ability to penetrate the mobile advertising market appears limited, at least at present.’

    True, and because of this advantage, Google is already much further ahead of Apple and deploying advanced mapping techniques for future maps. I’d be interested to know your thoughts about how choosing a smartphone implies choosing a mapping application (from a consumer perspective).

    Hi, Eric:

    Thanks for your insights.

    I am going to have to think about your last question. It is a really interesting one, but one that I am not quite ready to answer. Let me think about it, as it is a provoking question.

    Mike

  2. Oliversl

    I think you should pay 100$ to Apple, download iOS6, give it a test drive and then post another review.

    A few points to note, that are important:
    - Apple is not going to do local search, Apple is using Yelp
    - Apple maps are vector based, thats a big difference with Google’s
    - Apple may not be competing with Google, maybe Google decided not go give Apple their 3D info so that they can build a 3D map like the one in Android devices. Google, as a fact, wants to destroy the iPhone, Apple may be defending itself.
    - I agree loosing StreetView may be big, and that going global may be a problem with Apple. Yelp is a good example of non global reach.
    - Maybe Sebastian Thrun is a God, but it may be replicated.

    Interesting article but it sounds a little like people who said the iPad was just a big iPod, circa January 2010

    Hi, Oliversl:

    Thanks for your comment.

    First, let me note that I own and use several devices from Apple. In fact, I consider the company to be the poster child for Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovators Dilemma.” They keep innovating new things that I never asked for, but now don’t understand how I ever lived without. However, the mapping package Apple is developing does not fall within the category of innovation. I pointed out several outstanding issues that will provoke significant problems for Apple as it develops its mapping system. Whether you bleed Apple blood or not, the problems that I outlined are serious map compilation issues that Apple has no expereince in resolving. Might they do OK, yes – but only if they understand map compilation. Do you seriously think that Apple will not have the challenges I discussed? Maybe you fall into the category of “Do these people know anything about mapping.”

    it appears the we do not agree on the nature of local search and what it covers. You can read the last four years of my blog in case you are interested.

    Whether Apple sends vectors or rasters to be rendered on the device has little to do with the data quality issue which I was addressing. The problem Apple faces is one of data integration, not rendering the data once it is integrated.

    I do not argue that Apple’s strategy may be a defensive one. My point was that Apple is out of its comfort zone in this development.

    Many companies have built systems based on the prototypes created by Dr. Thrun. However, he is a very smart cookie and his experience gives Google a dramatic leg-up on Apple. Perhaps of more importance, is the concept of sweat-equity. Google Street View devices have been employed for several years now and have amassed a significant data resource. Apple will need to scramble to be competitive in this area.

    As to your last comment, ah yes, I must be a luddite because I do not agree with your view of Apple’s future. It would probably be suprising to you to know that I pre-ordered the original iPad and have been using it since the day the device was publicly available. However, what does this comment have to do with whether or not my review was a fair summary of the challenges that Apple faces in the development of a mapping platform?

    Mike

  3. Philip

    Thank you Mike for sharing your view on Apple’s new map. It’s a great read.

    While I’m certainly biased, I do agree that the sources Apple has chosen to use are not of the highest standards. I also believe it must be a challenge to bring in all these different sources into a global dataset to run not only map display, but also geocoding, local search, and routing service from it.
    All players have this challenge. Whether it’s Google or Nokia or now Apple, but using so many different vendors raises the bar (in a bad way).

    We’ll all see in the matter of the next few months who is going to push the envelope and who is getting pushed.

    Hi, Philip:

    Thanks for your comment.

    Your observation about the problems associated with multiple vendors is quite insightful. One would suspect that new vendors create a business to fill a need that is not covered by the existing ecosystem, but somehow end of fragmenting the “quality” of the same ecosystem. Sounds like the stuff of a biology class on population genetics.

    The wonderful thing about the future is that it lets you see the answers to the questions you had in the past and raises more questions for you to ponder in the future.

    Mike

  4. Sebastian

    Excellent article and pretty much spot on.

    I was surprised to see Apple using data that’s at least 1 year old for NYC, perhaps even 2 years.

    It’s missing a few new streets around Riverside Boulevard and 63rd Street, which is a great test for data freshness, since new developments in that area have been adding new streets every year or so.

    I hope they manage to create a compelling product, since this kind of competition is always good for end users and developers, but as you said, I think Apple doesn’t even know how hard it is to do good maps.

    Thanks, Sebestian:

    I suspect we will see fresher data when the product is rolled out. However, how fresh the data and comprehensive the coverage will be the focus of most users. Time will tell.

    I agree that the Apple/Google/Microsoft competition will benefit the end-user. It seems hard to believe that we are getting all this good stuff for free. It is free, isn’t it or does the cost have a hidden dimension?

    Mike

  5. Jemma G

    Great article, just as a follow up we’ve just interviewed Mike on the GPS Bites website which has more information on his views regarding the challenges facing some of the GPS brands. You can read that here:

    http://www.gpsbites.com/mike-dobson-telemapics-interview

    Hi, Jemma:

    It’s true, Jemma convinced me to provide an interview on a wide variety of topics related to LBS and GPS.

    Mike

  6. EsteVato

    it sounds like this space is in desperate need of an industry standard data model for B2B integration.

    Hi, EsteVato:

    You raise an interesting issue. Perhaps more than a standard is a registry based on a standard such as you suggest. I have been involved in two efforts to develop such a registry and while value of the concept is obvious on an intellectual basis, it seems to be an impossibility in practice. I wish this were not so, but it is the reason that POI data is such a mess.

    Thanks again.

    Mike

  7. Jaap van Goor

    Great read! Apple’s strategic choices where limited; stick with Google or ….? For now choosing for doing it themselves turns out to be “a mess”. One can now question the logic behind Apple moving in to mapping, but I must admitt I also questioned this when Google ventured in to mapping. Turned out they did a good job at this. Your conclusions of the challenges Apple faces are very much true and we will see if Apple will follow these steps or quits the mapping business …

    I was told Teleatlas actually got a head start many years ago when Nely Kroes, now EU commissary, then Dutch minister of transport, gave them some sort of exclusive right to exploit the official govermental geographical data. Having a monopoly is never a guarantee for quality.

    Hi, Jaap:

    Interesting information. Thanks for sharing.

    Mike

  8. J Hughes

    What I enjoyed about Apples ‘map’ app was that it was like looking out of a window in a time machine, how things were a year or two back.

    And the satellite pictures, well they looked as if someone had taken a Brownie camera up and shot them. Blurry, features running together, roads barely discernible, etc. Haven’t seen B & W photo’s for a long time, even from the Russian sat vendors.

    One thing for sure, geography teachers will know who used this piece of garbage for homework or an examination.

    Apple bought these ‘mapping’ companies over the past three years. You have to wonder just what the hell they have been doing with their time. Certainly little to make a map.

    The fact they didn’t even think of getting company stores and significant monuments in the right place simply highlights their incompetence.

    I can reliably use Google maps in the jungles of South-east Asia, although I don’t have to as I use a Thales multi-reciever GPS unit.

    Tom-Tom maps are sloppy and far, far from complete. Garmins are not. good either.

    Well, at least people foolish enough to have installed iOS6 can use the browser and pick up Goofle maps.

    Hi J:

    Thanks for your comment. “Ouch”.

    Mike