Hacker News Reader

MS does help OSM quite a bit, primarily by providing access to Bing satellite images which can be used to trace over to create OSM data. They also hired the guy who started OSM for a while (though he left recently to go to Telenav)

And the OSM foundation does already exist:

http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

> 90% of the time, Apple maps works fine, and there's no reason to use something else, especially when it's ad-laden.

Which maps are you talking about?

Google Maps on iOS. I wouldn't call it ad-laden, but it does have a habit of popping up a sponsored result precisely when I'm least interested in it.

Just in general, whilst helping OSM is a topic, they do have Amazon affiliate links that earn them about 5% on purchases but for some reason they don't make this obvious on their website

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Merchandise#Amazon

Hopefully I've thrown them about £50 over the past couple of years by bookmarking them as my link to Amazon.

During a recent trip to Europe I used OSM (via an offline app called MapsWithMe) way, way more than either Apple or Google maps. Their POI coverage in Europe is pretty good, and even covers things like ATMs and public restrooms.

OSM has - for some places at least - really good topographic data compared to Google maps:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tavon,+Coredo+TN,+Italy&hl=en...

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/46.3652/11.0953&layers=...

And worryingly, Google has removed that layer entirely from their mobile application.

They've also removed the terrain layer from the 'new' desktop app. http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/maps/terrai...

Apple actually uses (or used?) Openstreetmap for some remote regions like afghanistan [1]. They also use openstreetmap for their internal problem report tool [2]. Also what I heard there was a big company which didn't want to be named that approached the openstreetmap foundation. I think the secrecy and licensing were the problems.

[1]: http://www.undispatch.com/how-afghan-mappers-punked-apple [2]: http://blog.openstreetmap.de/wp-uploads//2013/10/a2.png

I'm pretty certain that both Apple and Google regularly import some subset of the OSM data. I have done a bunch of Openstreetmap edits in northern NJ that have found their way into both maps.

Incidentally, if you have any, even mild, OCD tendencies, you might want to avoid Openstreetmap, haha. That new Id editor is dangerous.

Screw both Apple and Google.

People will say they support open-source via certain projects but the proof is in the pudding.

If they're using OSM data to cement one of their key platform apps, they need to donate money, lots of it, and be public about it.

Remember, as fanboys like to crow, Apple has $100 billion of cash lying around and Google's share price is sky high.

It's not that simple unfortunately. Both of those companies would basically have to agree to be collaborators rather than competitors. Both companies would probably have a bunch of pissed-off shareholders who didn't agree with the move (who are the people who actually own those companies; technically that money belongs to them). Both companies would also get punished by the stock market, which favors competitiveness over cooperation for obvious reasons, which in turn would hurt shareholders.

None of those things are intrinsically wrong or bad- if they weren't so competitive, they probably wouldn't have all that money in the first place, and as users we might not have any sort of maps at all on the Internet, or much lower-quality ones.

None of those things are intrinsically correct or good either, as users would surely benefit from that type of cooperation. It's just The Way It Is.

I wish the type of collaboration you describe could happen, and maybe it will some day. It's easy to anthropomorphize corporations as super rich individuals who sell stuff to people and aren't beholden to anyone, which is exactly what the tech press does most of the time, but the reality is way more complicated.

How is that legal? Openstreetmap has a share-alike license.

> Given that maps are not a core concern for Apple, I've always been surprised they've not just thrown money at improving open street maps

I'm surprised that you're surprised, It's not really typical for Apple to improve an open source solution instead of build and lock their own. Or am I unaware of Apple contributions here and there?

CUPS, Webkit, LLVM/Clang?

Isn't that a list of exceptions?

Apple is very sensitive about licenses, e.g. they've stopped updating OS X's GNU tools 6 years ago to avoid GPL v3.

OSM's ODBL is share-alike, so Apple probably didn't like having risk of share-alike apply to their proprietary data.

Isn't that a list of exceptions?

They are exceptions in the sense that most of their software is proprietary, but they're still important core components. They also distribute a couple hundred open source packages with OS X: http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Apple is very sensitive about licenses, e.g. they've stopped updating OS X's GNU tools 6 years ago to avoid GPL v3.

