When it comes to navigation apps, the people best qualified to judge their performance are not government officials or developers, but the drivers who rely on them every day.
After all, navigation apps are not designed to look impressive or serve as symbols of national pride. Drivers need accurate directions at the right time to reach their destinations safely.
As the government encourages Malaysians to switch from Waze to locally developed navigation app TUJU, the product has suddenly found itself in the national spotlight.
But one important question remains: is an app whose basic navigation experience has yet to win over users ready to challenge Waze?
A test published by Malaysian technology news outlet SoyaCincau on October 22 highlighted several shortcomings in TUJU’s navigation performance, particularly on complex roads.
In one instance, the app reportedly instructed drivers to continue straight when they needed to keep left to enter the correct exit, failing to provide sufficiently clear lane guidance.
The test also found unusual codes appearing in some navigation instructions, making them difficult for drivers to understand.
These are not merely cosmetic flaws or problems with an unattractive interface.
Missing an exit on a highway can force drivers to travel a considerable distance before finding their way back. Worse, unclear instructions could encourage drivers to look down at their phones repeatedly, potentially increasing distractions behind the wheel.
User feedback has raised further concerns. Some drivers have complained that the map flickers while the vehicle is moving, while others have reported slow location updates and difficulties searching for destinations.
As of October 22, TUJU had an average rating of just 2.6 stars on Malaysia’s Apple App Store, based on around 100 ratings. While this relatively small sample cannot represent the views of all Malaysian drivers, the feedback raises questions about the app’s usability.
Another significant limitation is that TUJU does not yet officially support navigation through Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.
Many modern vehicles feature built-in infotainment displays, allowing drivers to follow directions without relying on a phone mounted on the dashboard. For an app aspiring to compete with Waze, the lack of these integrations is a notable disadvantage.
Of course, highlighting TUJU’s shortcomings does not mean dismissing its potential.
The app offers useful highway-related information, including toll rates, rest-stop facilities, traffic camera feeds and emergency assistance features. These services could benefit motorists who regularly travel long distances and need information about highway conditions.
However, providing extensive highway information is not the same as delivering reliable navigation.
Knowing how much a toll costs or whether a rest stop has a petrol station is useful. Accurately directing a driver into the correct lane before an exit is an entirely different challenge.
TUJU may have value as a source of integrated highway information, but that alone does not establish that it is ready to replace Waze.
Data Security Concerns Need Evidence, Not Assumptions
Data privacy is another issue that deserves closer scrutiny.
One argument behind the government’s push for TUJU is concern over Waze’s foreign ownership, overseas legal jurisdictions and the security of users’ travel data. Protecting location information and driving records is a legitimate concern.
However, data security should not be judged solely by where an app originates.
Publicly available information indicates that TUJU also collects location data and requires users to log in to access its navigation features. As a locally developed product, it should therefore be equally transparent about how information is stored, who can access it, whether it is shared with third parties and how users can manage their data.
A Malaysian-made app is not automatically secure simply because it is local. Likewise, a foreign app should not be presumed to misuse personal information solely because of its country of origin.
The meaningful comparison lies in transparency, technical safeguards and effective regulatory oversight, rather than a simple distinction between local and foreign products.
Let Drivers Decide Through Real-World Testing
If TUJU is to be fairly assessed against Waze, both apps should be tested on the same routes, at similar times and under comparable traffic conditions.
The comparison should examine route accuracy, estimated arrival times, the ability to reroute after sudden road closures and performance when mobile network coverage is weak.
The question of whether TUJU can replace Waze should not be settled by government policy alone.
The government has every reason to encourage local technology and support Malaysian developers. But drivers should not be expected to bear the burden of testing an unfinished product at the expense of their convenience or safety.
There is nothing wrong with wanting Malaysia to have its own navigation app, and TUJU deserves the opportunity to improve.
But supporting local innovation and accepting inadequate performance are two entirely different things.
A navigation app’s most important job is not to win applause or fulfil a national agenda. It is to get drivers where they need to go, safely and accurately.
Until TUJU can consistently deliver on that basic promise, no amount of official endorsement is likely to convince every motorist to switch.
Malaysian technology deserves support, but drivers should never be expected to lower their standards for product quality and road safety simply because an app is made locally.
