Insight 26: N78, N-Gage and Maps 2.0

The Nokia maps 2.0 pricing structure in the UK is nuts, the 90 day option is actually more expensive than buying 3 x 30 days.
There are now only three options

30 Day - �6.00
90 Day - �19.61
1 Year - �54.92

The 1 Day, 1 Week and 3 year options are no longer available, which tends to make it less worthwhile if you follow Steve's suggestion of buying it when you need to make a journey.

The 1 Year option is totally overpriced, it is actually cheaper to buy the latest Route 66 V8 with UK maps outright than it is to 'rent' Nokia Maps 2.

Ratkat wrote:The Nokia maps 2.0 pricing structure in the UK is nuts

Why do people keep calling it that? Am I missing something?

The software cost me nothing on my phone (E90). I just download and run. It's only a few add-ons (mainly voice guidance) that actually cost money. I wonder if people realise that? ...or is the s/w useless for a lot of people without voice/etc? Drivers, perhaps?

It's at least a little misleading to say, "The Nokia maps 2.0 pricing structure", when it's actually, for the most part, free (IMO).

I find it invaluable as the free version, and can't see any value in having voice guidance. For example, I live in Beijing and recently fell asleep on the bus and when I woke up, I didn't know where I was. I whipped out my E90 and started up Nokia Maps. A short (ok, long) while later, and it showed me exactly where I was and how I should get home. Saved me the cost of a taxi, since I then knew I could walk it.

But along those lines, I see no use for it without voice guidance and tracking.

Without purchasing the walk/drive options, it doesnt really make use of GPS, and it makes quite a thing about using GPS on the blurb about it.

Tbh I dont really think that you can say its largely free, when the only useful function is find out where you are when your lost.

The main use of satellite navigation is to find out how to get somewhere.

But I agree with Ratkat completely about the prices. I'll be testing it, but I wont be using nokia maps no matter how good it is, unless some better subscription options come out.

With things like Route66 and Mcguider having packages that actually cost less than the yearly rental of Maps, and supporting things like speed cameras and custom POI, nokia should do some rethinking.

Mcguider: �53.99 (or around �40 for OEM copy) for Europe.

Route66 V8: �39.95 UK and Ireland.

Nokia maps - one year subscription UK and Ireland only: �54.92.

And with Mcguider and Route66 offering more functionality...its a no brainer.

davidmaxwaterma wrote:Why do people keep calling it that? Am I missing something?

The software cost me nothing on my phone (E90). I just download and run. It's only a few add-ons (mainly voice guidance) that actually cost money. I wonder if people realise that? ...or is the s/w useless for a lot of people without voice/etc? Drivers, perhaps?

It's at least a little misleading to say, "The Nokia maps 2.0 pricing structure", when it's actually, for the most part, free (IMO).

I find it invaluable as the free version, and can't see any value in having voice guidance. For example, I live in Beijing and recently fell asleep on the bus and when I woke up, I didn't know where I was. I whipped out my E90 and started up Nokia Maps. A short (ok, long) while later, and it showed me exactly where I was and how I should get home. Saved me the cost of a taxi, since I then knew I could walk it.

80% of the time you can just ask someone. If your truly within walking distance of home you will either know or someone around you will know especially if your at a train station.

Sat Nav without guidance is pretty useless especially as you cant even google maps style it by plotting a line and following it as they have removed the tracking as you move across the map. Im amazed anyone pays for it full stop.

bartmanekul wrote:But along those lines, I see no use for it without voice guidance and tracking.

Without purchasing the walk/drive options, it doesnt really make use of GPS,

Eh? How do you figure that? I already pointed out one such use. The whole point in GPS is to figure out where you are, and my example makes use of exactly that.

Tbh I dont really think that you can say its largely free, when the only useful function is findout out where you are when your(sic) lost.

I didn't say 'only'; that was just an example, and it's a perfectly valid example.

The main use of satellite navigation is to find out how to get somewhere.

