Microsoft and Google Fighting for the Skies

Robert writes "Today's SF Chronicle has an article about Microsoft and Google's new battle for the skies. Both companies now have similar products that combine maps and satellite photos. Roads and driving directions can be superimposed on imagery on both products." From the article: "Google and Microsoft are engaged in a major battle over Internet users. Each has unveiled a series of features designed to keep users loyal and grab a bigger share of the lucrative search-engine market. Yahoo, in Sunnyvale, also is a major competitor, though its executives have yet to express any interest in aerial images. Amazon.com offers street- level photographs of businesses through its A9.com search engine. "

Comments

it just doesn't seem like them

[sweeney37]

I'm absolutely shocked by the way Microsoft took someone else's idea and co-opted it to be their own. just shocked.

Mike

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Google was much more innovative when it invented driving directions and maps on the web. Go go google sarcasm!

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they both co-opted it from Earthwiki

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[MushMouth]

this page was active in January of 1999, maybe google should stop copying other peoples ideas.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[ppatrice]

They have always done that! For example they took the Mac OS interface to design the first Windows version.

I'm sure when IE7 is out, they'll say they invented tab browsing !!

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[MushMouth]

Slashdot uses adwords so google probably pays for almost all of it.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[cazbar]

I can see the Microsoft patent attempt coming now...

Method for showing simulated cheese when zoomed in on maps of the moon.

Sorry Google, your creations are our property.

(click here and zoom in if I lost you)

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[ganesh129]

that page may have been active, then, but the way google goes about displaying their maps, and allows dragging in the web browser is completly different than how microsoft did it on their terraserver shit.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[cazbar]

I'll agree Microsoft Terraserver has been around a lot longer than Google. But to my knowledge Terraserver doesn't currently have the ability to put roadmaps right on top of the photos. That is where Google has innovated.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[MindStalker]

Terra Server was slow and difficult to use. What google really innovated was the sliding tile system that was a true stroke of genius. Microsoft totally ripped it off. And personally I don't blame them it is a good idea, and not patented.. amazingly.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Evro]

Microsoft's had TerraServer for years... I think before I'd ever heard of Google.

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are your MSFT Dividends sir.....

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[donutello]

Well, to be fair, you would have to note that MSN put roadmaps right on top of the photos within days of Google launching this feature so it's extremely unlikely that they copied it (not enough time) and more likely that they were planning this all along and were just a little late to the party.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[umeshunni]

FWIW, Google didn't build Google maps or Google earth. NEITHER were invented by google. Both were acquisitions (WhereTo and Keyhole respectively.
Interesting to note a lot of the hypocrisy related to innovation vs acquisition over the last few days. It seems that when Microsoft acquires a company or technology, it is labeled as playing catch up. When Google acquires a company (or 2 in this case) they are widely credited as innovators.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because NOBODY ever had online maps before Google Maps came along. Puh-leeeeez!

You might as well expect Ford to sue Toyota because they sell a similar product. Competition is GOOD for consumers, you know.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's TerraServer has always been pretty useless. Then, and now But the sheer kick-assedness of Google Earth is indisputable.

Zooming from planet level to street. Google pwns Microsoft here.

Not to mention Google Moon. Holy Living Fuck. Google Maps Moon. Jesus Christ In a Chicken Basket. Repeat. The Fucking Moon. Mapped. By Google.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Google takes companies of whom no one had heard and turns their products into highly popular and extremely easy to use tools. Microsoft buys companies to make the most baseline of functionality available in the shipping Windows product and leave the APIs for software companies to use to make better software for people to buy.

Unfortunately Microsoft isn't very good at this. They abuse their monopoly power in a few ways in this instance to the detriment of pretty much everyone but Microsoft. Their policy seems to be to include the bare minimum only to prevent people from spending money on something else. They subsequently can increase the cost of Windows down the line.

This is where it gets sneakier. Microsoft won't jack the price of Windows up on you or me. They'll jack it up on their partners and volume license customers, maybe by a few cents. The end result is no one ever notices Microsoft lined their coffers with pennies because no one ever notices pennies are missing. That money definitely is missing, though, and does not get spent on competing software.

This'd be no big deal if Microsoft commanded 20% of the market. Someone could always say "Oh well, let's move to the competition." There IS no desktop competition for Windows.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, what's wrong with copying other peoples ideas?
It's good for the users, no matter if the idea is copied or not...

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[entrylevel]

Google Moon

The detail is amazing! If you zoom all the way in, you can actually see what the moon is made of!

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[corky842]

The moon map is cool, but if you zoom out all the way, you'll see that it's just a small section that's been mapped.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

You care correct. MS had this feature a while back. If you watch a video from http://channel9.msdn.com/ from several weeks ago they hightlight this feature.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[hidispenser]

It seems that when Microsoft acquires a company or technology, it is labeled as playing catch up. When Google acquires a company (or 2 in this case) they are widely credited as innovators.

The real innovation is that Google offers their technologies free of charge.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[mctanis]

It's not how many companies you acquire, but what you do with them!

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

I always root for the underdogs.
no one likes to watch Goliath beat david.
Plus I have found that google is company that is very much more cordial to its end users. Microsoft has been so hyper-competitive to the point that they have run out of end user good will.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[pilkul]

Did you try using Keyhole's app before Google bought them out? I did. The interface sucked ass. It was a bloated program you had to install on your computer more concerned with showing flashy zooms than making it easy to find stuff. Google took their technology and made something useful out of it.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Anonymous Coward]

"The real innovation is that Google offers their technologies free of charge."

Uh? The only thing that Terraserver has EVER charged for is the prints. I really am not even sure if they offer them anymore, I'm too lazy to go look.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[Charles Jo]

Not necessarily late to the party. MS might have been smart in keeping it quiet until Google came out so with MS introducing theirs, MS gets free PR.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them

[sapientissimus]

First, I was under the impression that hypocrisy was the criticism of others for one's own faults, not the preferential treatment of a certain company; I guess I was wrong - or do you suspect that someone here is somehow affiliated with Google? Second, this isn't a case of bias, or even prejudice - we just like to make fun of Microsoft.

Canada

[gregmac]

Too bad MSN doesn't work in Canada at all, while Google works great. I do find it kind of funny that "Virtual Earth" is USA-only.. ;)

That said, MSN has hi-res images of my cottage (which is right on the border, and only JUST made it in) while Google only has low-res images of that area.

Re:Canada

[kuchin]

Yep, VirtualEarth has better image quality for USA right now. Although I'm waiting until both companies will add other countries as well - especially UK and Israel. UK is already viewable thru Google Maps, but not all areas (I think London only in HiRes). Good thing is, in maximum 1 year we will have all the world mapped and served :)

Re:Canada

[linzeal]

Can you see the pot patch as well? I wonder how many of those low res images on the area where I live in Humboldt, Ca record in some measure however small the location of things that people aren't even typically looking for on them.

Re:Canada

[toad3k]

You know what I really want? I want google ads to be extended to the maps. I want to go to my hometown, and see an icon of all the subways, mcdonalds, bars, laundromats, etc, with a few clicks.

I trust google to make it affordable enough for companies that the map has enuf info to make it a feature worth using. Maybe starting out near free to drum up interest.

Re:Canada

[FlyingCheese]

You know what I'd want? I want a nifty site to explore the world without the clutter of ads covering my view.

Re:Canada

[spideyct]

But we heard this joke before. They call it Virtual Earth, but right now most of their maps are only for the USA. We saw the exact same complaints when Google unveiled their product.
Do you honestly - honestly - think it will stay that way? Or is it possible - possible? - that they will incrementally update the site with more data as they get to it?

Re:Canada

[SilentSheep]

With MSN i couldn't even zoom in on a view in England, is this a bug, or do they just not have the imagery?

Funny,

[Pxtl]

Doesn't everybody still just use MapQuest? google maps only gets used when I need an actual map - but I still stick to MapQuest for directions.

Re:Funny,

[natron 2.0]

I still use MapQuest, simply because Google Maps has a bad habit of not being entirely accurate with addresses and directions

Re:Funny,

[borawjm]

I prefer to use google maps simply becuase I can scroll through the map easily without having to wait for the page to reload. It gives me a better perspective, IMO.

Re:Funny,

[jahudabudy]

I use Rand-McNally, MapQuest has (literally) run me in circles too many times before.

Re:Funny,

[Prophet of Nixon]

I've hated mapquest for years, their maps are small, nasty, and slow to scroll about. I'd rather look at a roadmap and pick a path than use them. In that regard, google maps (or this new MSN map thingy) are extremely nice, since I can figure out where to go, and switch to satellite at turns to pick out landmarks.

The MSN one does have some impressive, albeit colorless, images. Google should try and get their sources to fill in the low-res areas in their maps (which I think have higher quality where they are high-res).

