Saturday, Jul 06, 2024 at 07:26
This "comparison" of versons map options is full of outdated or untrue statements.
https://www.exploroz.com/navigation/outback-gps-maps.aspx
For instance, the comments on Memory Map for All are just inaccurate and largely specuation from someone who clearly hasnt used it. This misrepresentation can have a significant impact and should be corrected.
For example
"no access to good Australian maps such as
EOTopo "is not true
"The company recently launched a new app called Memory Maps for All, but there has been very slow sales and uptake." At half of MM's sales ( over 10,000 ) , how would you describe
EOTopo's sales ( 5,000) ?
"Those who have tried it comment that the flaws are that it is too complicated to use. " On the contrary, people who use it rave about the user interface. It's simple and intuitive, more simple than competitors.
"You may hear recommendations to buy Hema maps to use in the Memory Map for All app but think about it - this means going back to support a company that has let down their customers and is patching one problem with another" that is completely untrue. In 15 years, I have never experienced the loss of tracks or crashes. A far cry from other mapping apps. That is a doozie.
I have no skin in the game for MMFA or EO Topo or Hema. I personally find MM much more reliable and easy to use with accurate maps. Reviews of other mapping systems look similarly biased. Though I have experienced many issues with Hema, to be fair.
My issue is that this article pretends to be independent when it's anything but. The whole page should be more truthful and rewritten independently or removed.
FollowupID:
926612