Here in Brazil, it is not uncommon to hear about people being kidnapped/shot/killed because Google Maps decided to direct them into a zone controlled by organized crime.
When news came out that those routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive", I found it amusing how someone in Palo Alto presenting a PowerPoint with a couple of ESG slides could lead to someone else being shot with an AK-47.
Same here in Utah. No actual deaths I’m aware of, but lots of damaged vehicles that needed to get towed out of 4x4 tracks in the desert after Google sent them there.
>When news came out that those routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive", I found it amusing how someone in Palo Alto presenting a PowerPoint with a couple of ESG slides could lead to someone else being shot with an AK-47.
source? The above link only seems to support the claim there's armed people on streetview, not that google is directing people to crime ridden areas for "ESG" purposes.
Problems with the veracity of those statements aside, at best the it confirms that google cares about being "inclusive", but the same source also specifically says that current routes are "objective", which disproves op's claim that "routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive""
The weirdest thing was that in the resulting conservative backlash many of them switched to Apple Maps which resulted in a bunch of people all getting stuck in the same cul-de-sac and having a road-rage induced shootout. It killed this poor teenager.
There was a viral thread a month or two ago from an ex-Google Maps employee talking about how that'd never be considered, because tl;dr, doing that would be a great example of steering at scale leading to unintended consequences.
Not sure if they misunderstood that thread, or they're just wholesale riffing.
The cycle of reading rage-bait, discovering it was misleading, and saying "well I wouldn't be surprised if it had been true", is essentially the poison killing us.
On my end, I'm sad people make up silly things that'd never happen, to claim that it could happen, so they can express their sadness.
There's better options!
ex. here: I'm sad because it's near 4 PM [EDIT: f***, after 4 PM!], and I got a bunch of failing integration tests to fix after rushing a feature, over a long holiday weekend, for an investor who has been AWOL for a week. When I take a step back, my harsh review of myself is I'm unconsciously getting my mind off it, because it makes me feel better because it's easy to be correct when people aren't trying to be. But really, I'm just burning time I could be using to wrap up work.
Why would we limit ourselves to the set of not-Googlers? That is prima facie irrational and incorrect. Best case is there's a googler out here saying it, all you'd have to do is check in a week if they still had a job.
Those are street view photos, they don't have anything about Google Maps steering, stories about people being shot on a Google Maps route, or someone getting killed, or someone getting shot with an AK-47.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with Google Maps deciding to direct people through low-income areas.
There was a recent thread, maybe a month ago, about how they don't do that, only do the most straightforward route, because redirecting traffic would cause as much bad as good. Unintended consequences and all that.
For what it's worth, a few more straightforward things:
- Google HQ is in Mountain View, not Palo Alto
- Google uses Google Slides, not PowerPoint
- ESG stands for "environmental, social, and governance" and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
> ESG stands for "environmental, social, and gas" and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
Gas?! ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance.
>[...] and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
That's a slightly misleading way of characterizing ESG. "allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results" is just "investing", or "long-term investing". ESG refers specifically to considering or changing company's environmental (eg. pollution) and social impact (eg. workforce diversity), as well as improving its governance practices. Sure, its proponents think doing the aforementioned things will improve the company's financial performance as well, but your characterization deliberately obfuscates what ESG actually involves.
A: "ESG stands for environment social impact governance"
B: "ESG refers specifically to considering or changing company's environmental (eg. pollution) and social impact (eg. workforce diversity), as well as improving its governance practices"
B: "[thus showing] A is deliberately obfuscating"
!?!?, two sets of !? for two different levels, one is there being precious little air between what I said and what you said. I frankly don't see any at all, is the idea that saying it comes from finance / investing is misleading??
The other is for the personal attack via mindreading.
>one is there being precious little air between what I said and what you said. I frankly don't see any at all, is the idea that saying it comes from finance / investing is misleading??
I called it "slightly misleading" because 1/3rd of what you wrote was devoted to explaining what it actually is, but the rest is (seemingly) trying to defend it by discussing the most banal/non-central aspect of it. The reason why investors care about ESG isn't because "allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results", neither is that why ESG detractors hate on it. What you're doing is similar to describing redlining as "banks deciding where to lend money, and refers to them trying to trying to manage risk". Sure, everything in that statement is technically true, and redlining ostensibly was about managing risk, but describing in that is misleading because it mischaracterizes what the controversy surrounding it is.
Ah, the glorious bailey. Though, a little warm for me this time of year, at least in the US :)
So I wasn't wrong, I just left out the controversy? Please, do share the controversy! Please, let it be more than the Palo Alto PowerPoint ESG presentation that required Brazil Google Maps to route people into gang controlled territory to be killed by AK47s.
Any more thoughts on the "deliberately misleading" part? Or are you leaving it there?
>So I wasn't wrong, I just left out the controversy? Please, do share the controversy! Please, let it be more than the Palo Alto PowerPoint ESG presentation that required Brazil Google Maps to route people into gang controlled territory to be killed by AK47s.
I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments you'd see that I expressed skepticism about it.
>Any more thoughts on the "deliberately misleading" part? Or are you leaving it there?