Re:Funny,

[nb caffeine]

Agreed. I use a combination of google, for general directions (oh, the atlantic ocean is EAST of here, gotcha), and a trusty ol road atlas for my in-car driving directions. That reminds me, I'm going on vacation next week, better dig out the dead tree with roads painted on it.

Re:Funny,

[Red Flayer]

I use google maps because of the ease of switching to satellite view. No routing software (umm, paved-roadway-route-establishing) software will be always accurate or even understandable, so being able to zoom in on intersections to look for identifying landmarks really helps for me.

This also means that up-to-date images are much, much more useful to me... so I'll stick with google maps for now.

Re:Funny,

[TripMaster Monkey]

You're kidding, right? I used to have to use MapQuest a lot for my job, and about 40% of the directions I downloaded had significant errors in them. Fortunately, most of them were east to spot (for example, being directed to turn right (south), when you were previously going west), but they still were confusing, and some errors were significant enough to render the directions worthless.

Granted, this was several years ago...I don't know whether or not they've improved, since I now use Google maps almost exclusively.

Re:Funny,

[garcia]

but I still stick to MapQuest for directions.

Even though I typically use autorouting on my GPS, I find that entering a request for directions on Google Maps to be far easier than clicking links and farting around on Mapquest (and others).

"55124 To 16 6th St South, 55402" is a ton easier to get directions than tabbing through multiple text boxes. YMMV.

Re:Funny,

[bedroll]

I like Google maps interface, but I've tried using their directions a couple of times and I've been a big disappointed.

However, I actually prefer Expedia Maps directions to MapQuest. I always have. I don't like the interface as much, nor do I get the helpful icons by each turn, but the directions have normally been better. I've tested this both by taking both sets of directions with me and by checking them against my experiences driving places. Expedia might not be better, but it's definitely better for me. You can take away my anti-Microsoft card now, if you must.

Re:Funny,

[ryanov]

My favorite MapQuest error was (if anyone is actually familiar with this intersection -- probably not) it telling me to get off of Route 18 north in NJ and onto Route 27 north. From that ramp, make a left through the jersey barrier and get onto 27 south. Silly me -- all along I'd been taking the EXIT for 27 south.

Re:Funny,

[The_Wilschon]

I've had bad experiences with MapQuest in the Chicago west suburbs (Fermilab area)... Directions to places that just simply weren't there when I reached the end (for instance a car repair place that MapQuest claimed was in the middle of what turned out to be a residential neighboorhood) or instructions to turn on streets that don't exist, that sort of thing. I haven't tried google maps here, since I've pretty well gotten used to the area by now, but MapQuest was horrible. And I've heard from other residents that they've had the same trouble.

OTOH, when I've used MapQuest back home in Texas, it has always worked excellently well.

Re:Funny,

[Kierthos]

I know what you mean. Everyone at my store had to go to a training class (not all on the same day, thankfully) which was being held about an hour and a half drive away. MapQuest was fine for getting us to the rough location of the training center, but then it seemed to have issues where the directions would have us turn the wrong way down one-way streets.

Kierthos

Re:Funny,

[jahudabudy]

Yeah, I also keep the dead tree version in my car for long trips, emergencies (never can tell WHERE you'll wake up after a 4 day coke/liquor binge *), etc. I actually meant I use www.randmcnally.com for online directions, instead of MapQuest, Google, whatever else people use. I was just too lazy to type out the HTML tags, so instead wound up having to type a whole 'nother post to clarify. There is probably a lesson in there somewhere, I'm too lazy to look for it.

* my mom does not read /.

Re:Funny,

[Rethcir]

I like Mapquest because if you zoom in far enough, you can see the exit numbers on highways. Very useful here in exit-happy Massachussets.

Re:Funny,

[linzeal]

Mapquest is really bad in the boonies I used it once to plan a car trip up north with a few stops on the way to car camp in national parks. I got lost in the middle of Oregon for 3 hours until I almost ran out of gas because the roads they said existed had been dug under and planted with pine trees pry 10-20 years ago judging by their size. The Microsoft mapping software which I will not name or link here is leagues better when you get to rural areas and that is why Bank of America uses it for all their apprasial offices nationwide after trying many other solutions.

Re:Funny,

[iabervon]

I think everybody I know uses google these days. Of the people I know, I think I'm the only one who ever got anywhere using mapquest without getting completely lost, and that was due to figuring out the ways it was likely to mess up.

Google maps doesn't give better directions, but you can actually follow the route on the map and look at the turns, so you have some chance of recognizing the places when you're there.

At least, this is true of New England, which has a lot of confusing roads (like ones which bend 90 degrees at an intersection with two other roads parallel to the turning street). Being able to identify that the left turn you're going to make involves not turning the steering wheel is very useful.

Re:Funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't everybody still just use MapQuest? google maps only gets used when I need an actual map - but I still stick to MapQuest for directions.

Men don't ask for directions :)

Re:Funny,

[rainman_bc]

I find Google maps can't even find numbered streets very well. I think the mapquest algorithm for finding addresses is still more refined than google's.

I can't find quite a few addresses still in Google maps, and not only that, and I also find Mapquest is more current than Google. I moved into a new development, and Mapquest at least will recognize and find the address. Google maps just pukes. Google has trouble finding even my fiancee's parent's house, which is over 30 yrs old. She lives on xxxx E.XXth street, and Google pukes over that address.

Re:Funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be real fun to talk to - inserting the word "puking" randomly into your sentences

Re:Funny,

[mr_sas]

In the UK, the directions are terrible, using my postal code locates me on the next street along. The last time it queried it for directions it offered a drive an hour longer than theaa.com does....Plus the aerial photos for the UK suck...

Re:Funny,

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thats nowhere near as confusing as this intersection, there is even a sign (Surpsingly for Boston)

Re:Funny,

[iabervon]

I considered mentioning that one, but Tremont St's exceptionally confusing, whereas I wanted an intersection that's common. And Google and Mapquest both identify that intersection as being confusing, and say things like "go straight onto Shawmut Ave" (Mapquest actually says "turn right to stay on Tremont St"), while they don't seem to find the Winchester one particularly notable.

fighting for the skies?

[Anonymous Coward]

sweet, I hope it's somewhere over San Diego.. that place is a hellhole and could use a few fighter jets raining death over them...

Re:fighting for the skies?

[Radres]

"Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diago, which of course in German means a whale's vagina."

Re:fighting for the skies?

[Anonymous Coward]

What qualifies San Diego as a hellhole?

Re:fighting for the skies?

[Anonymous Coward]

The smell of dumptsers in the air?

Re:fighting for the skies?

[SilentSheep]

Haha, AnchorMan is an awesome film!!

Microsoft will probably win out over Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect all Microsoft's search features to be integrated into Windows Vista ala Netscape.

Hmmm....

[slapout]

....wonder when we'll see the beta of "Google Flight Simulator"....

Re:Hmmm....

[game kid]

Google Earth has a "G-Force" mode (CTRL-G) for doing plane-like maneuvers with the mouse. Odd controls, yes, but it sure beats waiting for http://flightsim.google.com/, or whatever it'll be, to go live.

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs a flight sim when you have real airplanes?

Oh wait, Microsoft and Google aren't buying up rival military aircraft manufacturers?

Re:Hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already in Google Excel!

Re:Hmmm....

[extrasolar]

Hey now: you play with google earth your way, and I'll play with it my way.

msn maps sux

[poison_reverse]

the satellite images they are using are sometimes 10 years old or more! Google's images are very recent and accurate. Nice try Micrsoft but google has you beat on this one.

Re:msn maps sux

[Momoru]

Actually, they share a lot of the same images. All the most high res images are mainly from the USGS, and Microsoft and Google are using the exact same images (I looked up my building new Washington DC, and the exact 4 cars are in the parking lot in both). In some cases Microsoft's are newer, in some cases Google (keyhole's) are newer. In a lot of the cases that matter, they are exactly the same.

Re:msn maps sux

[0110011001110101]

FTFA

Aerial photographs used by Microsoft and Google can be outdated. On Microsoft's service, an overhead view of Apple Inc.'s headquarters in Cupertino showed only one building instead of the sprawling campus of 11 buildings.

Microsoft spokesman Chris Warfield explained that Virtual Earth is being released as a test and that images will be updated regularly. Images of Cupertino, he said, come from the U.S. Geological Survey and were taken in 1991 and 2004.

Re:msn maps sux

[poison_reverse]

ahh thanks for clearing that up. Just seemed whatever i was looking for with msn was very outdated and what i searched with google was right on the money.

Re:msn maps sux

[MSFanBoi]

Well I'll tell you this much the maps Google has for New England are old too. Hell my house which was built 4 years ago doesn't even make it into either. Nor does either of the two buildings I work in in DOWNTOWN Boston.