Er, like, for example, home, when you're lost...right...that's all sat-nav is anyway....and though it might be more convenient/safer in some circumstances, you don't *need* voice guidance to make use of that. It doesn't make much difference if you know where you are and where you're going or not.

Another example. As I said, I'm in China. I occasionally travel to various places on the train. I suppose I should research the places better to find out where I am going before hand, but I usually don't (busy with work/etc) and now I don't need to. I can just take out my E90 and find out where I am in China. It's not essential, but it is enlightening, to some degree. It'll even tell me where various restaurants (and police stations) are when I get there. All for free.

I also often use it when I'm in a taxi to make sure they're not taking me in a stupid direction; or to find out when I'm near a 'subway' station.

But I agree with Ratkat completely about the prices. I'll be testing it, but I wont be using nokia maps no matter how good it is, unless some better subscription options come out.

Well, *I* will, but they won't be getting any money from me because it's perfectly useful without the bits that cost money.

If I had a car, *then* I might change my mind, but that doesn't change the fact that it's *very* useful to *many* people as it is.

Unplugged wrote:80% of the time you can just ask someone. If your truly within walking distance of home you will either know or someone around you will know especially if your at a train station.

Unless you're in a foreign country, like China, and don't speak the language (and they usually don't speak English). Funny thing is, a lot of people do travel to foreign countries where they usually don't speak English too well.

Sat Nav without guidance is pretty useless especially as you cant even google maps style it by plotting a line and following it as they have removed the tracking as you move across the map.

Funny...I could have sworn I did that when I did said walk home...perhaps I was using a version that was before they removed it. It showed me exactly where I was the entire trip home - I didn't have to do anything to make it keep updating.

Im amazed anyone pays for it full stop.

I suppose it might have changed from the 2.0 beta version I was using, but I suspect it actually does do what you want. I admit, it *is* a bit tricky to figure it out - and it often takes me a while each time I want to use it for that purpose, but I think it does to what you want. The UI does leave a bit to be desired, for sure - perhaps you need to discover the middle menu?

All it *doesn't* do is voice guidance, and a few other things.

Eh? How do you figure that? I already pointed out one such use. The whole point in GPS is to figure out where you are, and my example makes use of exactly that.

Because of my next comment, it not making much use of the GPS.

Er, like, for example, home, when you're lost...right...that's all sat-nav is anyway....and though it might be more convenient/safer in some circumstances, you don't *need* voice guidance to make use of that. It doesn't make much difference if you know where you are and where you're going or not.

If its for driving, its essential. As you use it for walking, thats fair enough. But satnav is associated with driving, I think you will find most people agree with.

Im not saying its not useful in its free form, but to people like me (and obviously others like Unplugged), its is.

Dont forget that theres lots of free java apps that can find out where you are using the GPS. Some that navigate too, although it requires a data connection.

Nokia maps, weather Nokia likes it or not, is being looked at by most as a satnav package. And as such, it should have tracking of your position, and give directions.

This is what I want and need, and find it redundant otherwise.

So in response, I'll go out on a limb and say its *not* useful to *most* people.

All it *doesn't* do is voice guidance, and a few other things.

Actually, it doesnt do the main thing you expect satnav to do. It doesnt track where you are if you have planned a route. I can plan a route, but whenever I try to zero myself in to my current location, it gets rid of the route.

You can follow yourself on the map, but to me thats useless if I dont know where to go.

To cut an argument short, if you can use it without the need to pay for the extra functions, thats a good thing. But I suspect Im right in saying that most people will have little use for it without the extra paid for functions.

bartmanekul wrote:Because of my next comment, it not making much use of the GPS.

If its for driving, its essential. As you use it for walking, thats fair enough. But satnav is associated with driving, I think you will find most people agree with.

Well, I don't know about that. I bought a GPS system for my day a few years ago and it was designed for hiking.

I agree that it "sat-nav" does not seem to be associated with driving, as you say, but it's clearly changed from something else. I don't think there's anything to stop it from changing again. It's not like they call it 'Nokia Sat-Nav' or anything.