"deliberately misleading" was never something I wrote. I did write "deliberately obfuscating", which I stand by for the reasons mentioned in my previous comment.
> I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments you'd see that I expressed skepticism about it.
I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought you thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments, you'd see I never said that.
Any ideas on what the controversy is that I deliberately obfuscated?
I'm bored and tired of inviting you to explain your mind-reading. I'll skip to why sharing your mind-reading is not only rude, but irrational:
Is it possible people use "ESG" as a boogie-man when complaining?
Put another way: am I deliberately obfuscating, or are you steel-manning nonsense?
Put another way, longer:
Imagine someone complains: "This restaurant's new menu is clearly pandering to ESG trends!"
Person A (steel-manning): "They must be referring to the complex interplay between sustainable sourcing, labor practices, and pandering to DEI values in the restaurant industry."
Person B (simple interpretation): "They probably just added a few vegan options and are upset about it."
In this case, Person A's attempt to find depth in a shallow complaint leads them far astray from the actual, much simpler issue at hand.
You don't even need the scare quotes -- that's exactly the conversation. The people making these decisions genuinely don't see ad-free as a feature, just a nice-to-have convenience that some weirdos will pay a premium for. And broadly speaking, they're right. When you offer a cheaper option with ads people choose it -- a lot of people choose it.
The biggest barrier to services adding ads isn't anything like enshittification or market lock-in or whatever, it's that ad-delivery is hard and it takes large, mature company with lots of users to both sport the manpower to get it done and enough eyeballs to make the ROI positive. All those little stupidly named ad-supported streaming platforms that are popping up are almost always backed by a larger company's ad network. Tubi is Fox, Xumo is Comcast, Freevee is Amazon.
> The people making these decisions genuinely don't see ad-free as a feature, just a nice-to-have convenience that some weirdos will pay a premium for.
That would be fine if they respected us enough to say "ad-free is too niche of a feature to be worth it to us, we're pulling it".
I actually don’t think this is special at all. An ad is an ad. Interrupting driving is no different than interrupting a video or interrupting a search action (except for the danger due to driving). It’s pretty brazen, but gMaps has had ads for a while, when searching for a destination.
Google Search gets most of the attention for being ruined by Google, but I think the Maps trajectory is just as bad. It has shown remarkable consistency in getting worse year after year, for a long time now. Basic functionality is regularly broken or degraded, and the UI is increasingly covered in ads of various types.
Maps is a prime example of the costs from not enforcing antitrust laws. Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market and is now squeezing it for all it can. This product is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.
>Maps is a prime example of the costs from not enforcing antitrust laws. Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market and is now squeezing it for all it can.
The alternative to "Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market" (ie. a non-subsidized maps app) is you paying $100 for a dedicated GPS device, paying $30/year for tomtom[1], or using a free app like organic maps. All of those are still options today. What exactly is "the cost" from letting google subsidize its maps app? Do you think that if such anti-trust laws were enforced, maps would still be free and ad-free?
Are we really arguing about whether a massively advertised "free" product will distort a market? If a heavily subsidized Google Maps hadn't been dominating the ecosystem for the past decade and a half many more companies would have competed with various approaches to features, UX, and monetization. You seem to be assuming that all of that competition would have resulted in no improvements over the early 2000s. I guess that's possible, but I expect it would have gone more like nearly every other part of the tech landscape and some actual innovation would have happened.
No I'm not expecting that there would be a perpetually free and ad-free option, that wouldn't make any sense. But the space of possibility is vastly more broad than totally free or the dreck that Google Maps has turned into.
I'm sure there's non-zero amount of impact, but it's unclear what exactly that translates to. We still have free competitors like from Apple, Here, and various apps based on OSM. There's apps with subscription models. There's still paper maps and dedicated GPS devices from before google maps. What exactly do you think we've missed out on?
Apple Maps was a punchline for a while but I’ve been steadfastly using it for the past few years. There’s only a handful of times I questioned the results and consulted Google maps, only to be bombarded with ad PoI’s and reminded of why I avoided Google. This new ad format is ridiculous and I’m glad I’ll never have to see it.
I'd say the navigation aspect of Apple Maps is far superior to that of Google Maps, but the reviews and business directories on Google Maps is much better, not to mention all my favorites and PoIs are stored in Google Maps.
I've been using it for the past 3 years. Things I love about Apple Maps.
1. Limited distractions.
2. Traffic Lights, Stop signs are so easy to follow!
3. Lanes are rendered very clearly.
Of course, once in every other blue moon I have to open Google Maps when I find myself in an alley with no outlet, while Apple Maps is telling me to drive through the building.
Maybe for the US. For Europe, it’s basically no option. It has problems even with basic trips. At least in Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Belgium, where I tried in the past year.
The interface is really the best, but the route finding is the worst of any apps which I used. I had to go back and find a different route many times. And the speed limit was completely useless everywhere, random guess is better. Not that any option would be perfect, Waze and Google Maps have their own problems.
It’s worked perfectly for us in Spain for walking, driving, and transit directions (including train timings) in multiple cities, including directions of which exits to take in subway stations.
