You actually mention that even Google Maps has problems. I live in the Bay Area and have constantly experienced problems with it, including it directing me to a block or two behind the actual destination, directing me to more congested routes, etc.
I think when Apple Maps first launched it definitely was not good at all, but at this point they're roughly the same. Neither are perfect and that's fine, but comparing them as being drastically different levels of quality seems a bit far-fetched, to me at least.
Google Maps may have problems, but Apple Maps still has _problems_. Apple Maps still regularly takes me down roads closed for months, and has huge omissions in the business data set. One glaring example of the feature gap is apple maps on desktop versus google maps.
I don't think Apple Maps is bad, btw, and i think it's very good that they're trying to nip at Google's heels. But it's not even close.
I guess I meant desktop web vs mobile web. And yeah, that's how I use it, through DDG. It's visually low density (in a bad way), and satellite view is terribly slow. Among other things. But I do appreciate that they're trying - Google shouldn't own maps
A great example: in Austin, most surface roads’ speed limits were reduced by 5mph a year ago. Apple has yet to update these in their maps, despite one of their offices being just outside the city.
You actually mention that even Google Maps has problems. I live in the Bay Area and have constantly experienced problems with it, including it directing me to a block or two behind the actual destination, directing me to more congested routes, etc.
I think when Apple Maps first launched it definitely was not good at all, but at this point they're roughly the same. Neither are perfect and that's fine, but comparing them as being drastically different levels of quality seems a bit far-fetched, to me at least.