[criley2]

Apple's solution isn't a serious contender because it's hardware locked to high end devices that the majority of people don't use / can't afford (the demographics of this community not withstanding).

While it's nice that their users can have an alternate first-party experience, that experience is not a publically available map. For example if you go to maps.apple.com you are told "Open this on your Apple Hardware".

(i.e. If 100% of Apple users used Apple Maps, Apple's best case scenario is still #2 in mapping)

[tannhaeuser]

Apple isn't a serious contender because their devices aren't sponsored by tracking/ads? You can also get an iOS device (partly) included with a post-paid mobile plan, can't you?

[lmm]

> Apple isn't a serious contender because their devices aren't sponsored by tracking/ads?

Apple isn't a serious contender because they don't sell anything in the low-end segment. Ferrari make great cars but you can't expect everyone to drive a Ferrari.

> You can also get an iOS device (partly) included with a post-paid mobile plan, can't you?

That acts as a payment plan, but you're still paying the full cost (usually plus interest) one way or another.

[GeekyBear]

A $399 iPhone SE that has gotten seven years of OS updates and is still getting security updates today is as cost effective as several bargain bin devices that have to be quickly replaced.

[efreak]

$400 isn't low-end. The Samsung phone I got from T-Mobile for a one-time payment of $40 after taxes (for trading in a flip phone) is a low end phone. I've been using it for over a year, and I expect to continue using it for at least another year, probably two. At that point, I might just switch to a flip phone, since I spend my money on nice large tablets instead of oversized phones. Hopefully there'll be a decently priced flip phone that'll last more than 2 years.

[GeekyBear]

> $400 isn't low-end. The Samsung phone I got from T-Mobile for a one-time payment of $40

Are we pretending that T-Mobile won't cut you a deal on an iPhone SE?

[Fatnino]

I'm using a Motorola phone that I bought outright new for 200 bucks. Still works 3 years later, but has recently started showing its age, especially in the battery department.

I'll be looking for a new phone soon. 350 and under is what I'm aiming for. 400 is extreme stretch and the 400 dollar phone would have to blow me away to get me to consider it.

[efreak]

This is a no strings attached offer. I'm not required to continue using T-Mobile. There are no installments or contract. I can take my T-Mobile phone and immediately stop using T-Mobile without paying a fee for it. The phone might be locked to T-Mobile though.

[lmm]

Maybe. If you have the $399 upfront or the credit rating to get it on a phone contract. If you have anything to spend on buying a phone at all as opposed to having to use whatever hand-me-down device found its way to you.

[GeekyBear]

> as opposed to having to use whatever hand-me-down device found its way to you

Given that Apple just issued another security update for the decade old iPhone 5s, your ability to hand down an iPhone is greatly extended, especially compared to the support policy you get with a bottom of the barrel Android device.

[datpiff]

>Given that Apple just issued another security update for the decade old iPhone 5s, your ability to hand down an iPhone is greatly extended, especially compared to the support policy you get with a bottom of the barrel Android device.

I think this is a fair point in favour of Apple, but I would be surprised if many people who are weighing up hand-me-downs vs cheapest models are concerned with security updates

[sombragris]

About your second response (which is quite right), let me add that in my neck of the woods (and in many others), there's no way to get an iOS device with any postpaid plan, or any other cell phone plan, for that matter.

[criley2]

You literally didn't even quote my point correctly. This is called a strawman and it's extremely low effort and beneath the quality of this community.

Apple Maps isn't a serious contender because 1) it's not public 2) it's not web 3) iOS represents a minority of the world userbase.

Worldwide it's 70% Android and 20% Apple.

And let's not forget that Google Maps is available on iOS and Web. So you have "iOS only" vs "Android/iOS/Web/etc".

Obviously only one of those is a serious competitor.

[ChuckMcM]

One could argue that "most" people[1] have iPhones (at least in the US). And yes it is only 22% world wide. But putting aside the currently available "seats" for a moment, at the point where is it clearly the better product then two things start happening

1) People start buying Apple hardware because it has a better map experience.