Also worked flawlessly in London across multiple transit modes (tube to thameslink, etc).
Driving directions have also been far superior at least in the way us Americans give directions (including quirks like “take a left at the second light” as opposed to just robotically naming streets)
Apple Maps navigation instructions is definitely superior to Google's. I've gotten "lost" a couple times using Google Maps recently because sometimes it'll be like bear left even though I'm suppose to go straight. I think the biggest con of Apple Maps is the UX. Searching for a store or place that's in a specific area not where you are currently geographically is way harder than it should be.
I have definitely had Google be rather confused about its directions, telling me to take the first exit on a roundabout when it meant the second exit, on more than one roundabout that has been there unchanged for decades. Then there'll be the times when I get to a T-junction and it's completely silent, or when it tells me to go straight ahead, then makes that annoyed "you went the wrong way" sound when I do because it actually meant "turn right", and the times it takes me on a "shortcut" that takes twice as long. The directions suck probably about 20% of the time, but I have certainly seen no shenanigans like the ones described in the article.
A few times I have been in the middle of driving, and Google has suddenly said "We have found an alternative route that is two minutes faster - if would like to keep the original route, then tap the cancel button." Which is soliciting people to break the law. And the alternative route is invariably a stupid one.
Truly amazing that it was allowed to cover the map real estate. If it was a dedicated portion of the screen that might show ads, I guess it would be better?
I'm not suggesting that the NHTSA has the authority to stop Google Maps from doing this, but they do have the authority and discretion to shut Waymo down. It's unwise for one arm of Google/Alphabet to act in this manner when another arm of Google/Alphabet depends existentially on NHTSA approval. Google vs Alphabet vs Waymo LLC is a legal fiction; you, I, and regulators all know this. Google's actions reflect on Waymo, and vice versa.
And improving OSM _feels_ great in my experience. It's actually and primarily helping the open-source community.
Google really incentivizes users to fix map data (like business info) and, after doing so, shows you popups like "Your change was seen by 10,000 people!". Really good UX. Yet, I was only doing free work for a mega corp which doesn't feel as satisfying (and I stopped doing so).
My feelings exactly. I first got drawn to editing OSM instead of Waze because of local Waze volunteers acting like mini dictators (locking the map for people under a certain level, leading to inaccuracies like wrongly labelled construction in my own street which I could see with my own eyes but could not edit), not being an unpaid worker for Alphabet was a nice bonus and the reason I stayed in the long run.
Yeah, sadly that's a bit of a chicken-egg problem. OSM isn't popular enough to crowdsource that information as well as Google can.
Though in the spirit of "be the change you want to see", it's pretty easy to add opening hours any business you notice is missing them. Every Door and Street Complete are good, user-friendly editors on mobile.
The reason why OSM doesn't have it and Google does isn't because Google crowdsources it. It is because Google is straightforward to work with for the companies who provide that data, and OSM is impossible.
Yes, there are companies whose job it is to get opening hours to various sites. Someone like Walmart will write a contract, and send a regular spreadsheet. The company then processes the spreadsheet, and pushes data out to Google, Facebook, Apple, and so on.
I know this because I was the lead developer at one of those companies for a while. Everyone except OSM is happy to accept an address, maybe a suite number, and then information about phone numbers, opening hours, holiday hours, and so on. OSM insists on detailed geolocation data. If you don't have it, then they won't take your data. Period.
You have the name and address of the mall, and a suite number? Facebook will just report that. Google will take your data and separately figure out how to map out where it is in the mall if it is important. OSM refuses to take the data.
You have data from Walmart with every Walmart address, and every department's phone number, opening hours, holiday hours, and so on? Apple, Yelp, and so on will love you for it. OSM tells you that they need the store layout.
We asked OSM about it. Their answer? I kid you not. "Send someone to the store and map it out then." They really have no clue about how much sending someone to the store costs, and how little these intermediary companies get paid to provide the data. What they demand. Will. Not. Happen.
What OSM should do is provide a way to accept that data in a feed, then let any volunteer tie the feed to the geomapped location. That way between a local volunteer and the companies that supply everyone else, they'd get the standard data that everyone else has.
They don't. After looking at the economics, we had to go hat in hand to Walmart and apologize. "We know that you wanted to be on OSM, but this is what it will take to do it. We can't do that, and we're going to have to take the penalty in the contract."
Yeah, you heard that right. Walmart wanted to cooperate with OSM. But because OSM put roadblocks in place for us, it didn't happen. Not due to lack of popularity to crowdsource information. But because OSM developers have their heads firmly up their asses when it comes to figuring out how to deal with businesses who actively want to deal with them.
At what point is google liable for the increased rate of accidents from features like this? Surely they have some data that can estimate users getting in accidents while using gmaps.
I've driven to the wrong location twice because the top search result was an ad. e.g. I searched for "Home Depot" and immediately clicked on the top link (there's only one Home Depot nearby) and after a few mins realized I was headed somewhere else entirely, because they'd injected a tiny subtle ad above their search results.
They already get so much information from maps running on your phone, why do they need to shove ads onto driving directions?
Add a few pins when browsing or searching to related things. If they're similarly relevant (i.e. I search for "Chick-fil-a" Sunday, show me other chicken shops), the conversion rate could be pretty solid.
