Apple Maps

No, the new iOS 6 Maps is not as good as Google Maps in several ways. There’s no end of missing data, misplaced landmarks, poorly constructed 3D models, missing transit information, and because of the significant downgrade in information quality, there’s no end of hate for what many describe as a massive misstep by Apple. Some even describe it as the beginning of the end for the company.

Of course, all of this is a bit overblown. The maps application’s user interface itself is much more usable than the previous version and in many ways, the maps themselves are more readable. The transit plug-in feature, while completely useless at the moment, might actually provide a better experience in the long term, as local apps might be better able to account for subtle differences in transit information accuracy and availability. And while Apple is certainly several years behind in developing comprehensive and accurate map information, its completeness and accuracy will inevitably improve.

The real story here is how Apple communicated the change, and how software companies communicate change more generally. If you looked only at Apple’s communication, you’d think that the new maps was superior in every way, rather than superior in some ways and temporarily flawed in others. But most users probably didn’t read anything about the change at all. They simply pressed “okay” when their phone asked if they wanted to update and suddenly their whole mapping experience was different.

My girlfriend had this exact experience, even though I’d told her it had changed. She didn’t recognize it as the maps app at all; she thought it was a different app altogether and wondered where Google Maps had gone. For an existing user, there are dozens of new things to learn to do even basic things and Apple provided virtually no guidance on what these changes were.

The larger question here is what software companies should communicate to avoid dramatic outbursts of vitriolic hate every time they make a major change. Are release notes enough? Do applications need a standard model for introducing and explaining changes to users? To what extent should companies be responsible for communicating negative changes, such as abandoned features and poorer accuracy, and the rationale for them? As software change becomes more inevitable and more rapid, so will the need for more carefully explained transitions to new platforms, apps, and functionality.

(On a personal note, I’ve found the new Maps to be quite good around Seattle. Yesterday I asked Siri for directions to my daughter’s friend’s house and not only did she find her name in the notes in the contact for the friend’s parents, but Siri found directions that not only routed me around the SR-520 weekend closure, but explained to me that the bridge was closed. The turn-by-turn directions were fast, clear, and accurate and the continuously updating ETA was quite helpful in deciding whether to run the errand we’d planned on doing before we knew about the bridge closure. Overall, a vast improvement over the old maps.)