I only know what's reported here on HN, but they mostly seem sensitive about copyleft, not open source in general.

OSM's ODBL is share-alike, so Apple probably didn't like having risk of share-alike apply to their proprietary data.

But they do use OSM data: https://twitter.com/openstreetmap/statuses/19810151220183449...

Apple's use of OSM data dates from the days when the project was using the CC-BY-SA licence, whose share-alike is basically unenforceable for factual data. ODbL is more enforceable and Apple aren't using any ODbLed data, nor (as someone fairly closely connected with OSM) do I expect them to any time soon.

> Apple is very sensitive about licenses, e.g. they've stopped updating OS X's GNU tools 6 years ago to avoid GPL v3.

As they should be. The fact that they stopped updating because of GPL doesn't mean they don't support open source. Lot's of people will support MIT and BSD licenses, but not GPL3.

The two only reasons why a company would want to provide source code under MIT/BSD, but not under GPLv3 would be because of the patent grant, or because Apple want to partially maintain proprietary parts for themselves.

I.e either Apple want to sue people for using software technology which Apple themselves would distribute freely under an MIT/BSD license.

Or they do not want support open source projects with all the code related to those projects. I think this is the more likely culprit, which is in line with pornel comments that Apple probably didn't like having risk of share-alike apply to their proprietary data.

(Of course, if you are talking about distributing MIT/BSD software binaries vs GPLv3, all the other parts of GPLv3 need to be considered. This post only address the willingness to support open source projects with source code.)

Which companies, precisely, have embraced GPLv3 with open arms? Aside from those who do GPL/commercial dual licensing (where GPLv3 makes the commercial product comparatively more attractive due to the anti-tivoisation and patent clauses), I can't think of any.

IBM, HP, and Google all ships products with GPLv3.

AFAIK, GPL v3 is a poor example as it is not very commercial-friendly. Most companies that contribute to open source seem to favor the MIT and BSD licenses instead.

90% isn't good enough. I don't want to be directed to the wrong location even 10% of the time if there are better options available.

I wasn't referring to a 10% error rate, just a 90% "You can use Apple maps to solve this problem" rate. I've not had any significant error rate with my use cases for a while now.

The 10% use cases I was referring to are the "I want to find generic type of business in this area" case, and the "I need a street view of this" case, both of which are (for me) comparatively rare versus searching for a post-code or known address.

Evidently, it's good enough for over 100MM people.

People like my girlfriend who are either unaware of better alternatives or too lazy to look into it. It took me months to get her to download google maps, finally culminating in a small argument when apple maps sent us the wrong way in unfamiliar territory. Apple maps is far inferior.

People like my girlfriend who are either unaware of better alternatives or too lazy to look into it.

Isn't that the definition of "good enough"? If it were truly awful, then she'd be forced to look up an alternative, because it'd never work. So it must work well enough for her.

"[U]naware of better alternatives or too lazy to look into it" describes the vast majority of consumers. "Gullible and/or easily swayed by slick marketing" describes roughly the same set. That's why marketing works.

Ok, "when I know there are better options available"

I guess I was prompted to reply because I also installed Google Maps, but, like the 100MM+ people in this article, I never ever use it; I just tap the Apple Maps button, and I can't really think of a time where it screwed me.

These anecdotes about typing "20 Jay Street" and ending up at Niagara Falls are kind of silly. That's been my experience of all mapping applications, and, regardless of whether it happens more in Apple Maps (I'm sure it does!), the solution is so obvious I never even think about it; I just further qualify the address. "20 Jay Brooklyn" in Apple Maps, right next to a coffee roasting place near the bridge.

When it screws you, trust me you'll remember it.

That said, while I use Apple Maps for the vast majority of the time, for certain non-major/obvious addresses, I find myself double-checking in GMaps.

What's really frustrating is that it throws out any errors at all in major cities like SF!

I've had it direct me and friends a mile or two from the actual location, which is far enough to be really inconvenient but not obviously wrong.