Is there any car sold in the US that still has a built-in map? For example my Honda from the early 2000's has it stored on a DVD player under the driver's seat.
I don't intend to let go of my 2020 Prius for as long as I can help it, largely for this reason. I was able to purchase a microSD card with updated maps to catch it up to 2022 but had to ask a couple of dealerships before someone knew how to look up the part number for it, not sure if they'll continue to publish updates, but the Toyotas that came after this one expect you to have cell signal to determine a route which is ridiculous IMO, I don't even live in the boonies but between towns I have 0 cell signal.
Tesla works offline but doesn’t store points of interest or have search functionality. You can type in a specific address and it will navigate there though
Out Hyundai has maps that are at least as good as Google. For example, we live on a rural road, at least 10 years old, and Google doesn't know about it. Yes, I've submitted an update, multiple times.
Unfortunately, the Hyindai routing is not as good, and does sometimes make odd mistakes.
Submitting an update is infuriating with Google maps.
Submit an update, accepted, and now working as expected.
Three weeks later and it's back to broken again.
It's like every update just wipes the corrections that have been submitted.
"For the past two years, Google has provided information to over 1 billion users to help them make more sustainable choices annually through our products. We achieved this by offering sustainability features like fuel-efficient routing in Google Maps and more transportation options in Search, such as train routes."
"Fuel-efficient routing
By building AI models on the emissions profile of different vehicle types, fuel-efficient routing in Google Maps analyzes traffic, terrain, and the vehicles engine (gas/petrol, diesel, hybrid, or electric) to find the most efficient route. This may mean fewer stops for gas engines, routes favoring highway speeds for diesel vehicles, and maximizing downhill stretches for electric cars to boost regenerative braking all while providing the same or similar ETA."
Indeed, and on Saturday I was driving in a slightly unfamiliar place and opened Maps just to find out how to get back on the freeway.
The screen was completely covered with garbage, top and bottom. It wasn't even ads, but "parks and cool stuff to do near here" which is not remotely what I wanted right then. No obvious way to get rid of it, either.
Most definitely! Or, worse: detour-ification? Or, the potentially horrible: encrash-ification?
I have only played with OSM...and, honestly, I'm not going to complain if the ads are at a reasonable volume/quantity, and if they're only displayed while stationary...But, if they kick this off at a higher clip of number of ads, AND, they stat showing them while moving...Then forget that, i'd switch to OSM or other alternatives, and rather risk getting lost a little. Paper maps anyone? :-)
Here in Brazil, it is not uncommon to hear about people being kidnapped/shot/killed because Google Maps decided to direct them into a zone controlled by organized crime.
When news came out that those routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive", I found it amusing how someone in Palo Alto presenting a PowerPoint with a couple of ESG slides could lead to someone else being shot with an AK-47.
If the above sounds unreal: https://www.reddit.com/r/brasilivre/comments/mtfwfq/carro_do...
Same here in Siberia. A man froze to death after Google recommended a wrong turn via an abandoned road because it was a shorter path:
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/man-fr...
Same here in Utah. No actual deaths I’m aware of, but lots of damaged vehicles that needed to get towed out of 4x4 tracks in the desert after Google sent them there.
>When news came out that those routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive", I found it amusing how someone in Palo Alto presenting a PowerPoint with a couple of ESG slides could lead to someone else being shot with an AK-47.
source? The above link only seems to support the claim there's armed people on streetview, not that google is directing people to crime ridden areas for "ESG" purposes.
I guess that you missed this from some weeks ago? https://www.yahoo.com/tech/google-maps-may-not-offer-1124362...
The link in the OP is an example of what people may encounter if they follow said routes https://www.euronews.com/2016/12/10/italian-tourist-killed-a...
>I guess that you missed this from some weeks ago? https://www.yahoo.com/tech/google-maps-may-not-offer-1124362...
Problems with the veracity of those statements aside, at best the it confirms that google cares about being "inclusive", but the same source also specifically says that current routes are "objective", which disproves op's claim that "routes were being chosen to make the app more "inclusive""
Probably info wars dot com
The weirdest thing was that in the resulting conservative backlash many of them switched to Apple Maps which resulted in a bunch of people all getting stuck in the same cul-de-sac and having a road-rage induced shootout. It killed this poor teenager.
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/18ieg6d/17yearold_te...
What? The article says she unintentionally cut off another driver who then shot her.
more "inclusive" roads = idiotic 'woke' culture gone batshit crazy
They are making it up
There was a viral thread a month or two ago from an ex-Google Maps employee talking about how that'd never be considered, because tl;dr, doing that would be a great example of steering at scale leading to unintended consequences.
Not sure if they misunderstood that thread, or they're just wholesale riffing.
I have no idea if it’s happening but, sadly, I would not be surprised if it were.
> I have no idea if it’s happening but, sadly, I would not be surprised if it were.
So, in other words, it's totally made up.
It's got the vibes of: "Now, we can't verify that that's true, but it certainly sounds right." - Tucker Carlson[1]
1: https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-massive-conflict-w...
