Slashdot Mirror
MSN Virtual Earth to Take on Google
Jim Bruer writes "Microsoft sends news today that founder Bill Gates has announced a MSN Virtual Earth service is to debut in the summer. The service is promised to provide:
*Satellite images with 45-degree-angle views of buildings and neighborhoods
*Satellite images with street map overlays
* Ability to add local data layers, such as showing local businesses or restaurants
The service will allow users to choose from a number of different data types plus allow people to contribute their own information."
and it seems Microsoft are following, if you have to keep measuring yourself up, you have already lost
I prefer the very unhyped way that Google launches its services, when they are ready! It seems that Microsoft marketing allready has caught up with Google Maps, now it's time for the programmers to do their job.
What is more important, bug-free functionality or the launch date?
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
Microsoft could gain an edge over Google Maps by providing global coverage since the beginning. Otherwise I'm not sure the 45-degree images would bring much added value to the service. Google would probably continue to be #1 in this segment with their yet unmatched UI
Like a lot of things in life, it cuts both ways. Just like cyber-stalking.
Back on-topic: last week we had to send someone to a different city, so we printed out a route map using google maps; we left off ALL the satellite data - its too confusing leaving it in. Plain maps are still the easiest to use, even if they aren't "cool".
MSN needs to seamlessly integrate search capabilities within their "Earth" service if they want to compete with Google. 45 degree angles will be, no doubt, very cool and neat to tinker around with. It just won't be truly useful until you can pop in a search term like "Pubs in Baltimore" and come back with locations all over the place.
Moreover, MSN has always had a bloated look and feel. Microsoft will no doubt add the same shiny graphics to it's map service and hinder it's speed. Probably say it's geared towards the internet of tomorrow, when we all have 6 GHz PC's with 4 GB of memory and 10 Mbit internet connections.
OK, that last comment was a bit of a troll, but I just can't seem to think they are going to do anything more impressive than take someone else's ideas and try to make it "MSN shiny." Unless they can compete with the ease of functionality provied by Google's beta service, then they'll fail. Microsoft is a bit late to the party on this one and they have big shoes to fill.
Why would Microsoft do that? It's not their business model. Sure, you may like them to be innovators, but M$'s strength (like it or not) is taking other people's ideas and beating them at their own game - whether through adding more features, integrating it into the OS, or just simply out-marketing them (Win vs. OS/2, anyone?).
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
people re-invent the wheel way too much
Terraserver even has a API for developers (encumbered with MS's usual 15page EULA natch)
imagine how fast computing would evolve it it wasnt stopped by artificial commercial interests slowing development down, make your terms of use fair and you can earn money (from your innovation) and progress, make them too strict (like the terraserver EULA and your product relying on the availability of MS's infrastructure) and people just wont bother investing the time, and as a result everyone (computing in general) stands still or takes twice as long to accomplish the same goals.
If Microsoft thinks Google's a one- hit wonder, why in heaven's name do they keep following them??
Hey, Bill - what you're saying sounds really cool and all... but how about showing us a product you've got now, rather than telling us about the groovy stuff you're gonna have someday?
#DeleteChrome
I think its more interesting how these are released, and how MS is taking a bigger risk.
Google didn't tell anybody. They just added a link to their maps page and said beta. No anouncement, nada. Just a working product, and no expectations.
Microsoft is making an anouncement before they are putting a working product in peoples hands. This may create a lot of expectations, and they will get more critical treatment when bugs are found, if they miss the release date (not MS), etc.
However the MS product turns out. Google will probably end up looking better because they simply released a working service. They didn't hype it up and generate false expectations.
Either way, I think we win as these companies fight one another by making their offerings and products better.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
In fact, M$ has ALWAYS followed. Any other way is too expensive.
They let others bust their balls trying to develop something that survives out there in the market place.
If and when it does, they swoop in, 'integrate' it into their system and steal the market.
Their R&D is not for 'creating new products' but 'how to integrate new options' as there come up.
They are quite content to let others do the innovating and they take the cream of the crop and then produce a knock-off which takes at least three tries 'till it works.
That's how you make money. And the worst part is that is the strategy for maintaining 'world domination.'
Notice how long Longhorn has been in the paddocks?
Microsoft is waiting for a credible threat until they release Longhorn. The threat is not here yet.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
You've never ebayed anything?
I think Google is trying to beat Microsoft using the classic cold war economic strategy.
We used to do a lot of crazy things to make the Russians think our military was bigger and more mobile than it really was. As a result they had to keep spending enormous amounts of money to try to "keep up". They eventually drove their economy into the ground.
Google, gives its workers 20% time to work on personal projects. Some of these go live. Their search cluster basically gives a project unlimited disk and cpu.
When a project goes live, it comes as a surprise. Microsoft, (and others) finds itself caught off guard, and has to work feverishly to make a "better" product before they even have a competing or functioning one.
Since the projects start off as "personal" projects, and considering the number of employees, even corporate espionage can't be very effective, at getting a heads up, because of the noise ratio.
The last part of the strategy is the quiet, surprise releases. No advance anouncements, no press conference or press release. Just a simple link. The media goes crazy because there is a new link on a google page. They get a reputation of producing instead of promising.
The satelite imagery is a great example. They buy a profitable business, Keyhole, and leverage the access to imagery and for a small amount of development effort, integrate it into the mapping service in a very similar way that the mapping service already works. Even though the satelite stuff in maps might lose money, Keyhole is still earning them money. The imagery becomes a value-added feature.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
I know this is a bit offtopic, but I'm curious -- how come Microsoft has to compete with everyone who's making good progress in particular areas? Do they have a team of people who do nothing but read technical articles and news to see what everyone else is doing so they can target them as a potential competetive prospect?
I'm not a Microsoft basher, nor am I a rampant supporter of them. I have an XP machine at home for gaming, and a Mac for pretty much everything else (OSX for the win!).
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
I've been reading all the replies to this, which quite rightly defend Microsoft by noting that they have already had the basic elements of this before.
It made me wonder why it still felt like your comment was valid on an emotional level. Other web sites have, in fact, integrated maps and satellite images - just not nearly as effectively as Google. The effective integration is why we love Google maps.
Well, I realized what the reason was and thought I would share it. Microsoft should do things to catch up with Google; that's capitalism at work. But they go out and brag about them as though they're the first people in the world to do it. If you read Bill Gates' interview in isolation, you'd think he invented these ideas. Google's already implemented them; MS is playing catch-up, but having the nerve to claim that they're innovating by creating something individiual.
I think that creates a perception in the mind of the guy on the street that Microsoft is more innovative than it really is.
It seems especially interesting in comparsion to how Google does product introductions. They slip stuff on their site in the dead of night and rely on people to discover them and spread the word. This works because most people admire Google and are curious.
I don't think that many people are looking at all the cool new things on MSN, so Bill has to talk them up.
D
Which of the below options would you choose:
Option 1 (Microsoft):
*buy* a program, install it on your machine, wait for it to start each time you want to use it, keep the CD around in case you want to re-install it, spend hours talking to customer support about *your problem*, or
Option 2 (Google):
get a free program immediately accessible as a web service?
I'd go for the second one. The price I pay: innocuous advertisements. I can live with that!
The mapping software is a good example of the differences in philosophies between Microsoft and Google. Microsoft has to stick with its desktop model, since that's where all their money is. Google has to stick with the web-service model, since that's where their money (and advantage) is. Based on the above discussion, I'd give Google a better chance of success.