Im not saying its not useful in its free form,

It did seem to me that *that* was exactly what you were saying - looking back you *did* say that, at least in my understanding of what you wrote.

but to people like me (and obviously others like Unplugged), its is.

...and to me and probably the many people for whom it is working just fine (people usually only speak out when something's not how they want it), the 'free' bit is just fine.

Say what you want about the extras, but they are just the extras.

Dont forget that theres lots of free java apps that can find out where you are using the GPS. Some that navigate too, although it requires a data connection.

...and there's one from Nokia too. What's your point?

Nokia maps, weather Nokia likes it or not, is being looked at by most as a satnav package.

I don't know about that. "The most vocal", sure, but what about the people who are happy with it? Do you expect them all to come here and shout that it's working fine, thanks. No, from their point of view, there's nothing to complain about. Of course, they could number zero for all I know - or one, since there's obviously me - but I posit you don't know either.

For example, (IIRC) Steve Litchfield's wife just did a review of Nokia Maps from the point of view of a pedestrian. I think she found it somewhat serviceable (but was able to criticize it).

There's also a 'walk' mode! What use is that for driving?

And as such, it should have tracking of your position, and give directions.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'tracking of your position' and 'give directions'. It can plot a line on the roads from where you are to where you want to go, and update your position as you move along it.

You just have to pay to have it audibly tell you which way to turn (plus some other things).

This is what I want and need, and find it redundant otherwise.

So in response, I'll go out on a limb and say its *not* useful to *most* people.

I'd say you're wrong, but you're at least cutting out a huge population who don't drive. Of course, Nokia Maps runs on any S60 phone, but without GPS, I'd find it much less useful (as it was on my 3250, for example); but with GPS finding it's way into more and more phones at lower and lower price points, I'd say your "*most*" is getting smaller and smaller.

We shall have to differ then, but I shall point out that the pedestrian review was with a paid for option - the walk option - which leaves 'breadcrumbs' for you to follow.

And I bet you money, you ask a number of people what satnav is most asscociated with and the answer will often be driving.

Sure it can change, but IMO this will take time, because of the simple fact walking areas/paths are not mapped (bar a few places in big cities). Im aware of the other uses satnav has, such as hiking (I have view ranger on my phone), air traffic, sailing, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'tracking of your position' and 'give directions'. It can plot a line on the roads from where you are to where you want to go, and update your position as you move along it.

You just have to pay to have it audibly tell you which way to turn (plus some other things).

Wrong, because mine doesnt do that. I have no idea how yours does, if indeed it does. I suspect your just planning a route and leave it onscreen, and since you dont deviate from that your position stays onscreen.

I am active on many many GPS forums, and I can tell you now that many people think the prices are too high. And while Im sure there is some, I havent seen anyone else give the argument you have.

bartmanekul wrote:We shall have to differ then, but I shall point out that the pedestrian review was with a paid for option - the walk option - which leaves 'breadcrumbs' for you to follow.

Ah, indeed. I remember that, though wasn't that where you'd *been* rather than where you were going? - not sure. Anyway, I use it for the same purpose without the breadcrumbs.

The only real problem I have is that it takes so long to lock onto GPS, and that's not the Nokia Maps app's fault, I think.

Oh, and the UI is so difficult - it seems they've deliberately hidden a lot of the route making options.

And I bet you money, you ask a number of people what satnav is most asscociated with and the answer will often be driving.

I think I agreed with you on that...yup :

"I agree that it "sat-nav" does not seem to be associated with driving,"

Oh, I see I inadvertantly added a 'not' there...sorry. Though I think you could probably have worked out that I was agreeing with you from the 'I agree'.

I would give a little 'counter-point' that this app isn't just "sat-nav" (ie for vehicles) and I'd further say that to confine it to that is restricting it unnecessarily, since it has many more uses and these uses are far more useful to owners of mobile phones generally, rather than just those who also drive.

