You read the title. One of my friend Ahmad Babar just spotted this on Google Maps — an Android bot pissing over at the Apple logo. You can usually find similar things over at a hate-Apple sticker shop or on YouTube where people use it as a thumbnail to boost their youtube views, but looks very surprising Google would let something like this go online over at Google Maps for everyone to see. This probably could be some kind of a joke by Google — but I think we are way past the April Fool’s Day now.

It’s right there on Google Maps. You can check it out here! Attached below is a screenshot of what you will find near by Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

android-pissing-apple-google-maps

This is not just on the desktop version of Google Maps. Here is a screenshot from the Android app:

android-pissing-apple-gmaps-android

And it actually goes away when switched to the “Satellite view”.

And now we have a new update. The following message was found by one of our readers “Carlos Fernandes” – Thank you!

Google-Review-Policy-Google-Maps

There seems to be a big Skype logo around “Lahore, Pakistan” as well.

Skype-logo-Lahore-Google-Maps

May be someone at Google/Android was really pissed at Apple for something?

Thanks Ahmad Babar!

Author

He lives on everything Android; has countless devices, apps and games to play with everyday. Currently serving as the Chief Editor at Team Android.

49 Comments

  1. Grammaritarian Reply

    I know English is not your first language, but this article was written terribly. If you’re going to blog in English at least try not to sound like a 5 year old

  2. Carlos Fernandes Reply

    Also there is a message nearby -https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Takht+Pari+Forest/@33.5008728,73.1259811,17z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x38dff298d82d62c9:0xdd99b92ec4539b33

  3. Vandalism like this is one of the reasons why we can’t have nice things. Google maps is a resource that the whole world can use. If it gets too infested with graffiti no one will trust it anymore and it will become like wikipedia.

    • Wikipedia has this lovely thing called “Citations” which provide reference to the claims found within the article.

      • Except even The Guardian is now publishing outright lies, they’re considered a trustworthy source.

        • Since when was The Guardian a reputable news source? Fact checking is a foreign concept to them. Wikipedia is heavily peer reviewed, if you have found something you believe is definitely incorrect then correct it and source your facts. If you think something is wrong or biased, make a post on the talk page with your concerns.

          It only gets more accurate the more people contribute and add references.

      • So the “citation needed” tag is not needed then? Or how about the millions of articles which haven’t yet had “citation needed” tags added? Articles about Aborigene gods which don’t exist? Articles claiming some celebrity has died when they are still alive? Articles claiming mice live in elephants, feet (that one wasn’t tagged “citation needed” for 5 years)?

    • You shouldn’t just “trust” any one source of information anyway. Check things for yourself.

      • It seems you don’t really understand how “citations” and “references” work. If an article has valid references supporting it, then you should probably trust it.

        • I understand citations perfectly, thanks. If the citation isn’t from a credible source, it’s no better than having no source at all. That’s why you look into it instead of saying, “well there’s sources, better believe it outright!”

          • Jaochoui

            Actually, I don’t think Taj actually disagrees with you. What he only mentioned was that people to check that the sources are valid references in the first place.

      • So when I want to find a bank in town, you suggest I open Google maps and bing and openstreetmap to see if all three concur?

        • Could you come up with a more absurd straw man than that? Obviously the amount of trust you place in a source of information should scale accordingly with the consequence of being incorrect.

          • Firstly, it wasn’t a strawman. Look up the definition of strawman.

            Secondly, what does your statement have to do with what I said? I really see no connection.

          • I’m talking about cross referencing data on the internet that you can’t validate for yourself. You’re talking about going to a bank down the street.. As soon as you get to the address, you’ll know if the directions were correct or not if the bank is there, no need to check other sources. Obviously nobody would check three sources to find a local bank, that’s why what you said is a strawman argument intended to make my point look ridiculous. I’m not going to connect the dots for you just to feed your superiority complex since all of your other comments are similarly condescending to people.

          • Actually in this case I got bit by someone feeding wrong information into google maps when I was looking for a bank recently. I ended up wasting about half an hour.

    • It seems you don’t have very much idea about how Wikipedia works.

      • The problem is this example:
        Publication A (A wikipedia trusted source) publishes a slanted/incorrect/wrong/harmful/libelous article.

        Wikipedia then CITES that article with an equally slanted, incorrect, wrong or otherwise harmful write up of the situation around which Publication A posted their article.

        Other sources, B,C,D,E,F and G then use Publication A as a source.

        Wikipedia then uses the other sources to solidify wrong, harmful and untrue information.

        Its a vicious cycle that is inherently flawed.

        • You make this claim as if it happens on a regular basis, which you haven’t proven. Nature did a study where they found that Wikipedia is no less accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica.

          The great thing about Wikipedia is that you have handy documentation of all of their sources. If you find what you say, you can easily change it.

      • Like that story about mice living in elephants’ feet, which was part of the wikipedia article on elephants for about 5 years?

  4. “Map Marker” is a tool that enables community to edited google maps. When you edit, it is reviewed typically by a senior member in that locality. So this honor goes to both the user who edited it and the one who approved it. Yes, that’s what we as a Pakistani are best at. We abuse the services and then complain we’re ignored by the tech giants. A lot of features from google are kept away from Pakistan due to the “Incredible Misuse” by the people.

    • Very insightful, I didn’t realize that it was that big of a problem for Pakistan.

    • Exactly my thoughts. Instead of finding this funny, we should look at the real issue – this is vandalism and misuse of a service.

      • In fairness… sometimes that’s what people need. A “kick in the pants” if you will. Remember a project that had a huge vulnerability, management was like “nah it’s fine.” So they got rickrolled during a meeting and then suddenly it was taken seriously.

    • >A lot of features from google are kept away from Pakistan due to the “Incredible Misuse” by the people.

      Any examples?

      • Example is, android developer merchant account, it wasn’t allowed until November 2014, despite Pakistan being one of the largest developer community. Whereas India was given this facility in Oct, 2012. The reason was, Pakistani banking frauds. You can still go check FBI most wanted list of cyber crimes. You won’t be disappointed.

    • I can’t fathom who in their right mind would want to look like an ubertool with such a sticker.

  5. Android -see u next time somewhere on Google maps— play hide and seek ….you can piss on Kardashian’s house on Google …

  6. Chris Okoye Reply

    Calm Down Sheeple!! Let’s not blow this out of proportion.
    Let’s enjoy this for what it is. This definitely made my day.
    People on that clearly have some good sense of humor.

    • Why would someone get fired? I don’t think you realize that anyone can update Google maps. It’s just like Wikipedia. This is just vandalism from some bored teenager in Islamabad that happened to go viral before the moderators got to it.

    • Idiot. It wasn’t Google that did this. Did you even read the other comments?

  7. This is either a joke or its all been patched. …more likely the former.

Write A Comment