Apple Maps is said to be up to five times more efficient than Google Maps
0. phoneArena posted on 03 Oct 2012, 12:50
According to the guys behind the Onavo website who did some testing, Apple Maps is as much as five times more efficientr than the Google variety; testing showed that Google Maps used five them more data to display a map than Apple used...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
53. US_Eminem posted on 03 Oct 2012, 14:29 1 2
Haha.....the real winner is neither google map nor apple......it's the nokia map.......they were the first to introduce offline maps, they are best in details (thanx to NAVTEQ 20 yrs of experience)......and the apps like nokia city lens are awesome , they do not simply just show map but show you the world as seen by naked eyes with tags on ur destination and surrounding buildings
57. Leo_MC posted on 03 Oct 2012, 15:03 0 1
Nokia Drive uses 0 (that's zero) data.
89. Leo_MC posted on 04 Oct 2012, 14:39 0 0
If you give me another thumbs down, Nokia Drive will use 1 gazilion B, you stupid sh*t.
59. cyborg009 posted on 03 Oct 2012, 15:16 2 0
You know how some headlines are super wrong .. this was one of them !!
60. speckledapple posted on 03 Oct 2012, 15:21 1 0
I think one has to be careful with those article titles. It sure ignited another flame war for little reason seeing the comparison is with an older form of Google Maps in terms of effectiveness. Its a dangerous play on words.
61. Jphones posted on 03 Oct 2012, 15:24 2 0
ha it uses less data because it gets you lost.lol
68. blade19 posted on 03 Oct 2012, 17:26 0 0
better yet Apple Maps uses less data because it has NO data use... :)
63. jmoita2 posted on 03 Oct 2012, 15:51 1 0
What a joke, it's like me driving a motorized bicycle and telling you I use less gas than your 2012 BMW 325i, therefore I kick more ass...lol
64. techguy22 posted on 03 Oct 2012, 16:11 2 0
make that 1000000x lol
it would take apple 10 years to reach google maps or nokia level.
by that time. google maps will have 5D pictures lol
72. shamatuu posted on 03 Oct 2012, 18:47 0 0
Oh please. What a load a crap. if it was good at launch than maybe.
77. Reverence posted on 03 Oct 2012, 20:05 0 0
when u dont hav to show anything then ull be efficient!
still both r gud but becuz google has way more experience its better nd becuz aplle is new..itll take apple 2-3 years to come near to google..or theyll hav to use more frm other maps like tom tom....only then,but that will also take time
right now its google only!
78. pikapowerize (banned) posted on 03 Oct 2012, 20:42 0 0
the reason why it only take kilobytes is that some places are missing!
81. soshi posted on 03 Oct 2012, 21:27 0 0
Are they cross check that nothing gone in apple map. Last news I read, even kuala lumpur placed next to new york (joke or truth?) With so many blur terrain and broken street of course imap became efficient, what about the building they hide for saving data?
82. radeon posted on 03 Oct 2012, 21:27 0 0
Lol apple maps don't have data to load into map so definitely its going to be less data consuming
84. xfire99 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 01:52 1 0
5x more correct locations are much more important then 5x less efficiency. Also 10x saving money, if drive correct to its location directly, instead taking a weird routes that takes 10x longer time on Apple maps. So which is more money saving?
Apple Maps that showing wrong loction and take a much longer route to it destination.
Google Maps that showing correct locations and shortest route?
Even Google maps takes alot more data to load, but you are saving alot of money by taking the best shortest CORRECT route, instead taking a iRide with INCORRECT routes no nowhere with Apple Map and who the heck want drive under water!
Stop finding excuses for Apple Maps, everyone already know that Apple Maps is a disaster and released in Alpha stage.
85. SIGPRO posted on 04 Oct 2012, 02:07 0 0
Apple maps is still crap, every one agrees. Nokia maps is the best uses no data and is complete offline and spoken turn by turn!
87. tumchaaditya posted on 04 Oct 2012, 04:41 0 0
that's like saying VW Beetle is more efficient than Bugatti Veyron..