Re:msn maps sux

[Goose In Orbit]

According to The Register MS still has the Twin Towers in all their finery (but Apple HQ seems not to have been built yet)

Re:msn maps sux

[Goose In Orbit]

And I'm sure that the post just above mine saying exactly that wasn't there 30 seconds ago...

Re:msn maps sux

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entirely possible that it took them more than thirty seconds to find the link they provided. Chill.

So Yahoo won't do aerial images ...

[tomhudson]

Since Google's motto is "do no evil", and Microsoft wants the home market, I guess Yahoo! will have to "settle" for porn images.

Gee, in that case I KNOW who'll make more money off their image search! AND have the most loyal customers ...

Re:So Yahoo won't do aerial images ...

[That's Unpossible!]

Since Google's motto is "do no evil", and Microsoft wants the home market, I guess Yahoo! will have to "settle" for porn images.

1. What is evil about porn?
2. GIS already lets me browse porn.
3. If you're right, though, I can't think of a more appropriate company name for browsing porn.

Better Images

[bullwin69]

What we need is some images from the NRO office then it will be fun................

I wonder how old Microsoft's imagery is

[nemaispuke]

One of the guys at work was comparing a particluar location today using Google Maps and MSN Earth and noticed MSN's imagery was at least 10 years old for the location he was looking at. I wonder if Microsoft is using some of the TerraServer imagery and superimposing street info without having to update the imagery (and spend a lot of money in the process)?

Re:I wonder how old Microsoft's imagery is

[Prophet of Nixon]

Actually, MS has some roads on their named overlays in Gloucester, VA that haven't existed for at least 10 years. So its old images and old data.

Re:I wonder how old Microsoft's imagery is

[MissTuxie]

they also still have the WTC towers on their maps.

Re:I wonder how old Microsoft's imagery is

[UnHolyRam]

Well the image that's used for my neighborhood in West Valley, Utah is less than two years old.

News?

[op12]

Haven't we already heard all about this here and here?

This just seems like a summary.

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

>This just seems like a summary.

summeries are worth nothing. We want straight dupes in Slashdot, as we are used to have.

Blah

[Kranfer]

Ya know, I really never knew Microsoft had anything that did the same as the Google superimposed maps like Google did. Even now that I know, I really don't care, I will use Googles.

Google and Microsoft Taking to the Skies

[Ohmster]

Google has had a "skyteam" in New York for some time now as I touched on in this post in April: http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/04/birds_eye_view.html The focus also seems to be on 45-degree building views.

Re:Google and Microsoft Taking to the Skies

[game kid]

Google has had a "skyteam" in New York for some time now

Which is a good thing. Maybe they'll stay and, oh I dunno, add the Bronx buildings or something. Or at least Queens, if they abhor the Yankees. ;)

The Winner in the long-term

[TripMaster Monkey]

The winner in the long-term will be the one with the most current, up-to-date content. Microsoft already got bit in the ass regarding this (the Apple campus debacle), so this should be abundantly clear to everyone.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[borawjm]

The first one that allows me to spy on the hot blonde down the street while she's sunbathing will be my winner

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[harvardian]

One example across the entire United States makes this "abundantly clear"?

Personally, the reason I'll stick to Google is because zooming in the MSN version is retarded (try it and you'll see what I mean). Nothing beats a Google UI imo.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who writes off MS should consider history before doing so. My money is on MS not only for the maps but for search as well. Laugh all you want to. Fact is, Google search is getting worse by the year, not better. Google itself knows it can only hold the search crown for so long. Search isn't Google's strong point anymore.
Again, remember, what MS wants, MS usually gets.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[Will2k_is_here]

Except that Microsoft's target demographic (Blue e == Internet) still has no idea google maps exists or that Microsoft's virtualearth is inferior to it.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[Document]

I looked at my house from both Google and MSN yesterday. My house was built (finished) in October 2004 and Google showed it still under construction. (Around early September). MSN showed it as a large hay field. My development is three years old. Not a single house or street in my development showed up in MSN.

Google - Approx. Sept 2004
MSN - At the latest early 2002

I'll continue to use Google.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[Stone Cold Troll]

Ah. You want Voyeurweb then.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[L.Bob.Rife]

Search isn't Google's strong point anymore.

Huh? Please explain what you think Google's strong point is. Please tell me what Google's main focus is since you claim it isn't indexing and searching information.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[Cro Magnon]

The hot blonde you see in Microsoft's pics is now 10 years older than her picture!

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[VENONA]

Will2k_is_here makes an excelent point. I don't have to deal with Joe Six Pack too much, (mostly someone requesting that I help a friend of their's out) but I still see "Blue e == Internet" behavior. Another post in this thread requests that we all remember MS history. I'd imagine that's a reference to the MS getting anything, staking their claim, and getting something almost workable out by the 3.1 release.

So far MS is clearly losing in the UI, and in content freshness. Does it matter? The NO side of me remembers that of the Joe Six Pack contacts I've had in the past couple of months, at least half had never heard of at least one of two major non-MS properties. Specifically, the Google search service, and the Firefox Web browser.

No way am I counting MS out. I might even bet on them, except for one thing: APIs. I'm betting that Google APIs will attract a lot of geek talent. And that Google can capitalize on this in a way that doesn't involve a 'pay to use' model.

Google has hired a lot of talent. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.

And, as a first closing thought, how do we define 'long term'? I'd love to see Google do well, but I haven't drunk all of the Google 'Do No Evil' KoolAid. Google has become a verb. To those who use it a lot, it's become a single point of failure. Redundancy is good. The more good search services that are out there, the better. One dominant engine has also given birth to Googlewashing http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/03/antiwar_sl ogan_coined_repurposed/. Not a Good Thing.

I still use other general services, such as Alta Vista http://www.altavista.com/. Specialized engines also abound, such as The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies http://liinwww.ira.uka.de/bibliography/.

The second and last closing thought is a question. Referring to Joe Six Pack just sounds demeaning as hell. Slashdotters know who I mean, and probably realize that I don't mean to sound like some elitist prick.

What term do you use?

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[tidge]

what don't you like about the zooming in virutal earth?
I think it rocks.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[harvardian]

It zooms in like a digital camera zoom a few steps before replacing the pictures with the higher-res versions. Which is fine, but as it's doing that it stutters, which bothers the hell out of me. Maybe I'll try it at my home computer (much more powerful) and see if it's as annoying.

Re:The Winner in the long-term

[tidge]

I see some wicked stuttering too. I figure it's because of the funky zoom thing that they do.
I really like the mouse wheel scrolling though.

Utilization

[Red Flayer]

From the article:
"[Gary Price] said the feature would be a lot more useful if users could click on an image for data such as census information about the neighborhood shown."

My understanding is that Google is allowing third-party implementations to do this. Something about crime statistics in Chicago, and other examples I don't recall.

I can't see Microsoft opening up enough to allow the same, which is why I believe Google will have majority market share in this feature as more implementations are developed.

Re:Utilization

[yasth]

http://www.viavirtualearth.com/ViaVirtualEarth/Def ault.aspx?tabid=36 They already have a pretty open easy embedeable version. MS is a developer oriented company in a lot of ways and they are starting to realize that web services need are platforms and not always end products. (Considering how long it has been since Amazon oppened up with web services they are just about on the vaunted MS schedule). MS isn't unstoppable, but they are pretty open about embedding, they know they don't need to have thier name on everything, I mean look at embdeded IE, which has now gotten to the point where thousands of programs use it and depend on it.

Virtual Earth Sucks

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

To put it bluntly. MS rushes to put something out that is buggy and doesn't work very well and doesn't offer as many features as a competitor, sound familiar? I tried it but it definitely is not as slick as Google's Earth, although Google has it share of problems too, but they are more subdued. Maybe by version 8 of Virtual Earth will MS get it right.

Re:Virtual Earth Sucks

[rcamera]

you are aware that ms virtual earth is like google maps, not google earth, right? google earth is a client application while google maps and virtual earth are web applications...

next time, try comparing apples to apples. you might find they're quite similar...

Re:Virtual Earth Sucks

[tOaOMiB]

When Google comes out with beta, the Slashdot community: Come on, don't give them a hard time about any bugs. It's still BETA!

When Microsoft comes out with a service in beta: It's rushed, it's shitty, it's copycat, it's evil empire!

The truth: MS's product had new and different features to google's, and both still have bugs. Can we get a little objectivity please?

Re:Virtual Earth Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, well, real earth sucks too.

New features coming soon!

[Kisil]

Word on the streets is Microsoft is planning an innovative news filtering application that will bring content from multiple sources into one easy-to-read page. Microsoft also has alleged plans for an innovative desktop search application that will allow users fast and easy access to content on their own machines.

Both features due early in 2009. No word yet on whether these features will be supported for non-microsoft browsers.

