I live in the outskirts of Madrid and always use the Waze’s maps to move by car, specifically since Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, recommended in his legendary letter of apology of September 2012 on the occasion of the errors that Apple Maps gave after launching a few days before.
Using Waze I have a lot of peace and certainty because I know I will get to my destination as quickly as possible: There is no other GPS navigation application capable of dodging traffic like Waze. Period. It often takes you through unsuspected sites, but always hits, so you save time, sometimes a lot, and money (fuel).
To arrive at this conclusion, I have done so many years of tests with Waze, Google Maps and Apple Maps, using these three apps at the same time, trying to understand, for fun and to see if the two maps lagged (Google and Apple) improved over the years. They improved but very slowly. Apple Maps is the most straggler.
Waze is owned by Google since 2013. It paid over $1 billion for the application, created in Israel. The movement seemed purely defensive. Having the successful Google Maps, why do you want another mapping application that you wouldn’t merge with yours? Perhaps because it is much better than yours in navigation and you don’t want others to have it... Facebook and Apple were also interested in buying it, according to news at the time.
But let's get to the point: why is Waze so good and the other two applications, not as much...? I'll try to give some clues.
"Waze's ability to access information and analysis is unmatched."
It often takes me between 20 and 30 minutes to reach different points in Madrid. In a common test with the three maps mentioned in peak hours, with a lot of traffic, it is common for Waze to indicate to me within 20 minutes, in round numbers; Google maps, 25, and Apple maps, 30. The time difference between Waze and Apple Maps could be 50%.
Waze accomplishes this feat because it has a higher analytical capacity of all possible alternatives to reach great destinations and, also, if it finds better routes during the trip, for possible last minute jams, it corrects the journey and informs you proactively. I’ve seen Apple Maps has recently introduced this functionality.
Waze has access to numerous sources of information in real time that gives that capacity for analysis and one of the main sources are the data that the users contributes manually in the application, since it is a social network in full rule. Waze allows drivers, or companions for greater security, to indicate the following, among other things:
Traffic status in case of jam: moderate, dense, stopped.
If there are accidents: slight, severe, on the other side of the roadway.
Roadway hazards: Can be a standing car, pothole, bad weather, etcetera.
Even if there is a policeman: visible, hidden, on the other side of the roadway.
Waze tells you these warnings with an acoustic alert, so you don’t have to look at the screen. It tells you, for example: "Police visible later". It also informs you of the radars, fixed and mobile, if you go at a speed susceptible to have your picture taken.
Other data that Waze analyzes are those that are ceded to the application by the simple fact of using the application, anonymously. For example, the speed at which a car circulates with respect to that allowed in the area. If on a stretch of 120 km/h, a car is only 20 km/h, or many cars are only at 20 km/h, it’s then obvious that something is wrong. Waze detects it and includes it in its route analysis. Automatically, this area will take longer time to transit due to the traffic jam.
Google and Waze Maps, being owned by the same company, share data. Still, the Google Maps GPS navigation system is not at all accurate as Waze.
"Waze promotes the collaboration of users to provide information."
Waze encourages participation in its social network in many ways. It gives points for informing other drivers, also called wazers, of incidents, while the rest of the drivers can acknowledge the information that appears on the screen. Waze is concerned to inform the wazer that published the incidence of how many drivers acknowledged him for his notice in order to incentivize its use.
Interestingly, in some of my tests using the three maps at the same time, I saw the following: Waze says to me twist to the right, Apple says stay in front. I listened to Waze and then the arrival time at Apple's destination is reduced, even though it did not contemplate that turn to the right. How is this possible? It is one more test of one's ability to analyze and the limitation of the other.
Lately in another occasion, I saved 15-20 minutes still thanks to Waze that suggested me to use an auxiliary road for a few kilometers on the Cordoba-Madrid route, when I was around Madrid. Google and Apple Maps suggested the following: “Join the highway, this isn’t the way...” But Waze insisted to me: “Pay attention to me, continue on the auxiliary”. Of course, I listened to Waze, given that I was driving at a speed of 80-90 km/h, with very few cars. I saw the main road on my left literally stuck, very slow or stopped.
I recently asked several Cabify drivers in Spain and Uber in London why they used Waze. Everyone did and they all made sure that they saved a lot of time in front of Google Maps. One of them in London said that with Waze you could save 10 minutes in half an hour compared to Google Maps. It is not a scientific fact, but for a professional driver, the maps are their daily bread for 10 or 12 hours.
As it is logical, Waze triumphs more where more traffic must be dodged. In Latin America, it has almost 30 million of active users already (100 millionin the world) and just in the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo there are around 4.5 million of wazers, half of the nine million cars that transit in the city. I testify that driving in Sao Paulo at peak times is a nightmare.
"In design, Apple Maps wins; in number of points of interest and information, Google Maps."
If we attend to other particularities of the maps mentioned, to me the best design is Apple Maps: cleaner, simpler and nicer (a matter of taste). In addition, you can walk through cities with the Apple Watch without having to look at the map on the phone or on the watch, because the latter tells you to turn left or right with vibrations on your wrist when you are about to reach the intersection.
Google Maps, however, is by far the most complete by number of points of interest put into the system, so, it’s easier to find them, and has the most complete information schedules, opinions, etcetera. Whereas something isthe most used in the world with great difference, especially when it is also used for walking and transits of public transport, satellite imagery, etcetera. Waze is only for road navigation.
For just over a year, Waze is available in Android Auto, the Google system to use on cars with compatible screen. Almost all new cars now offer Android Auto, in addition to CarPlay, the same Apple system, which was the first with those features, launched in March 2014.
"Waze entry into Apple CarPlay is great news, very much claimed by users. It had been on Android Auto for a year."
What CarPlay didn't have till now was Waze. On June 4, 2018, Apple was very pleasantly surprised with the announcement that Waze and Google Maps will be available on CarPlay with iOS 12, the update of the iPhone operating system that is predictably to be launched at the end of September.
I have been using CarPlay a little more than three years and I have always had a second mobile in the car to have available Waze, since with the CarPlay iPhone is disabled for the rest of applications. With CarPlay, so far you could only use Apple Maps. From now on, the double screen in the car is over. Apple has opened its platform in the car to other maps, something for which I honestly had no hope. It was frustrating. Another day we'll talk about CarPlay and Android Auto. By the way, TomTom’s GPS devices, which were great in their glory years (they saved me for some years in Madrid), passed to a better life.
To finish, I would like to comment on the critical mass of these applications. Both Waze and Google Maps have many users, i.e. a lot of critical mass. This allows them to have access to a huge amount of information and data, so they can better analyze the routes to give the most appropriate to the user. Wherever there is a blockage/traffic jam in the world, there will almost certainly be at least one mobile phone with one of those two applications. Waze is available in more than 180 countries.
"Apple Maps might have a problem in the future of self-contained cars given their low critical mass if compared to Waze’s maps or Google Maps."
The most predictable low use of Apple Maps, and the iOS global market share of 14%, compared to the remaining 86% of Android, makes it very difficult for Apple to have access to a critical mass that is not even close to Android. Regarding this, it’s then added that Waze and Google Maps can be installed in 100% of the smartphones (Android and iOS), while Apple Maps are only available on the iPhones.
Therefore, it seems that Apple Maps lacks critical mass. If we consider 1) the relevance in the near future of the autonomous cars, and so the use of maps and their confidence, and 2) that Apple works intensely secretly in a standalone car software, won't Apple have a "small" problem with the quality of their maps? How can that be solved? I'll leave it there. We'll probably know in three or four years.
Comments