[mattlondon]

+1

I dont see why this was needed - it is a regression in terms of usability and performance (loading performance - cant comment on quality of the maps just yet, but I understand from others that the map data is woeful).

Really disappointed. I used to recommend DDG to everyone, but this feels like a sell-out - without any justification for why they've done it, my mind just leaps to conclusions about marketing and trying to get "cool points".

[lukeqsee]

I strongly suspect this was not a sell-out. I suspect it was more a move to save a good deal of money. Mapbox is very expensive at DDG-scale, and given how lean and efficient they like to run things, I can easily understand this choice. The fact that Apple also cares (loudly) about privacy makes it even easier.

(I don't work for Apple and I run a competitor to Mapbox.)

[sabas_ge]

They could have rolled out their own (privacy-focused) map service. The data is open, the stack is open as well.

[tracker1]

And how much do the database server(s) cost, not to mention pushing map tiles out in terms of data costs. DDG isn't exactly flush with cash like google and apple are.

[sabas_ge]

More or less as paying some service provider to do that for you, but they could have marketed it positively, as Qwant has done just last month (see https://www.qwant.com/maps/ which incidentally is open source as well)

[gourou]

If you're looking for privacy protection, Qwant's partnership with Huawei doesn't sound great https://e.huawei.com/us/publications/global/ict_insights/hw_...

[Aeolun]

Not much at all. In fact, since the tiles are only generated once, they could stick a CDN in front and never have to worry about anything but data transfer costs afterwards.

[tracker1]

That CDN isn't free all the content and traffic overhead has costs, CDN charges you for each request, and every byte sent. On a small (under a million users a day) application it may not be that much... but even ten of millions of users a day, it costs a LOT

Hell, why do you think google invested so much time into image compression tech to save a few bytes here and there.

[Brakenshire]

I doubt it’s much, the whole OSM infrastructure used to be handled as a favour by one of the London universities. I doubt DDG Maps is operating at significantly higher scale, especially once you take into account they just have to serve static data.

[rmc]

OSM data is constantly changing, being improved and expanded.

[adrianN]

Do you think Apple sells their maps below cost, or that Apple is able (due to its scale?) to get significantly better deals than DDG could get?

[Freak_NL]

Definitely a severe regression in the Netherlands. Apple Maps doesn't even show houses, and has only a fraction of the POI's OpenStreetMap has. It doesn't have directions for bicycles either — and it leaves out a bunch of dedicated cycleways in my area.

And the colours! All features seem to bleed into their low-contrast pastel neighbours.

This doesn't feel like a proper match for DuckDuckGo at all.

[Brakenshire]

Someone mentioned Qwant Maps upthread, I think that’s what I’ll use instead.

[Freak_NL]

Qwant Maps is OpenStreetMap data with custom styling that makes it look more like Google/Apple/Bing Maps.

It's very pastellish.

[aiisjustanif]

One of my reasons for not use DDG was maps, another big one is instant airline data on search query results (which isn't fair bc Google owns ITA). This upgrade to maps is awesome, IMO Mapbox felt like I was in the stone ages for map functionality and UI.