Re:New features coming soon!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

2004 called:
http://newsbot.msn.com/

Mapping Abilities are Growing

[PepeGSay]

I've implemented mapping solutions for large vendor applications and the business benefits for it are awesome when it is implemented properly. The major impediment was the multiple thousand dollar cost. Web solutions allow the data holder to centralize the data, update it more often and fix issues faster. Googles *and* Mircrosoft's work on allowing you to overlay custom data is brilliant when you consider that Google maps can now be a service within an application architecture. Microsoft is not coopting or stealing Google's idea, far from it. This concept and its use in software is probably 20 years old and it has been becomeing more and more mainstream in applications. It is just being brought to the masses now.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[farble1670]

Web solutions allow the data holder to centralize the data, update it more often and fix issues faster

in the age of auto-updating software, this is not so much a problem. but yes, with the web, you essentially update everyone immediately. i guess it boils down to whether the benefits of running a client side application outweigh this.

also, a client side (non-web) solution can charge users for map and software updates. maybe even a subscription service.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[Anonymous Coward]

seems interesting, could you rewrite that without the buzzwords?

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[PepeGSay]

No. The meaning would be altered without the words I chose or require extra wording to arrive at the same meaning. If you can't tell the difference between buzzwords and important and real concepts then maybe you should go get a job. I was speaking in very general terms which is when words like "solution", "service" and "application architecture" hold as much specificity as is required. I could say "the thing we did for the thingy with that thing" or "that external application whatchamacalit that provides sumpthin" or "the way we did the whole dern thing". Would that be better?

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[PepeGSay]

The seller in mapping right now benefits from the existing model of subscription services for the data. It is expensive. Currently though the ones I have used release data in full sets not diffs. An auto update of multiple gigs is sorta cumbersome. Tack the satellite imagery on top of that and it gets even larger. I don't know the specifcs of how they contain the map data now, but I imagine it is some form of equation. A road has a name and its curve points are stored. The satellite imagery has got to be enormous and updating that via auto update would get difficult. Consider that satellite surverys are not on demand, they will be done in large chunks.

Google could move to a per request pricing model or or chargge to host the overlay data for large data sets. They can recover the cost through other creative ways.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[ear1grey]

This concept and its use in software is probably 20 years old...

I recall that whilst working for my local city council in 15 years ago I was asked to write a program that could transcribe the altitude information in topographical maps so it could be used in the analysis and design of traffic systems. This was a replacement for the previous version that was a few years old, so I'd say the estimate of 20 years is fair, possibly even a little low.

For the record, the system was written in GWBasic and used a large conductive board on which we'd hang the Ordnance Survey map, then use a puck to trace out the shape of each contour line. IIRC it all fitted into 640K too.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[Anonymous Coward]

A web based interface still has drawbacks and that's where Microsoft has Google beat: They sell standalone programs that run on your PC.

M$ MapPoint & Streets & Trips let you do mapping/routing on your machine without an Internet connection.

This means all your searches, trips, etc are NOT logged by either MSN Maps or Google Maps or Yahoo Maps or whatever.

Of course it's also way faster for "what-if" situations, multiple stops, etc. The whole web-based interface can be cumbersome and slow to use, if you need directions almost on a daily basis (like I often do).

PC based programs (like the old AutoRoute that M$ bought) have been around for over 10 years. I hope they continue to exist, I for one do not want my searches catalogged and I want the speed and flexibility that standalone programs offer.

Note: The are other programs that do standalone routing, such as ALK's CoPilot (good GPS capabilities), DeLorme StreetAtlas, Rand McNally Trip Planning software, etc.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[viva_fourier]

Yes, I remember when terraserver.microsoft.com was in beta around 5 years ago(back before *beta* was cool) and a friend of mine used it to check property lines on a rural piece of land he intended to purchase...

Microsoft had chosen to keep it a closed, fee-based service, and it subsequently was a bit stifled in development and acceptance.

All Google did was open it up and keep it free, and it seems to be more widespread.

Of the two approaches, Microsoft prefers to make money on its own terms as they have always done. Whereas, Google seems to be letting the market dictate where the technology is moving as well as how(if) they will profit from it...

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[PepeGSay]

Absolutely, the desktop apps for personal mapping have a fairly long life ahead of them.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[Trepalium]

If it was GWBasic, it would've had to fit in 64K (or maybe it's 64K code + 64k data - it's [thankfully] been so long). Perhaps you used QuickBasic, instead?

Segment:Offset addressing is for the birds, though. It's no fun needing to know if your pointers are near or far, or if you're using a small, medium or large memory model in your language.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[DerekLyons]

Yes, I remember when terraserver.microsoft.com was in beta around 5 years ago(back before *beta* was cool) and a friend of mine used it to check property lines on a rural piece of land he intended to purchase...

I wonder how he fared - because Terraserver never has had any property lines marked on it.

Microsoft had chosen to keep it a closed, fee-based service, and it subsequently was a bit stifled in development and acceptance.

Microsoft only kept it closed for a year or so - the website has been open and widely used ever since then.

All Google did was open it up and keep it free, and it seems to be more widespread.

Google copied an open (and free) website - and the geek community (who drool over anything Google does) jumped all over it. So far as the API goes, there's a double handful of projects at best (at least publically discussed), hardly widespread.

Re:Mapping Abilities are Growing

[viva_fourier]

He did pretty well -- although the maps have no markings, the satellite imagery does give 1m resolution and allows lat/long input.

Sure It Wasn't

[mcmediaman]

From the article: "Aerial photographs used by Microsoft and Google can be outdated. On Microsoft's service, an overhead view of Apple Inc.'s headquarters in Cupertino showed only one building instead of the sprawling campus of 11 buildings. Microsoft spokesman Chris Warfield explained that Virtual Earth is being released as a test and that images will be updated regularly. Images of Cupertino, he said, come from the U.S. Geological Survey and were taken in 1991 and 2004. 'That wasn't a prank or anything intentional,' Warfield said."

I wonder...

[donleyp]

how long it will take Microsoft to come up with a way to monopolize the search engine market and cost us another $10 billion.

Porn: The Last Frontier

[Anonymous Coward]

At some point these too are going to have the whole Interweb sliced up untill their is only one pice of the pie left:

Hardcore porn!

Thats right people: MSN_BDSM.com and google.com with a Adult Only filter instead of ther other way around.

In fact, Microsoft is already a head of the curve with the X-Box. What, you thought it was only for games? ;)

NSA's software is much nicer...

[v3xt0r]

w/ infrared technology to see thru your roof, watchin' ya read wankdot, etc.

ME TOO syndrome

[spaztech]

"Aerial photographs used by Microsoft and Google can be outdated. On Microsoft's service, an overhead view of Apple Inc.'s headquarters in Cupertino showed only one building instead of the sprawling campus of 11 buildings."

Seems to be an ongoing issue here, Microsoft throwing something out that's not really new (or ready) and calling it new anyhow. I think it would have been better for them to purchase (with all that money) better imagery and have it ready next month rather than throw us some crap just to say, 'ME TOO!!'

Lost Vista

[rasty]

Hope this way Microsoft will be able to find all the Longhorn features they've lost around!

So that's the new innurnet hype now?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Pictures of this-or-that place? so let's see: google and MS offer images of the Earth, Yahoo (a little cheaper and crummier) would like to offer aerial images, Amazon (even cheaper and crummier) offers photos of businesses, etc... I guess that makes ratemypoo.com (no, no link for understandable reasons) a pioneer in the images-on-the-intarweb-nobody-really-cares-about market...

Tin Foil Hats Unite!

[0110011001110101]

FTFA

Aerial photographs used by Microsoft and Google can be outdated. On Microsoft's service, an overhead view of Apple Inc.'s headquarters in Cupertino showed only one building instead of the sprawling campus of 11 buildings.

Now why would they want us to think Apple only had 1 building.. hrrrmmmmmmmm?!?!?

Re:Tin Foil Hats Unite!

[WormholeFiend]

Now why would they want us to think Apple only had 1 building

It's not Microsoft's doing.

I read in alt.conspiracy that Apple is working on stealth shingle/roofing technology.

When this tech comes out, I'm gonna make me a hat out of that material.

Mapquest Aerial Maps

[TommyBlack]

Mapquest used to offer satellite maps alongside their road maps. Suddenly and without warning a couple of years ago, they dropped this feature and left no information about it on their site. I wasn't able to search for any info, so I figured there was some sort of national security concern or something silly like that, and didn't expect this sort of functionality to come back anytime soon.

Re:Mapquest Aerial Maps

[Anonymous Coward]

Mapquest used to link to GlobeXplorer.com aerial photography. I think the relationship tanked due to someone wanting more money and someone else not wanting to pay for it.

GlobeXplorer is still available, though to get decent sized images without watermarks plastered all over it you have to pay.

Kind of sad, because in many instances GlobeXplorer had more recent and better quality images than either google earth or virtual earth.

Also from the article

[krell]

Also from the article, Serge Findmore of Google responded to questions. "At this time, we do not know why the Microsoft HQ in Redmond appears as a vast Borg cube embedded in the earth. We are looking into this."