The cycle of reading rage-bait, discovering it was misleading, and saying "well I wouldn't be surprised if it had been true", is essentially the poison killing us.
> I have no idea if it’s happening,
I do!
> but,
buckles up
> sadly, I would not be surprised if it were.
On my end, I'm sad people make up silly things that'd never happen, to claim that it could happen, so they can express their sadness.
There's better options!
ex. here: I'm sad because it's near 4 PM [EDIT: f***, after 4 PM!], and I got a bunch of failing integration tests to fix after rushing a feature, over a long holiday weekend, for an investor who has been AWOL for a week. When I take a step back, my harsh review of myself is I'm unconsciously getting my mind off it, because it makes me feel better because it's easy to be correct when people aren't trying to be. But really, I'm just burning time I could be using to wrap up work.
>They are making it up
You work for Google, though. Why should your word be trusted over the others'?
A sibling comment linked to a source where a Google spokesperson denied it. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/google-maps-may-not-offer-1124362...
I don't
Why would we limit ourselves to the set of not-Googlers? That is prima facie irrational and incorrect. Best case is there's a googler out here saying it, all you'd have to do is check in a week if they still had a job.
Self-peasantization isn't a virtue
Those are street view photos, they don't have anything about Google Maps steering, stories about people being shot on a Google Maps route, or someone getting killed, or someone getting shot with an AK-47.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with Google Maps deciding to direct people through low-income areas.
There was a recent thread, maybe a month ago, about how they don't do that, only do the most straightforward route, because redirecting traffic would cause as much bad as good. Unintended consequences and all that.
For what it's worth, a few more straightforward things:
- Google HQ is in Mountain View, not Palo Alto
- Google uses Google Slides, not PowerPoint
- ESG stands for "environmental, social, and governance" and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
> ESG stands for "environmental, social, and gas" and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
Gas?! ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance.
Someone had too many beans at lunch (: Corrected, ty!
>[...] and refers to investors allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results.
That's a slightly misleading way of characterizing ESG. "allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results" is just "investing", or "long-term investing". ESG refers specifically to considering or changing company's environmental (eg. pollution) and social impact (eg. workforce diversity), as well as improving its governance practices. Sure, its proponents think doing the aforementioned things will improve the company's financial performance as well, but your characterization deliberately obfuscates what ESG actually involves.
A: "ESG stands for environment social impact governance"
B: "ESG refers specifically to considering or changing company's environmental (eg. pollution) and social impact (eg. workforce diversity), as well as improving its governance practices"
B: "[thus showing] A is deliberately obfuscating"
!?!?, two sets of !? for two different levels, one is there being precious little air between what I said and what you said. I frankly don't see any at all, is the idea that saying it comes from finance / investing is misleading??
The other is for the personal attack via mindreading.
>one is there being precious little air between what I said and what you said. I frankly don't see any at all, is the idea that saying it comes from finance / investing is misleading??
I called it "slightly misleading" because 1/3rd of what you wrote was devoted to explaining what it actually is, but the rest is (seemingly) trying to defend it by discussing the most banal/non-central aspect of it. The reason why investors care about ESG isn't because "allocating money based on longer-term criteria beyond next quarter's results", neither is that why ESG detractors hate on it. What you're doing is similar to describing redlining as "banks deciding where to lend money, and refers to them trying to trying to manage risk". Sure, everything in that statement is technically true, and redlining ostensibly was about managing risk, but describing in that is misleading because it mischaracterizes what the controversy surrounding it is.
Ah, the glorious bailey. Though, a little warm for me this time of year, at least in the US :)
So I wasn't wrong, I just left out the controversy? Please, do share the controversy! Please, let it be more than the Palo Alto PowerPoint ESG presentation that required Brazil Google Maps to route people into gang controlled territory to be killed by AK47s.
Any more thoughts on the "deliberately misleading" part? Or are you leaving it there?
>So I wasn't wrong, I just left out the controversy? Please, do share the controversy! Please, let it be more than the Palo Alto PowerPoint ESG presentation that required Brazil Google Maps to route people into gang controlled territory to be killed by AK47s.
I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments you'd see that I expressed skepticism about it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40909047
>Any more thoughts on the "deliberately misleading" part? Or are you leaving it there?
"deliberately misleading" was never something I wrote. I did write "deliberately obfuscating", which I stand by for the reasons mentioned in my previous comment.
> I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments you'd see that I expressed skepticism about it.
I'm not sure how you got the impression that I thought you thought the google maps ESG claim was true. If you check my other comments, you'd see I never said that.
Any ideas on what the controversy is that I deliberately obfuscated?
I'm bored and tired of inviting you to explain your mind-reading. I'll skip to why sharing your mind-reading is not only rude, but irrational:
Is it possible people use "ESG" as a boogie-man when complaining?
Put another way: am I deliberately obfuscating, or are you steel-manning nonsense?
Put another way, longer:
Imagine someone complains: "This restaurant's new menu is clearly pandering to ESG trends!"
Person A (steel-manning): "They must be referring to the complex interplay between sustainable sourcing, labor practices, and pandering to DEI values in the restaurant industry."