Sure it can change, but IMO this will take time, because of the simple fact walking areas/paths are not mapped (bar a few places in big cities). Im aware of the other uses satnav has, such as hiking (I have view ranger on my phone), air traffic, sailing, etc.

Indeed. Though I *am* in a big city, as are a *lot* of people (most?), so I'm not sure why you would attempt to marginalise use by those people. Also, a lot of people walk along roads since most roads have pathways along side them...that's what I do.

Wrong, because mine doesnt do that.

Well, mine does, as far as I can tell.

I have no idea how yours does, if indeed it does. I suspect your just planning a route and leave it onscreen, and since you dont deviate from that your position stays onscreen.

Well, that *is* what I claimed :

"It can plot a line on the roads from where you are to where you want to go, and update your position as you move along it."

Did you read something else? Which part is different to what you said?

I add my current position to a route, I add my home to a route, and I say 'show route'. Then I proceed to walk along it, and it'll show me my progress and change 'bearing' depending on which direction I'm moving (that's from memory, but I think that's correct).

I could even say 'start driving', and it seems to guide me, though I haven't played with that much...yet.

Ah, I do actually follow the route, so I wouldn't know what it does when I don't. I guess that it might not dynamically update the route, if that's what you mean. Is that what you mean?

And while Im sure there is some, I havent seen anyone else give the argument you have.

Like I said, people who are happy just don't bother complaining - I just happened to wonder why people are complaining about it costing something when it's only the voice guidance that costs money - though perhaps it isn't as simple as that since it may not update the route dynamically.

I also don't see any problem with me being the first to point out to you that the application is useful without voice guidance, and I don't see any problem if, in fact, I'm the only one who thinks so.

The fact remains, I see little, if any, value for a pedestrian in having voice guidance and there are many pedestrians; and so I see that there are many people who can find value in the application as it is, just as I have.

If you want to complain that the voice guidance costs too much/etc/etc, then I have no problem with that.

Even if you say it has no value *to you*; no problem.

Just recognise that it does have value to others, just as it is, and, just maybe, there are more pedestrians who have Nokia phones than drivers who have Nokia phones. If the latter isn't true now, it seems to me that it will be soonish since Nokia is pushing GPS into more and more phones; and so it would seem a good policy for Nokia to consider those people in addition to, or even in preference to, drivers.

Are you sure you're not missing the menu on the middle button?

I think your missing my point entirely.

Im not saying it hasnt got any value as it is. I realise it does, and I can think of a number of situations where it would be useful.

Thing is, you attacked Ratkat for saying that the pricing structure is wrong.

When in fact hes entirely right, albiet a function of maps you dont need, its still the pricing structure. Navigating is the main feature of Maps.

"It can plot a line on the roads from where you are to where you want to go, and update your position as you move along it."

Did you read something else? Which part is different to what you said?

I add my current position to a route, I add my home to a route, and I say 'show route'. Then I proceed to walk along it, and it'll show me my progress and change 'bearing' depending on which direction I'm moving (that's from memory, but I think that's correct).

I dont think your using it as intended. Hence thats why theres a walk payment option.

The method you describe is just a route plan with your location on it. While it works for you, the downfalls are:

It doesnt give you any sort of directions other than the line on the screen.

It will not recalculate the route if you go off it.

It doesnt track you, i.e. you either have to be zoomed out to see the whole route, or you have to manually follow your location.

And yes, Im well aware of the middle button 🙄

If I choose anything other than 'Add to route', I go to payment options.

Effectively, your saying that its useful as is, although your using an easy get around to use something your meant to be paying for. If Nokia realise this and decide to lock it down somehow (maybe by not having a route planned onscreen and showing your current location at the same time) then it wont be that useful for much longer.

Its possible Nokia wanted people to use it in the way you do, but I very much doubt it.

Otherwise it wouldnt be such a pain to impliment, and there wouldnt be a payment option for walking.

bartmanekul wrote:I think your missing my point entirely.