Have at it

[AxemRed]

Satellite mapping in cool, but I haven't used it for anything other than a cure for boredom. I'm more than happy with Mapquest for my mapping needs.

Not-so-great Google Maps

[ytm]

Maybe Virtual Earth sucks, but at least it has some information about continental Europe besides national borders.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Quality...

[ktakki]

Both Google Maps and MSN Virtual Earth are supposedly "beta" products, but MSN VE looks more like a proof-of-concept than a beta. Compare equivalent views of Long Island Sound:

MSN Virtual Earth

Google

It's not as if the Sound, Long Island's North Shore, or the Connecticut Shoreline areas haven't been photographed countless times by state and Federal agencies. I'm surprised that Microsoft exposed something that looks so slapdash to the public.

Oh, wait...

k.

Re:Quality...

[tOaOMiB]

Then again, let's focus in on the actualy nearby city of Bridgeport:

MSN Virtual Earth

Google Maps

Re:Quality...

[DerekLyons]

It's not as if the Sound, Long Island's North Shore, or the Connecticut Shoreline areas haven't been photographed countless times by state and Federal agencies. I'm surprised that Microsoft exposed something that looks so slapdash to the public.

It's not as if the missing area has anything but open water - none of the shore is missing as the OP implies.

Re:Quality...

[tootlemonde]

Compare equivalent views...

The views are not equivalent. Here is the equivalent Microsoft view, which is comparable in detail and design to the Google image.

Re:Quality...

[djmurdoch]

Sure, sometimes MS gives more detail than Google, and presumably sometimes the reverse is true. But the point is that when MS doesn't have the detail, it falls down badly.

Re:Quality...

[donutello]

On the other hand, compare Ewing, NE (where my wife is from) on MSN Virtual Earth v/s Google.

Try zooming in and out a little on both to see my point. Not only does searching for Ewing, NE on Google center it several miles SouthWest of where Ewing actually is, the satellite photos are virtually useless.

My biggest gripes with the MSN service are that it breaks my browsers back buttons and that the URL is not easy to type or remember.

It's clear that both have a ways to go before they will be where we want them to be but I'd give the edge to Google right now.

Re:Quality...

[andycal]

It is hit and miss. For my house MSN is better, for my office Google is MUCH better. For one thing google has use color images which tell you more. MSN's appear to be IR images which are not as interesting to look at. Google's big advantage is closeups of the whole globe Pyramids Great wall of China.

MSN will not zoom in beyond the general globe image on these areas.

Also, for me MSN keeps failing to load images, I have to move away and back seveal times to view a whole page of images.

Re:Quality...

[gooogle]

If you take away from the bias and do an objective comparison, VE is quite remarkable, even though their coverage is not as expansive as GM's (for the time being).

Sure, there are discrepencies between the satellite shots (both have missing frames and other bloopers). These are bound to happen when you have a satellite photographing the entire globe frame by frame.

Where I do see more value in VE over GM, however, is in the overall picture quality. Compare these two images and notice the dithering/resolution in GM vs VE:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=203+6th+Ave,+Seattle ,+WA+98109&ll=47.620296,-122.349029&spn=0.005187,0 .009917&t=k&hl=en

http://virtualearth.msn.com/default.aspx?cp=41.156 413%7C-72.764616&style=h&lvl=11&v=1

Clearly, VE has much higher resolution. Unless Google bumps up their resolution, I don't see why I would go to them for satellite images.

VE also shows some nice landmarks around Space Needle which quite frankly, are very handy.

Yeah Google is cool company, but is there any reason to use GM when VE offers more?

Re:Quality...

[gooogle]

the space needle link should be:

http://virtualearth.msn.com/default.aspx?cp=47.620 382%7C-122.349149&style=h&lvl=19&v=1

Re:Quality...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but that's only the areal photos. I'd say the maps are of comparable quality.

VE's Scratchpad and LocateMe maybe make up for the current poor satellite images?

Re:Quality...

[loconet]

"I'm surprised that Microsoft exposed something that looks so slapdash to the public."

That's one trend I've been seeing with MSN related products. Everything from their latest MSN messenger to their search engine, to their IE tabs toolbar to this. They all look like a weekend hack.

Re:Quality...

[MrScience]

Right. And comparing the space needle yields different results (MSN has higher detailed imagery). They are both in beta.

Re:Quality...

[kilrogg]

Dude, they are both identical. Look at the angle of the shadow and the location of cars. The only differences is the MSN one allows you to zoom in more.

Re:Quality...

[Kynde]

I think they're both lacking. I did a random zoom-in to Riverside from your links and got these two. I hate M$ as much as the next guy, but fair's fair.

Re:Observation.

[Eclypser]

I just looked out my office window. Congress really does look like that.

Windows client?

[kuchin]

Anybody knows if Microsoft is planning to make Windows client for their VirtualEarth, just like Google Earth is? Isn't that a good idea? :) I suppose it will be bundled into their 2010+ version of Windows...

Infinite Loop ?

[y4h0oo]

Funny how MS (outdated) maps doesn't show Apples Cupertino headquarters :
http://virtualearth.msn.com/default.aspx?ss=apple& cp=37.333411%7C-122.029708&style=h&lvl=17&v=1%3Cbr %20/%3E
whereas google does :
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.332307,-122.0301 03&spn=0.005924,0.010131&t=k&hl=en

Re:Infinite Loop ?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Thanks for pointing that out to us.

Canada?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Yeah, but that's Canada, man. Do they even need maps? I mean... is there anything *to* map? Other than moose migration vectors, barren tundric wastelands, scattered impact crater remnants and the Molson brewing plant, what the hell else is there worth getting a map to?

Hey, I'm teasing! Calm down!

Re:Canada?

[overshoot]

what the hell else is there worth getting a map to?

Well, there's this

Re:Canada?

[gstoddart]

Yeah, but that's Canada, man. Do they even need maps? I mean... is there anything *to* map? Other than moose migration vectors, barren tundric wastelands, scattered impact crater remnants and the Molson brewing plant, what the hell else is there worth getting a map to?

Yes, but it's extremely valuable to know just exactly how much more barren expanse of nothing is left on your journey.

Sometimes friends will give directions to their houses like "travel 59.8 km through the tundra on this vector, turn left at the start of the muskeg, and then go north to the impact crater for 6kms". :-P

Without precise directions and maps, we'd just all be wandering around in the tundra with no clue of where we're going.

Re:Canada?

[Smurf]

Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.

Hey, you can't be a Yank, you have to be British!

Re:Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've driven from from Channel Port Aux Basques to Bonavista in Newfoundland. I've seen exactly what you are refering too on that trip. There are some dirt/gravel shortcuts that vary from the Google specified trip.

Re:Canada?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Original quote: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."

From Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, AMERICAN!

:-P ;-)

Re:Canada?

[Mark4ST]

A reminder to my fellow users: please don't feed the bigot trolls.

Re:Canada?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

It was a joke.. kind of funny too :)

Re:Canada?

[falser]

Canada does have a highway. It's intelligently named the "Trans-Canada Highway". It makes giving directions to different cities very easy: "East" or "West".

Re:Canada?

[Smurf]

Hummm.... I didn't know that... (I mean, that the phrase in the Pink Floyd lyrics was based on a quote by Thoreau).

Thanks for the info!

Re:Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously a lover of Brian Adams and Celine Dion.

Re:Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and you would know, right Tambi!?

That's easy

[overshoot]

Use Google to see where you are and where you're going.

Use MSN to see where you grew up before the freeway went through.

Re:That's easy

[b.thompson]

True! MSN is still using pictures from early 1997. My house was built in May of 97 and MSN still shows it as an empty lot. You'd think they'd actually try to put something recent together instead of just cobbling up a new interface to Terrasever. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/

Re:That's easy

[loconet]

Isn't that how all "new" Microsoft products actually work? Refurnished/re-coloured interface on top of ancient content.

Re:That's easy

[alive75]

Right, on MSN Virtual Earth the Apple Headquarter wasn't even built. But as you can see on Google Maps...

Yahoo

[NitsujTPU]

Yahoo, in Sunnyvale, also is a major competitor, though its executives have yet to express any interest in aerial images.

Of course they are...

conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The article only provides a link to Micro$haft's Virginal Earth...

moz only css extensions used?

[MikeFM]

Funny to see them using CSS extensions that only work in Gecko based browsers like Firefox.

I would love to figure out how to make opacity work for IE. I see them doing it and use code identical to theirs but mine doesn't work. Is there some trick to using the IE-only filter attribute in CSS?

Of course if they'd just support the CSS3 opacity attribute in IE like Firefox does that'd work just fine too.. I'd be happy with decent CSS2, Javascript, and DOM support though.

Re:moz only css extensions used?