Person B (simple interpretation): "They probably just added a few vegan options and are upset about it."
In this case, Person A's attempt to find depth in a shallow complaint leads them far astray from the actual, much simpler issue at hand.
That's the most brazen example of "if you're not paying for it, you are the product" I've seen in a while.
Google truly is nothing but a huge venus fly trap that kills its prey by injecting ads.
Even if you do pay, if the market will bear ads, they show up. Like billboards and cable TV. I pay for the roads, I pay for the TV. Ads anyway.
"I've got an idea. You know how our ad-free service is doing great? What if we took that, but then added some ads?"
You don't even need the scare quotes -- that's exactly the conversation. The people making these decisions genuinely don't see ad-free as a feature, just a nice-to-have convenience that some weirdos will pay a premium for. And broadly speaking, they're right. When you offer a cheaper option with ads people choose it -- a lot of people choose it.
The biggest barrier to services adding ads isn't anything like enshittification or market lock-in or whatever, it's that ad-delivery is hard and it takes large, mature company with lots of users to both sport the manpower to get it done and enough eyeballs to make the ROI positive. All those little stupidly named ad-supported streaming platforms that are popping up are almost always backed by a larger company's ad network. Tubi is Fox, Xumo is Comcast, Freevee is Amazon.
> The people making these decisions genuinely don't see ad-free as a feature, just a nice-to-have convenience that some weirdos will pay a premium for.
That would be fine if they respected us enough to say "ad-free is too niche of a feature to be worth it to us, we're pulling it".
I actually don’t think this is special at all. An ad is an ad. Interrupting driving is no different than interrupting a video or interrupting a search action (except for the danger due to driving). It’s pretty brazen, but gMaps has had ads for a while, when searching for a destination.
Google Search gets most of the attention for being ruined by Google, but I think the Maps trajectory is just as bad. It has shown remarkable consistency in getting worse year after year, for a long time now. Basic functionality is regularly broken or degraded, and the UI is increasingly covered in ads of various types.
Maps is a prime example of the costs from not enforcing antitrust laws. Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market and is now squeezing it for all it can. This product is only going to get worse for the foreseeable future.
>Maps is a prime example of the costs from not enforcing antitrust laws. Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market and is now squeezing it for all it can.
The alternative to "Google spent billions of dollars from its ad monopoly to control this market" (ie. a non-subsidized maps app) is you paying $100 for a dedicated GPS device, paying $30/year for tomtom[1], or using a free app like organic maps. All of those are still options today. What exactly is "the cost" from letting google subsidize its maps app? Do you think that if such anti-trust laws were enforced, maps would still be free and ad-free?
[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tomtom-go-navigation/id8849633...
Are we really arguing about whether a massively advertised "free" product will distort a market? If a heavily subsidized Google Maps hadn't been dominating the ecosystem for the past decade and a half many more companies would have competed with various approaches to features, UX, and monetization. You seem to be assuming that all of that competition would have resulted in no improvements over the early 2000s. I guess that's possible, but I expect it would have gone more like nearly every other part of the tech landscape and some actual innovation would have happened.
No I'm not expecting that there would be a perpetually free and ad-free option, that wouldn't make any sense. But the space of possibility is vastly more broad than totally free or the dreck that Google Maps has turned into.
I'm sure there's non-zero amount of impact, but it's unclear what exactly that translates to. We still have free competitors like from Apple, Here, and various apps based on OSM. There's apps with subscription models. There's still paper maps and dedicated GPS devices from before google maps. What exactly do you think we've missed out on?
Apple Maps was a punchline for a while but I’ve been steadfastly using it for the past few years. There’s only a handful of times I questioned the results and consulted Google maps, only to be bombarded with ad PoI’s and reminded of why I avoided Google. This new ad format is ridiculous and I’m glad I’ll never have to see it.
I'd say the navigation aspect of Apple Maps is far superior to that of Google Maps, but the reviews and business directories on Google Maps is much better, not to mention all my favorites and PoIs are stored in Google Maps.
I've been using it for the past 3 years. Things I love about Apple Maps.
1. Limited distractions. 2. Traffic Lights, Stop signs are so easy to follow! 3. Lanes are rendered very clearly.
Of course, once in every other blue moon I have to open Google Maps when I find myself in an alley with no outlet, while Apple Maps is telling me to drive through the building.
Maybe for the US. For Europe, it’s basically no option. It has problems even with basic trips. At least in Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Belgium, where I tried in the past year.
The interface is really the best, but the route finding is the worst of any apps which I used. I had to go back and find a different route many times. And the speed limit was completely useless everywhere, random guess is better. Not that any option would be perfect, Waze and Google Maps have their own problems.
It’s worked perfectly for us in Spain for walking, driving, and transit directions (including train timings) in multiple cities, including directions of which exits to take in subway stations.
Also worked flawlessly in London across multiple transit modes (tube to thameslink, etc).
Driving directions have also been far superior at least in the way us Americans give directions (including quirks like “take a left at the second light” as opposed to just robotically naming streets)
Apple Maps navigation instructions is definitely superior to Google's. I've gotten "lost" a couple times using Google Maps recently because sometimes it'll be like bear left even though I'm suppose to go straight. I think the biggest con of Apple Maps is the UX. Searching for a store or place that's in a specific area not where you are currently geographically is way harder than it should be.
