I understand the experience may not be ideal (I haven't tried it out yet, either), but take a moment to reflect on what they actually did: in a little over a year Apple completely replaced one of iOS's core technologies, one that relies on a mind-bogglingly complex and astoundingly huge data set, and is now pushing this out to millions of devices.
Most of us know what it is like to have to launch something. Launching something is never easy. We frequently talk about the MVP here on HN as well. Apple has done the difficult work of launching their MVP. Now they can make it better. It may never be as good as Google Maps, but that doesn't mean it will always be terrible.
And what's the point if it's a downgrade for users? To prove they are "awesome"? Nobody said it's easy to launch, we never doubted that.
We are simply stating a fact - that iOS6 feels handicapped if you're going to rely on maps. And maybe this is a non-issue in the USA, but for most of the rest of the world… it is. Specially for those of us who rely on google map's transport directions to navigate our city, or new cities. Gone were the days that I needed help to get to a designated location in a city I was visiting… until iOS6 came. So I'm not upgrading.
And we're not going to care how awesome Apple is for distributing a useless upgrade to millions of devices, no matter how complicated the logistics, no matter how much of a point they can prove with it.
The people claiming "licensing problems" (you included) have not presented an argument that, to me, holds water.
Consider:
-Google almost certainly knows Apple wants to get off of Google Maps.
-Apple's brand loyalty is going to give Apple a decent amount of time to fix their new Maps product before a significant number of people begin to bail. Relatively few people are likely to not buy an iPhone because Maps are crap; even in this thread you see a few fanboys saying "just find a workaround, they'll fix it."
-Google likes money.
To me, it seems pretty implausible that Google would say "no, you have to do [stupid thing X] to use our maps." I'd be stunned if they didn't know Apple was making their own maps product, and that Apple would be willing to say "okay, fine, we'll use ours instead" if Google's terms were too onerous. I think the idea that Google would turn down a sizable amount of money to not-really-actually-harm iOS6 and the iPhone 5 at all.
Consider also Apple's recent behavior--basically, and I hate saying this because it strikes me as facile, but it does line up--since Jobs died. The hasty and ill-conceived layoffs at Apple Stores, the prodigious number of leaks related to the iPhone 5, and the more traditionally corporate behaviors of Apple's upper management (i.e., Cook and the shareholders' meetings, which he seems to regard as being much more important to his job than Jobs ever did) all point to a more market-share-focused rather than product-focused company, and I have no trouble whatsoever believing that Apple decided that they wouldn't lose enough users because of a terrifyingly bad Maps product that they should pay Google for continued use.
And I think most reasonable people would concede that's no less likely than "licensing problems". It may not be accurate, but your claim of "more likely" reads as fanboyism to me.
Do you have any proof of licensing problems? Most people say it was Apple which wanted to have more control over one of fundamental features of a phone, which is perfectly reasonable from a business point of view.
Then they shouldn't sell it as an improvement - "oh look now we have shiny vector maps! better than ever before!". This is just a lie and misleading / deceptive.
Whatever length of time it is Apple still did it in a fraction of the time Google has been working on its maps.
Also maybe I live in a weird place (Minneapolis) but I've been using the new maps since WWDC everyday and honestly have no complaints, the turn by turn is quite good as I just used it non stop in New Orleans.
Apple took data from 3rd parties (Yelp, TomTom, and many others) and integrated it all together with their own Maps app.
Google has a lot more features than Apple right now, and a large part of their data is sourced from their own works. Streetview gives them good road data. Local gives them all the data that yelp has (and then some).
Apple's Maps is probably where goole was with maps back in 2007 or 2008.
Are you saying Google doesn't use 3rd party data? Because that would be completely false. Look at the copyright notice in the bottom corner of Google Maps for anywhere outside the US/Canada/UK - around my city the data comes from WhereIs, Sensis, Tele Atlas and GBRMPA as well as Google. Other countries have data from AutoNavi, MapKing, SK M&C, ZENRIN, GISrael, INEGI, and many others.
The logic behind creating an MVP doesn't really make sense when the market for the product isn't competitive.
Apple didn't offer their mapping solution as an option in the App Store to judge interest; they forced anyone who buys new or upgrades for any reason to use it.
For something so critical as maps on a smartphone, Apple should have released the new maps alongside the old ones, and given users the option; let the early adopters iron out the bugs. Needless complexity is not the Apple way, but I don't see a choice in this case; the feature is too critical to compromise on.
This is not an MVP of some new SaaS. This is maps on a smartphone; perhaps the most important feature of a smartphone other than the dialer. To do this so jarringly to your users is inexcusable.
Most of us know what it is like to have to launch something. Launching something is never easy. We frequently talk about the MVP here on HN as well. Apple has done the difficult work of launching their MVP. Now they can make it better. It may never be as good as Google Maps, but that doesn't mean it will always be terrible.