[pinball667]

Unfortunatly it must be done through javascript
YOURELEMENT.style.filter="progid:DXIma geTransform. Microsoft.Alpha(opacity=YOUROPACITY)";
YOUROPACIT Y should be between 0 & 100, and it seems to be a bit funky when working on floated elements (but putting an elements position to fixed inside a floated element seems to fix that)

Re:moz only css extensions used?

[pinball667]

doh! s/fixed/absolute/

Re:moz only css extensions used?

[werdnapk]

opacity in mozilla, IE...

In the css...
-moz-opacity:.7; /* for mozilla */
opacity:.7; /* CSS way */
filter:alpha(opacity=70); /* IE way *?

For opacity to work in IE, you need to define a width or a height for the element you're using the opacity on.

Re:moz only css extensions used?

[dangrover]

Transparency with multiple levels on IE is possible with PNGs if it's just an 8 bit png, but that kinda sucks.

Um you have heard of TerraServer right?

[MSFanBoi]

Microsoft has been doing this for a LONG time. Much longer than Google. What were you saying now???

Re:Um you have heard of TerraServer right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no, I hadn't heard of TerraServer. Were people making TerraServer hacks like they do with Google?

Example: http://www.cellreception.com/towers/index.html

Google rocks and M$ is doing the same thing that it did with the Internet: playing catch-up when it finally perceives that there is a market there after all.

The only difference this time is that Bill Gates hasn't recently put out a book where he dismisses Google as a fad.

Re:Um you have heard of TerraServer right?

[MSFanBoi]

As I said TerraServer has been doing the same thing Maps.Google.com is doing right now and has been doing so since 1999. How is that catching up when they were there first?

Frequent updates?

[Red Flayer]

From the article:
"Microsoft spokesman Chris Warfield explained that Virtual Earth is being released as a test and that images will be updated regularly. "

Not from the article (but sound familiar?:
While counterfeit copies of Virtual Earth will be prevented from downloading updates, Lazar said Microsoft is not including security updates in the lock-out. Even customers who do not check their copies of Virtual Earth for authenticity will be allowed to download security updates through Virtual Earth Update, Microsoft Update for Virtual Earth and the Download Center, he said.

MS only responding to Google's copying

[Anonymous Coward]

A quote buried in this article says that Google "copied" a feature of Virtual Earth "only 72 hours before Virtual Earth was to be released"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=a1jaZMqSC2Fs&refer=us

so you can see that MS has been forced to release prematurely because of these "copies" that are threatening them

They only copied Javascript :)

[kuchin]

They have TerraServer for a long time already, but it was always business-oriented. Now they slowly understand that common public can be took away from them by somebody else, who offer the same service for free (actually not for free, but this is another topic to discuss). So they just added Javascript and made it working for free.

Newsflash:Microsoft makes Earth part of Windows OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft claims in subsequent anti-trust court case that Windows cannot function without Earth, however university professor demonstrates that Earth can function quite well without Microsoft.

Don't forget.

[aengblom]

Notably, AOL is also in the race with .... Mapquest. Even though that hasn't received much of an upgrade recently, they've got to be working on something and mapquest is still the 800 lb Gorilla. (Well 250 lb anyway). The threats are just too obvious not to respond to.

With AOL betting the company on free advertisement supported content (see AOL.com BETA these days), I'm sure an updated Mapquest is also on the way.

Interesting enough, Mapquest had satelite data along with road data a few years ago, but it dissappeared. Mapquest also for a time allowed you to click "east" or "west" and it would only change out the image instead of the entire page. It wasn't as good as Google, but it was a better interface. Of course, they killed it.

Virtual Earth is a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the pyramids with both MSN and Google. Cairo (it also exists in Egypt, not only in Georgia, USA) is only a spot in Virtual Earth, while I can practically see the tour group with Google maps.

Don't see the point of either.

[papasui]

I like the maps available with both services and have extended Google Map API into some pretty neat tools. I don't see a ton of use out of the current imagery offered by either service though. In both cases the resolution offered makes it hard to identify most places. Is it just for the 'cool' factor or are there really significant uses for it? I'm assuming there must be and I just don't know what they are. To me the street maps are 100x more useful, which is also the reason I don't understand the use of Google Earth. Sure I think it's very cool but why doesn't it include the street maps, and what is the use of putting the 3D shape of buildings on it? I'm being 100% serious, someone please enlighten me.

Re:Don't see the point of either.

[Anonymous Coward]

By exposing their massive server resources through APIs both google and microsoft have given us all a whole new field to innovate in. Sites like http://globalcoordinate.com/ are using the google map API to build interesting online mapping applications . Although you may not see the point now, soon somebody will think up some use for this that does catch your eye.

Re:Don't see the point of either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know if it's worth as much to everybody, but, when I moved into a neighboring town, I was able to quickly find all the bicycle routes, both paved and "worn trail" types, using Google maps to find my streets of intrest, then click to see an overhead picture that revealed "roads" that aren't on the street map.

Re:Don't see the point of either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sat photos have been great for bicycling! Many maps just say "yes, this road has a bike lane" but neglect to tell you it's on a busy 4-lane road. Also, Google Earth lets you see the hills so you can find the best route. And you can usually see a few singletrack trails when zoomed all the way in.

Re:Don't see the point of either.

[nexxuz]

Well I work reports that disclose if natural hazards occur on a certain peice of property. And I use the google maps/sat imgs in helping to verify:
1. Location (Lat/Lon)
2. What type of structure is on that property.

Yes I actually do use professional grade software too but, the google maps offers a quick and easy way for me to get to that information.

Re:Don't see the point of either.

[ZorbaTHut]

I was making a medium-length drive through an area that I knew was kind of confusing a while back. I opened up Google Maps's satellite view to give me some landmarks.

"Okay, turn left on this street, then I'll drive between a bunch of warehouses, then right here, it looks like two major streets later, and - holy crap, what's with that intersection? I guess I take two rights and a left. I should end up on the right of this gigantic parking lot. Okay."

During the drive, I thought I was lost several times, but, hey! Warehouses! And here's the next major street!

And then at that painful intersection, I just looked for the parking lot and ended up on the right of it. (Yes, it really was as bad as I'd thought.)

That's why it's useful.

Re:big battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. This needed to be said.

da bah crshhhhhh

[1336.5]

best joke Ive heard all day! MSFT compete with Google? I think the former lost a long time ago.

Free as in FREEDOM, biatch!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in FREEDOM, BIIIATCH!!

Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like

typical MS

[schematix]

wow this site is just a complete piece of crap.... i went to 3 locations that i am very familiar with in california, las vegas and virginia, and all of them were so out of date as to be useless. The photos have to be at least 5 years old and in the las vegas area, completely misses a huge freeway. I guess they have the excuse of it being beta, but this is very rough right now. Also, the load times when you zoom in seem to be a lot slower than with google. Can anyone else back this up?

Old Maps

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how old the photographs/images Microsoft is using, but my condo on the West side of Manhattan is approximately 5 years old and probably took a year or 2 to build (48 stories). When I went to look for it, its just a parking lot.

WAY out of date

[Quiet_Desperation]

OK, I can forgive if the some of the stuff is a little out of date, but this is just ridiculous.

MS Virtual Earth zoomed all the way out

Re:WAY out of date

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't laughed that hard in years. Thank you!

Re:WAY out of date

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to a lot of recent work by academics, that map actually is out of date!

Re:WAY out of date

[chesterjosiah]

LOL! Hilarious!

Re:WAY out of date

[Anonymous Coward]

They may be out of date now, but no doubt MSN has plans to update them. And if/when they do I wonder will someone be ready with a hack or something to combine the latest images from the two into one more current map? Seems like something that might be worth while to me. But hey, I'm just an Anonymous Coward, what do I know?

Maxis?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yahoo, in Sunnyvale, also is a major competitor, though its executives have yet to express any interest in aerial images. Amazon.com offers street- level photographs of businesses through its A9.com search engine. "

So when's Maxis coming out with their version?

"Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait a week between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 6 Days, 23 Hours, 59 Minutes, 59 seconds since you last successfully posted a comment. What have you been doing all that time?"

Funny how both have out of date maps!

[MSFanBoi]

Both Google and MSN are missing both my 4 year old house, and the buildings I've worked in for almost 2 years in downtown Boston. Glass houses and rocks don't mix.

IM

[Anonymous Coward]

I am dying for Google to launch an IM service.
(Hopefully based on Jabber aka XMPP)
Please Google-people!!!

Sanitized places:

[Ancient_Hacker]

Funny similarity between the two-- they both sanitize the area around the White House. The rooftops of the WH and adjacent buildings are *awfully* pristine. Also Congressional Hill is fuzzed quite a bit.

Harmless I guess but not terribly detrimental to the bad guys trying to find these places.

In case you hadn't noticered...

