Recently Apple launched its new Mapping system in iOS6 which replaced Google maps. Since the launch Apple has come under fire over the new service because it has returned false or missing data.
With many rumours floating about that the new service was having faults I took upon myself to do my testing; I found that in some places the maps had missing images and the 3D mode wasn’t all that it is was cracked up to be. If you was to search for The Eiffel Tower in Paris you will see that the image is flat and missing the point.
Hopefully these bugs will be fixed soon; Apple have offered alternatives in the App Store which include services like Bing, Waze and Google Maps. With the this in mind did Apple fail? or did they allow themselves to become withdrawn into the battle with Google and just drop maps because they felt the service was far to superior?
Many users have been left feeling let down by the service and they have reverted their handsets back to iOS 5 so they are able to use Google Maps agin.
In hindsight I believe Apple should have stuck with Google Maps because it worked and didn’t return false data but what will Apple do? Will they fix the issues or Will they revert back to Google Maps and calibrate with all companies involved to make an even richer experience with all platforms?
A few years ago software giants Microsoft and Apple were toying with the idea to make an ad-supported operating system that allowed their customers to upgrade to the latest software at no extract cost but it meant you had ads showing throughout the day. According to some sources, they have stated the ads would have rolled on a 10 minute interval and it would appear near you clock.
Now, let me point out the biggest flaw in this concept… You need the internet to even have ads running and if you have the internet, you run the risk of leaving your system potentially open to more attacks than normal. All it takes is some smarty pants to override the ad API and it could be used to take your personal information or what your browsing throughout your computer.
I can see why this concept came to light, many users don’t want to pay the high prices for operating system upgrades because in some cases it can set you back around £100 or more each time, depending on the software vendor it could cost you less. In a practical world this concept would have paid off for the vendors because software upgrades would increase and the revenue obtained per install would leave them with a higher profit margin.
There is one thing that needs to be highlighted and that is the chances of the software vendor launching two versions of its software, ad-supported and no ads. In todays application world this is seen widely on mobile applications where you pay a small price to remove the ads but personally I don’t think this would work in operating system environment purely because the upgrade prices would be around the same price as buying it ad free.
Overall the concept is tangible but to the average user they will just dismiss the concept and pay full price for the upgrade, which means the concept is flawed. Depending on the ratio of paid and ad-supported installs it might not generate the right profit margins to cover overheads and other running costs to make it worth while.