Im not saying it hasnt got any value as it is. I realise it does, and I can think of a number of situations where it would be useful.

Ok...though I think somewhat did claim exactly that. Oh, it was you :

"But along those lines, I see no use for it without voice guidance and tracking."

I guess you've changed your mind, which is fair enough.

Thing is, you attacked Ratkat for saying that the pricing structure is wrong.

Well, I think "attacked" is a bit strong. I simply asked why "people" call it the "Nokia Maps 2.0 pricing structure", when it's just the pricing structure of one of the options for Nokia Maps 2.0. Note I used "people". I used it deliberately because I've heard others say this too (I think it keeps coming up in the AAS podcast, though I've heard, I think, Steve make comments along the lines I'm making).

When in fact hes entirely right, albiet a function of maps you dont need, its still the pricing structure. Navigating is the main feature of Maps.

...and my point is that navigating is entirely possible without paying for anything extra.

I don't think it's correct to say that "Nokia Maps 2.0" has a pricing structure. I would instead say that it's "extras" have a pricing structure (maybe they have a pricing structure each, I don't know).

I guess this is somewhat semantics, but it's possibly not. You could argue that a price list might be written entitled "Nokia Maps 2.0" and at the top is the app with 'free' next to it, then the extras below that have their appropriate cost. However, I don't think that's accurate either, since it is *specifically* the extras that have any kind of structure.

In any case, it *is* misleading to say that "Nokia Maps 2.0" costs any money, because it is free - not that anyone was saying that explicitly.

I dont think your(sic) using it as intended. Hence thats why theres a walk payment option.

I think you're wrong. The walk payment option gives additional functionality.

Though I guess Nokia might well "intend" me to pay for something.

The method you describe is just a route plan with your location on it. While it works for you, the downfalls are:

It doesnt give you any sort of directions other than the line on the screen.

It will not recalculate the route if you go off it.

It doesnt track you, i.e. you either have to be zoomed out to see the whole route, or you have to manually follow your location.

And yes, Im well aware of the middle button 🙄

Well, that's not condescending at all !😎

I can't counter your points because I would have to go outside to try those specific situations. All I know is that it "works for me".

Actually, I just selected a point on the map, and selected "Walk to", and it takes me back to the main map, and I get a little arrow pointing to the left with '0m' right by it. Seems to me that it's giving me directions...(counters your first point).

I can quite believe the others, from my experience using it, though I'd have to try to be sure.

I can't help but wonder if it "tracks you" by your definition, if you buy the voice guidance option.

[QUOTE]If I choose anything other than 'Add to route', I go to payment options./QUOTE]

I select "walk to" and it doesn't go to "payment options". I select "drive to" and it doesn't go to "payment options" either. The only time I get anything to do with money is when I select things in "Extras".

Are we using the same application?

Actually, I have to thank both you (and Unplugged? - I lose track), since you've caused me to try more options and I find it can do even more than I thought. I can't believe anyone thinks Nokia Maps 2.0 is useless. It's an amazing application to get for free.

The fact remains, Nokia Maps 2.0 is free and has plenty of value apart from the "extras".

I think your twisting it into an argument, theres no need.

I guess you've changed your mind, which is fair enough.

I can see uses for it, for other people (like you), but for me there isnt any.

...and my point is that navigating is entirely possible without paying for anything extra.

Ah, now thats a sore point, because I dont really count that as navigating, though you do.

In any case, it *is* misleading to say that "Nokia Maps 2.0" costs any money, because it is free - not that anyone was saying that explicitly.

While it is free, you could also be right in saying it costs to use. Navigation is the main aim, and that costs, subject the the opinion above.

I select "walk to" and it doesn't go to "payment options". I select "drive to" and it doesn't go to "payment options" either. The only time I get anything to do with money is when I select things in "Extras".

Are we using the same application?

Unless your using something other than nokia maps 2, no.

I am wondering however if you have one of the free trials.

The fact remains, Nokia Maps 2.0 is free and has plenty of value apart from the "extras".