2) Apple can produce the iMap device, likely in cooperation with their maps partner TomTom, that people can use to get the Apple Maps experience without changing their phone provider.

[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share

[mangoleaf]

I live USA, Stanford engineer, have an Android phone and will likely never have an iPhone. My other gender breeding partner has to have an apple, so I use hers at times and am appalled at how difficult things are. But if she can't facetime friends, then she will lose face. I get free phones, and see pays large fees for hers. Sorry, I pass. I work in finance BTW.

[ChuckMcM]

I think that is great. FWIW I worked at Google and still have the original Dream phone in a box somewhere. And while I used iPads since the Android tablet experience never really congealed for me, used an Android phone until the iPhone 13 SE I currently own.

I am also a firm believer that everyone should "vote with their wallet" for the products they want, so no judgement, on my part, on folks who buy one product or the other.

In my experience I find that for every product I buy, the various choices all come with pluses and minuses. I go through that list and apply my own importance rating on each one and come up with my final choice.

My original comment was that Apple Maps are getting better, they were at one time a complete joke. I use maps on my phone all the time, it is probably the largest use of mine after "looking things up on the web" or "communicating" via text or voice. As a result of this improvement in maps, it made this particular choice (for me) a better choice on the iPhone than on an android phone.

I can tell that some people heard my comment above "if you don't own an iPhone you are stupid" or something like that. It certainly wasn't my intent. Never easy to know how something you say will be heard.

My other experience is that products that get "better" overall, supplant, then replace what existed before them. Whether it is TVs, cars, computers, or phones. I still have a Garmin Navigator in my car's glove box but I don't think I have used it in nearly a decade. And yet there was a time when devices of that form were 90+% of the market for "in vehicle navigation."

[freedomben]

While 55% is technically "most", there are hundreds of millions of people in that minority block. Definitely not a number to just dismiss from a function as important as mapping. As a member of that minority, I'm very grateful for non-hardware-locked mapping apps.

[ChuckMcM]

I 100% agree. What I was trying to communicate was that maps is a "feature" of a bigger platform "phone" and can be a discriminator for consumers on purchase. For example a consumer who uses their phone mostly for its maps and driving directions may choose a phone based on their best "maps" experience.

The reference article was discussing a resurgence in "paper" maps, which have three advantages over "electronic" maps that I am aware of; they work when you are "offline", they have specific details of interest, and they "look good."

My observation was that Apple appears to be investing in a better "map" experience on their phones. This resurgence might influence that investment.

Dismissing that observation based on market share is probably unwise. Why? Because market share is a function of serving customer requirements better than the competition. Market share is a reflection of meeting requirements, and in the absence of external forces will result in the brands with doing the best job of meeting requirements ahead of their competitors.

[criley2]

If marketshare is a reflection of meeting customer requirements, then the fact that Google Maps is indisputably #1 and what 10X larger than Apple Maps means that consumers have decided which solution meets their needs the best, right?

For the record, the best data available suggests that only ~50% of iOS users choose the pre-installed built-in Maps versus explicitly downloading the Google Maps app.

One wonders what that number would look like without anti-competitive monopolistic bundling, too. From that perspective, it seems that the "majority of iOS users" would choose Google over Apple Maps, but Apple's anti-competitive behavior has kept it at around 50/50 on their own platform.

[ChuckMcM]

Yes and no. "Yes" at this moment in time, Google Maps is the choice of most people. "No" in that market share at one point is not a predictor of market share at a future point. If it were, we would all be using Blackberry phones right?

I would agree 100% that for the last 10 years, Google Maps has been "the best choice" for an online map. I think it would be ill advised if they relied on their historical advantage and simply "assumed" it would always be "the best choice." Their competitors are evolving their maps offerings and if Google doesn't pay attention they will find themselves suddenly playing catch up.

My observation is that Google is very distracted at the moment but I don't know how that affects the maps team (were any of them laid off?). Apple seems to be investing here and the improvements in their product reflect that investment.