[betelgeuse68]

virtualearth.msn.com

Appears to be quite slow or at least slower than Google Maps... given that I run LINUX Mozilla heavily through an X server and Google Maps readily works this way... whereas VirtualEarth from Microsoft is dog slow... I can only conclude that from a design standpoint, Google is a superior product.

That aside, it is yet another shining example of Microsoft copying a leader and not innovating in the slightest... why do they bother? Really, BillG, Steve et al why? Given that your bread and butter is an OS and office producitivty suite, why do you give a rat's ass about someone creating a slick web based map software?

-M

Competition?

[Sierpinski]

In most other realms, competition is viewed as a good thing. It seems that with Microsoft (or any other large software company) that they want to completely squash the opposition.

Where did that land them before? In court for an anti-trust lawsuit. (Which seems to have had very little, if any, impact on them as a company. How many billions of dollars busiess do they do in a year?)

Competition should be the motivation to strive for excellence, not to hit your competition over the head with a giant iron hammer that still has yet to be patched with SP2.

Re:Competition?

[thomas.galvin]

In most other realms, competition is viewed as a good thing. It seems that with Microsoft (or any other large software company) that they want to completely squash the opposition.

To be fair, competition is only seen as a good thing by the people being competed over. Almost any business owner with any sense wants to be the best, and only, at what he or she does.

Re:Competition?

[That's Unpossible!]

That's not true. Competition is good for businesses that ARE GOOD AT COMPETING.

Without competition, companies often rest on their laurels.

Competition is only hated by monopolies and companies that can't compete.

Re:Competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats not true for microsoft though, they love to compete and are good at it, hell look at all their previous competitors all got crushed coz of microsoft's sheer competetive nature.

the problem with competition though is it gets undermined by its very strenght, take for example a few companies competing, as a few companies start getting better they push others out of the competition leaving fewer companies around and the cycle continues until there are very few left. Then out of those very few there would be one that would become better at beating the competition and beats everyone leaving that single company to have no more competition left. They then look for other industries and compete in there which they then slowly become a giant industry again (if they are good, or it could be the other company in the previous industry which they have now dominated were incompetent leaving them having a hard time competeting int he new industry.)

Its the same with microsoft, first they conquered the operating system industry, now theyr going after the search engine industry. Microsoft didnt have to compete with google, they *chose* to compete with google.

Now to say monopolies hate competition would not be entirely true.

Competition is good

[Hell O'World]

The only feature that this Microsoftie thing has that beats the Goog is the zoom in and out. It is just a gimmick, of course, but it makes it easier to see keep track of things as you change resolutions. The feature I am looking for is a topo map layer. For awhile there was a greasemonkey script that added USGS topo maps to Google Maps, and I was in map heaven. The topo maps have so much more information on them, including buildings, park boundries, etc, that the Google street map layer doesn't have. But Google changed their interface and it stopped working :(
I hope Google officailly supports it someday. The USGS maps are supposed to freely distributable, I believe.

Re:Competition is good

[Derling Whirvish]

The feature I am looking for is a topo map layer.

The National Map Viewer at USGS has the ability to overlay topo maps (and a whole bunch of other data) over aerial imagery.

But can you use it to fight SPAM?

[doublem]

Amazon.com offers street- level photographs of businesses through its A9.com search engine

Nifty idea. It'd be great if this could be used to send Spammers photos of their businesses, or maps to their houses when they Spam us.

Nothing more. No threats, no other action, just a simple photo of thier home or business sent right to their e-mail account or FAX machine.

What?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

You ARE aware that Microsoft had both maps AND sat images before Google, right?

Re:What?

[10e6Steve]

So if Microsoft had maps long before the stone age then why the sudden surge in Microsoft's interest in maps? Why did they change their map user interface so to pan easily? Or view map images over satellite images? Microsoft did have their terraserver back in the 90s, but using it was difficult and inefficient. Along comes Google and they cleaned up the interface and made made looking at maps cool and interesting again. Just like Google didn't invent the first search engine but they took the existing way people search for something and made it better and easier to use.

Microsoft just took Google's ideas and made it their own.

And to be clear, Microsoft's maps are ancient just like Microsoft. The satellite images are from a decade ago which make them useless. The images are limited to only of the United States. And their images are black and white! It now the 21st century and Microsoft is still back in the 20th century.

Try printing directions == Yahoo for the win..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google Maps thing is useful when I think I already know where I'm going and want to double-check.

But if I want to actually print out the directions to use them, Yahoo maps is the only way to go. It has a fantastic "print me" view that Google seems to have forgotten about. It's like everyone at Google has a GPS navigation system in their car and could see no possible use for their maps on the road.

So if Yahoo could play catchup with the javascript dragging thing and integrate satellite maps they'd have the best online mapping service of all of them.

humm

[yupa]

mappy[1] have these features form years, and google and microsoft don't work for well Europe.... [1] http://www.mappy.com/

Finding Virtual Earth Website

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to see the Virtual Earth website so I go to Microsoft.com and type virtual earth in the microsoft.com website search.
No relevant hits.
I go to google.com and type virtual earth and there it is.
Not that this really means much, but I think I know who will win.

Rand McNally: YOUR BROWSER IS NOT SUPPORTED

[jimwelch]

When I tried custom wall map on randmcnally.com

YOUR BROWSER IS NOT SUPPORTED We apologize for the inconvenience. The CustomView Map application requires Microsoft Internet Explorer on Windows at the current time.

Re:Rand McNally: YOUR BROWSER IS NOT SUPPORTED

[jahudabudy]

That sucks. I only use it for the driving directions, which work just fine in FireFox. I guess they are still updating their site.

Re:Newsflash:Microsoft makes Earth part of Windows

[kuchin]

Nice :)

They so don't get it.

[Psionicist]

Maps. Wow, that was exciting 5 years ago. Search? Nice, they are fighting a battle Google already won years ago. E-mail? I have one, thank you. Portals? People actually use those, when every major site offer a RSS feed? Honestly, why do we care? What's so impressing with all this? Sure, Google Maps is cool in a sense, but is it totally cool? No. G-mail is better than previous email services. Is it totally exciting, as in all other email services look pale in comparision? No. Is it just me, or are these 20 year old concepts?

Wikipedia. Now there's something fresh, new and exciting. Conquer that market, MS and Google, and I'll care.

Re:Still no substitute for a paper map

[Frobisher]

MapQuest, Google Maps or any other online service are all very well in themselves, but in the absence of an in-car navigation system, you MUST back them up those printed directions with a paper map of your route/destination. If you take a wrong turning, and relying on printed MapQuest directions, you're screwed without a paper map. Hell, even people who think they know their local area well sometimes get a shock if you show them a map of their local trip and realize what a round-about way they went. I'll always try looking for a "crow flies" route, and often avoid heavy traffic because of it.

Loyalty?

[nolife]

Each has unveiled a series of features designed to keep users loyal and grab a bigger share of the lucrative search-engine market.

I doubt many internet companies still around today are still going to try to rely on the "loyal customer" attempt. Everyone who has ever browsed the internet knows it only takes a few seconds to check a competitors site. I'd also assume every company that was around during the internet bubble would know that as well. Google and MS are definately improving their products but I don't think it is some attempt to suck people in early and hope they will stay.

One feature...

[kf6auf]

One feature I would really like to see in Google Maps is a scale bar like the one that MSN Virtual Earth has in the lower right corner in blue so that I can see how far apart things are. Maybe it's just me.

The whole fact that the MS satillite images show dirt roads and label them freeways is not especially useful or convincing so I'll still be using Google Maps for a while.

Re:One feature...

[zipwow]

Have you looked recently? There seems to be a scale bar in the google maps that I'm looking at.

Or does the one in MSVE do something else that you're expecting in google maps?

-Zipwow

Re:One feature...

[kf6auf]

So there is. It must be at least kinda new since I haven't really used them for anything in a while and so that's what I get for commenting before double checking. Thanks!

Google Earth is soooo far superior...

[hoosrdady]

Ok... for one thing we all agree the maps are newer on google.. They are in color, be it faked or not.. the ability to tilt the earth and view the terraform is awesome.. or even the buildings in major cities and the ability to make your own buildings if you have google earth plus or better. How can anyone even try to compare these two? Maybe you could with google maps but even that kicks M$'s butt.... Pleeeeeaaase! :p Give me a break!

MS maps are soooooo outdated.

[jaypee68]

The aerial pictures on Google are more recent than MS. I live in Pittsburgh and MS still has photos that include Three Rivers Stadium and not PNC Park, and Heinz Filed that exist there now. Funniest part about that is that they have labels for PNC Park and Heinz Field overlaying the areas that were developed for both stadiums. I used to look at photos back in the day when Terraserver first came out which is where the MS phots come from, and those are at least 8-10 years old. Come on Microsoft, if you want to oooohh and aaaahhh us with some nifty new mapping service, at least spend some $$$$$$ and update your satellite photos.

yea... lol

[Anonymous Coward]

check this out! predicts the future, it does! http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/

Google Map Hack

[bahwi]

We've got Google Maps for Wifi Spots, but when are we gonna get one to map out the nearest Strip Joints?