I have definitely had Google be rather confused about its directions, telling me to take the first exit on a roundabout when it meant the second exit, on more than one roundabout that has been there unchanged for decades. Then there'll be the times when I get to a T-junction and it's completely silent, or when it tells me to go straight ahead, then makes that annoyed "you went the wrong way" sound when I do because it actually meant "turn right", and the times it takes me on a "shortcut" that takes twice as long. The directions suck probably about 20% of the time, but I have certainly seen no shenanigans like the ones described in the article.
Navigation apps need to be reliable. But with these pop-ups - trust is not in the line
I guess this is the new "Be maximally evil" Google. Visual ads while driving that force you to look at your phone.
A few times I have been in the middle of driving, and Google has suddenly said "We have found an alternative route that is two minutes faster - if would like to keep the original route, then tap the cancel button." Which is soliciting people to break the law. And the alternative route is invariably a stupid one.
Truly amazing that it was allowed to cover the map real estate. If it was a dedicated portion of the screen that might show ads, I guess it would be better?
Just wait until it start autoplaying video ads..
It seems unwise for a NHTSA-regulated entity to accept payment to promote distracted driving.
Source that google maps is "NHTSA-regulated"? Or are you talking about Waymo, which has the same parent company as Google?
Yes, I'm talking about Waymo.
In that case I'm sure the "NHTSA-regulated entity" part only applies to Waymo, not Google or Alphabet. Your statement therefore makes little sense.
I'm not suggesting that the NHTSA has the authority to stop Google Maps from doing this, but they do have the authority and discretion to shut Waymo down. It's unwise for one arm of Google/Alphabet to act in this manner when another arm of Google/Alphabet depends existentially on NHTSA approval. Google vs Alphabet vs Waymo LLC is a legal fiction; you, I, and regulators all know this. Google's actions reflect on Waymo, and vice versa.
OSM and the many wonderful apps built on it to the rescue!
For me the major deal-breaker is the dearth of business opening times information, especially in Poland.
I try to add up to date opening hours for every business I frequent in OSM. These are available in Organic Maps (successor to Maps.me), even offline.
Google does seem to have the upper hand for special cases like public holidays sometimes, but even those can be added in OSM.
And improving OSM _feels_ great in my experience. It's actually and primarily helping the open-source community.
Google really incentivizes users to fix map data (like business info) and, after doing so, shows you popups like "Your change was seen by 10,000 people!". Really good UX. Yet, I was only doing free work for a mega corp which doesn't feel as satisfying (and I stopped doing so).
My feelings exactly. I first got drawn to editing OSM instead of Waze because of local Waze volunteers acting like mini dictators (locking the map for people under a certain level, leading to inaccuracies like wrongly labelled construction in my own street which I could see with my own eyes but could not edit), not being an unpaid worker for Alphabet was a nice bonus and the reason I stayed in the long run.
Yeah, sadly that's a bit of a chicken-egg problem. OSM isn't popular enough to crowdsource that information as well as Google can.
Though in the spirit of "be the change you want to see", it's pretty easy to add opening hours any business you notice is missing them. Every Door and Street Complete are good, user-friendly editors on mobile.
The reason why OSM doesn't have it and Google does isn't because Google crowdsources it. It is because Google is straightforward to work with for the companies who provide that data, and OSM is impossible.
Yes, there are companies whose job it is to get opening hours to various sites. Someone like Walmart will write a contract, and send a regular spreadsheet. The company then processes the spreadsheet, and pushes data out to Google, Facebook, Apple, and so on.
I know this because I was the lead developer at one of those companies for a while. Everyone except OSM is happy to accept an address, maybe a suite number, and then information about phone numbers, opening hours, holiday hours, and so on. OSM insists on detailed geolocation data. If you don't have it, then they won't take your data. Period.
You have the name and address of the mall, and a suite number? Facebook will just report that. Google will take your data and separately figure out how to map out where it is in the mall if it is important. OSM refuses to take the data.
You have data from Walmart with every Walmart address, and every department's phone number, opening hours, holiday hours, and so on? Apple, Yelp, and so on will love you for it. OSM tells you that they need the store layout.
We asked OSM about it. Their answer? I kid you not. "Send someone to the store and map it out then." They really have no clue about how much sending someone to the store costs, and how little these intermediary companies get paid to provide the data. What they demand. Will. Not. Happen.
What OSM should do is provide a way to accept that data in a feed, then let any volunteer tie the feed to the geomapped location. That way between a local volunteer and the companies that supply everyone else, they'd get the standard data that everyone else has.
They don't. After looking at the economics, we had to go hat in hand to Walmart and apologize. "We know that you wanted to be on OSM, but this is what it will take to do it. We can't do that, and we're going to have to take the penalty in the contract."
Yeah, you heard that right. Walmart wanted to cooperate with OSM. But because OSM put roadblocks in place for us, it didn't happen. Not due to lack of popularity to crowdsource information. But because OSM developers have their heads firmly up their asses when it comes to figuring out how to deal with businesses who actively want to deal with them.