And we can put this argument to rest, since thats where the opinion differs. I think that navigation is more than just an extra, its essential in any use I have for that application, and you otherwise.

Its not a fact, when its just your opinion.

I use it while walking or travelling by public transport and when I'm planning journeys.

I find a place to pull over, stop my bike and use it to confirm that I haven't gone the wrong way.

I think that voice guidance is worth paying for if one drives, but I get a lot of use out of the free parts of the program even so.

It's like having a map of several countries that fits in your pocket. It's one of the most comforting things to have with you when you're travelling on business or on holidays, whether walking or not because you know you can't get truly lost.

It's even useful with non-GPS phones.

The best thing is being able to preload the maps. Without this it would be utterly useless to me.

I'm amazed at just how much flak Nokia are getting for Maps. I personally think it's a great app, with just the right amount of functionality for a "free" app. Let's face it, how many free navigation apps are there out there? Apart from Google maps, I guess none.

Let's face it, if you don't like Nokia Maps, it's quite simple; DON'T use it!! No-one's forcing you to. Buy something else.

I'll be honest, I haven't paid for any subscription from Nokia, and I don't intend to; I have a Mio 520 in my car which is probably a far better sat nav than any phone could ever be. So I can't comment on how good or bad the voice instructions are, or how reasonable the prices are. But as someone said, you can buy a full version of R66 for the same price as a years subscription. If that's the case, then it's a pretty straightforward choice I would imagine.

But for a free app, I think Nokia Maps is fantastic...

Im just listening to the insight (couldnt before).

I dont disagree with the model itself, I think its good. My gripe is that they have the prices and options wrong.

I do not think it should be free at all (sorry Stefan), this leads to no development or improvement for the application. After all, mapping costs a lot of money, especially when you take into account what they paid for Navteq. Was that really billion, or was it meant to be million?

The points in the insight are the same ones I have made before, namely that its very good for casual users, most people do not need full time satnav.

But it was also mentioned (again, what I have said before), that its really not going to entice the hardcore bunch who want longer subscriptions periods, i.e. better value.

And agreement that �50 odd a year is far too much.

But I must say once again, that since its a subscription service, why on earth get rid of the 1 day/week options?

Im sure the 1 day option would be very useful to so many people. And nokia would surely not lose money on it if they set it to 50p/�1 for a day.

On the pricing structure, I think the important factor here is that it's an online service so Nokia has complete freedom to experiment with all kinds of prices and deals. If something doesn't work they can change it fairly easily.

especially when you take into account what they paid for Navteq. Was that really billion, or was it meant to be million?

Billion. Six billion euros I think it was.

Maps do indeed cost a lot of money not just to make but maintain.

Apparently the aerial/satellite photos cost a fortune to obtain as well.

Maps 2.0. NO ADDRESS BOOK INTEGRATION ???
Why oh why did I fill all those address fields?

Use case 1. Open an Address Book, find an entry, use "Show on map" in the context menu.

Use case 2. Browse the Maps, notice your Address[ed] Book entries on the map. Optionally select, Voice Call/SMS to.

Sergey Zak wrote:Maps 2.0. NO ADDRESS BOOK INTEGRATION ???
Why oh why did I fill all those address fields?

Something else I didnt notice.

It really is lacking in a fair bit of functionality compared to the big players.

Even more reason for nokia to either lower the pricing, or improve maps.

And 6 billion, ouch. Although am I right in thinking they get paid by garmin, copilot etc for use of their maps? Because those 2 I know use Navteq maps.

There is contacts intergration from inside Maps 2.0

Goto 'Options/Search/Address/Options/Select from Contacts'

Like a many functions on Nokia Maps 2.0 it is quite hidden away.

Your right, but thats a very very odd way of going about it. Why they didnt put contacts search in the main search menu puzzles me.

I did try to use a contact, and maps just quit on me with no errors. Same after a reboot.

Imo, maps is not out of beta phase, and looks to be worth the extra charges less each day.