At what point is google liable for the increased rate of accidents from features like this? Surely they have some data that can estimate users getting in accidents while using gmaps.
A really controversial move that could have significant repercussions for user experience and trust. Cannot understand why the problem is not seen
I would stop using Google maps for live directions if this becomes the norm.
If I see a single ad I'm uninstalling it and switching to Apple maps.
I've driven to the wrong location twice because the top search result was an ad. e.g. I searched for "Home Depot" and immediately clicked on the top link (there's only one Home Depot nearby) and after a few mins realized I was headed somewhere else entirely, because they'd injected a tiny subtle ad above their search results.
Just do it now.
And it would be a good decision
It’s lacking in POI but I find Organic Maps great otherwise (if what you are looking for is there).
https://organicmaps.app/
They already get so much information from maps running on your phone, why do they need to shove ads onto driving directions?
Add a few pins when browsing or searching to related things. If they're similarly relevant (i.e. I search for "Chick-fil-a" Sunday, show me other chicken shops), the conversion rate could be pretty solid.
> They already get so much information from maps running on your phone, why do they need to shove ads onto driving directions?
I mean, what are they doing with that information ultimately? Probably serving you ads somewhere, right?
At least you will remember [brand] while having a deadly car crash!
Would it be possible to sue?
Is there any car sold in the US that still has a built-in map? For example my Honda from the early 2000's has it stored on a DVD player under the driver's seat.
I don't intend to let go of my 2020 Prius for as long as I can help it, largely for this reason. I was able to purchase a microSD card with updated maps to catch it up to 2022 but had to ask a couple of dealerships before someone knew how to look up the part number for it, not sure if they'll continue to publish updates, but the Toyotas that came after this one expect you to have cell signal to determine a route which is ridiculous IMO, I don't even live in the boonies but between towns I have 0 cell signal.
You can still get standalone GPS map units - connectivity only required for traffic and similar features. Map updates are paid.
Tesla works offline but doesn’t store points of interest or have search functionality. You can type in a specific address and it will navigate there though
Tesla. Traffic is "paid" but map updates are free.
Out Hyundai has maps that are at least as good as Google. For example, we live on a rural road, at least 10 years old, and Google doesn't know about it. Yes, I've submitted an update, multiple times.
Unfortunately, the Hyindai routing is not as good, and does sometimes make odd mistakes.
We use the Hyundai navigation 99% of the time.
Submitting an update is infuriating with Google maps.
Submit an update, accepted, and now working as expected. Three weeks later and it's back to broken again. It's like every update just wipes the corrections that have been submitted.
I use Waze a lot, but have not encountered (noticed) anything like this. Is it only a US thing?
Google maps peaked a few years ago. The constant recommendations of hour detours along a drive are annoying, can they be disabled?
That’s basically google lately -trying to figure out which square inch of their real estate they haven’t drowned in ads yet.
At least they still highlight the cancel button, if I interpret the image correctly. I wonder how long that will last.
And why exactly are you looking at your phone and touching it while driving?
"For the past two years, Google has provided information to over 1 billion users to help them make more sustainable choices annually through our products. We achieved this by offering sustainability features like fuel-efficient routing in Google Maps and more transportation options in Search, such as train routes."
"Fuel-efficient routing
By building AI models on the emissions profile of different vehicle types, fuel-efficient routing in Google Maps analyzes traffic, terrain, and the vehicles engine (gas/petrol, diesel, hybrid, or electric) to find the most efficient route. This may mean fewer stops for gas engines, routes favoring highway speeds for diesel vehicles, and maximizing downhill stretches for electric cars to boost regenerative braking all while providing the same or similar ETA."
https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2024-e...
The people who ruined search now ruin maps.
I wonder why the shareholders allow this.
Google losing market share will be a big problem for the company.
But hey, some fractions of a cent earned now.
Enshitification, is there anything it can't spoil?
Enshittification.
Indeed, and on Saturday I was driving in a slightly unfamiliar place and opened Maps just to find out how to get back on the freeway.
The screen was completely covered with garbage, top and bottom. It wasn't even ads, but "parks and cool stuff to do near here" which is not remotely what I wanted right then. No obvious way to get rid of it, either.
Most definitely! Or, worse: detour-ification? Or, the potentially horrible: encrash-ification?
I have only played with OSM...and, honestly, I'm not going to complain if the ads are at a reasonable volume/quantity, and if they're only displayed while stationary...But, if they kick this off at a higher clip of number of ads, AND, they stat showing them while moving...Then forget that, i'd switch to OSM or other alternatives, and rather risk getting lost a little. Paper maps anyone? :-)
It's just funny at this point.
> Google seems to have borrowed this format from Waze, which has displayed similar pop-up ads for several years.
Take your complaints years ago to Waze.
Which has been owned by Google since 2013?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-brings-waze-and-maps-te...
no kidding, so this isn't something G just came up with but another one of the features of Waze they're porting over.
That's great, but someone had to decide to bring that shit to Google Maps. The ghost of Waze didn't force itself upon a helpless Google developer.
Google bought Waze in 2013.