Trying to keep traffic

[4volt]

If I were MS, I'd concerned with keeping the people that don't bother to change their default search preferences in IE. That alone is a major advantage in the low-end user category.

Anyone that has used both google and MSN knows that googles version of everything is better.

Also, I believe that the satellite images are a hold over from the late 90's Terra Server that MS made to showcase MS-SQL's ability to handle large databases.

They beat everyone to the punch years before others were offering satellite photos.

Microsoft and Google fighting for the skies...

[cyrix]

Should read: Skynet and Google fighting for the skies. Terminator 4 anyone?

Re:Microsoft and Google fighting for the skies...

[megrims]

Come now. Do you really think that Microsoft are capable of developing software that can think for itself?
Windows still tries to think for the user: proof that they're a long way off.

Google has yet to prove itself untrustworthy, MS..

[HiThere]

Anyone who chooses to trust MS deserves what will happen to them. MS has a track record of betraying every ally, and backstabbing every friend.

That said, Google may not be ultimately trustworthy, but given the stated choice, I know which I'd choose.

I don't understand

[KidSock]

When I saw the google map thing sure I thought it was neat like everybody else but i also thought it was of limited usefulness. Then when msn rolled out their version I really got confused. Can someone explain to me what all the hoopla is with this virtual map stuff? I mean, what does it *do* exactly? Is it strictly educational from a geography prespective or what?

Except that MSVE can't give you driving directions

[melted]

Except that MS Virtual Earth can't give you driving directions. You need to at least look at whatever the hell you're writing about before posting crap on slashdot. There's no "battle", Google made Mic

Google will win.

[suparjerk]

Google always wins.

double standard? Not quite.

[ComputerSherpa]

That's because when Google acquires something, they make it better. Like Picasa: Google bought the company, then made their product free, then shortly afterwards released Picasa2 which does everything but make sushi and is only a 3.6 MB download. Microsoft's idea of acquiring someone is redesigning the UI, putting a MS label on it, and assimilating the employees into the Collective.

Re:double standard? Not quite.

[ComputerSherpa]

Excuse me, why is this flamebait? It's true! Look it up!

Real value in the APIs

[joeytheslimeball]

Google has a mapping API that lets webmaster's create mapping applications on their own sites using google's massive map server resources. Already a very lively developer community has grown around it. Some sites have even built complete GIS systems on it. Microsoft's virtual earth also has an API. that looks very usable. I think that the competition between these two giants will only bring good things to us all.

battle?

[akhomerun]

i don't get how this is a real battle. these are both free products here. google users will use the google one, and MSN users will use the MSN one. there isn't going to be a massive switch between the two, they do the exact same thing!

The problem with both of them...

[airship]

The problem with both of them is that they can show you exactly WHERE you are, but they can't tell you WHY.

C'mon Google will win b/c...

[linuxlover]

they consume like 500 pounds of pasta per week! (can't find the link to the article)

Really it's just hit or miss

[tidge]

I've found a lot of places in CA and GA where google maps are a lot more recent.

Just a minute ago I was looking into some maps for the mouth of the Columbia River and Ft. Stevens in Oregon and virtual earth has WAY better maps. I got to looking around a little more, and from my experience it seems like virutal earth has better images for more outlying areas. Google looks to have done a bit better covering the metro areas though.

Re:Really it's just hit or miss

[tidge]

Actually, using NASA's World Wind project I can get an idea of where the data is coming from. In World Wind you can tell the application which database to pull images from. Looking at the Columbia River and Ft. Stevens, it looks like virtual earth is using the USGS Digital Ortho. It looks like Google is using something close to what the Landsat7 has.

Re:Really it's just hit or miss

[tidge]

and in case you are interested, here's what I'm looking at:

google

msn

Canada: Do they have indoor humor?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Geez. I *said* I was teasing. I wuv Canada. I dig Second City comedy and I'm still a Rush fan and I don't completely hate Peter Jennings.

No sense of humor. Typical Canadian barbarian. :)

Tee hee.

Re:Canada: Do they have indoor humor?

[FlyingCheese]

Second City is American, they just happen to have one of their four(?) in the cold tundra of the north. The others are in the U.S.

Re:Canada: Do they have indoor humor?

[FlyingCheese]

theaters*

I should really proofread before I hit the Submit button. Sorry.

Re:Canada: Do they have indoor humor?

[Quiet_Desperation]

Look, I was straining for examples... ;-)

no competition

[real gumby]

When google maps start giving useful directions that send you where you asked, then there will be some map competition between the two.

Otherwise I prefer the GOOG offering.

Try clicking the 'Roads' checkbox in GE

[donert]

Shows you the streets.

Virtual Earth is simply not as good...

[terryfunk]

From what I have seen so far, Google Earth outshines VirtualEarth by miles and miles. VirtualEarth doesnt even come close to what you can do with GoogleE.
Whereas, the map software is comparable to some degree, GoogleE is SOOO much better and more sophisticated

Twin Towers

[angrytuna]

Sure enough. More than a little eerie.
msn map vs. google map

MSN Apple Map MUCH older than 1991?

[seawall]

I seem to recall Apple has had buildings at that address when the Mac was under development e.g. 1983....or am I wrong?

Re:Google Map Hack and strip clubs

[Anonymous Coward]

hah! funny...youre not too far off... we added live webcams to the site now... http://evdo-coverage.com/webcam/ ... you can add your own tooo BUT keep it pg13 will ya?! :)

Do you often travel with your workstation?

[glyphi]

Have you tried google maps from a pda? Don't bother. Now if I could set things up at home on the big screen, and then wander round with my shiny new GPS PDA following the same set up route perhaps. You also gotta cost in the extortionate rate for GPRS data. Geek quotient high so far, practicality low. It should get us all thinking about what could *really* work for us. Well, except for us non-merkins! We shall just have to wait a while longer.

Umm...Terraserver?

[tvh2k]

Hmm that's funny, the arial photography looks exactly the same as the 1m photos at http://terraserver.microsoft.com/, except with addressing by street addr instead of lat/long or UTM. With google earth (or maps.google.com) I get both capabilities, plus color arial/sat photography. Personally I'd rather just use USAPhotoMaps to download the terraserver topo/photo images and google earth for street maps/directions and arial/sat color photos.

Neat VE feature

[teslatug]

The locate me feature sounds pretty cool, too bad I don't run Windows to be able to try it. The IP locator fall back isn't horrible though. I'd like to see Google co-opt this feature with an open WIFI database that others could use (think freedb.org).

Fighting for the skies

[Daytona89]

...did anyone else hear the sound of a diving biplane when they read the title? zooooooooom. tat-tat-tat-tat. Shoot those Yahoo! (TM) bastards out of the skies!

Re:Fighting for the skies

[megrims]

Well actually, Yahoo! are in a tank, somewhere in the middle of a lake.

Even though they are both in beta....

[teh moges]

I dont see a contest. Google Maps wins hands down for several reasons: - It loads 3x quicker for me - It's interface is better (simpler design, less clutter, better looking) - Up to date maps Sometimes, I don't know why MS even bother...

only in some cases...

[YesIAmAScript]

For example, look at the Apple example below. Scroll south from the empty space, down De Anza until you see where CA-85 should be. It's not there. Now follow CA-85 SE to Saratoga road.

You see there that the pictures turn color, CA-85 appears and are MUCH higher res than google's pictures. People see planes in Google's pictures? You can see people walking in and out of the rides at EPCOT in MSN's pictures.

MSN earth just started up. Give them time to get all the latest pics in.

mod parent funny

[sthebig]

> ...I'm being 100% serious, someone please enlighten me. seriousness on /. ?! mod parent funny please.

difference in ZOOM

[krunk4ever]

i'm not sure if anyone's mentioned or notice this, but msn virtual earth zooms in about 2-3x more than google maps, which is quite nice. you can actually see your house better instead of a 5x5pixel.

several other good things msn virtual earth has for it is the scratch pad. it's so nice that you can finally save a bunch of addresses on it. google really needs to implement something like that and not have me type the same address over and over again. although the balloons on google look cooler than the trapezoids(?) on virtual earth.

another thing virtual earth has is the search engine (upper left) where u can search for businesses and categories. for example, yesterday at work, i was trying to find the closest bank of america to me. i searched for bank of america, and immediately all the locations on the current viewable area of the map were plotted with the option for more. i can move my map around and the results dynamically change to where the viewable area is.

one last thing i'd like better, although this may not be true for everyone is that virtual earth actually takes up the entire screen instead of just 30% of it. often times i'd like a bigger map to see more stuff, but google limits it to a fix size which would be nice if it was expandable.

sigh... my karma's going to drop...

Quality AND quantity

[WebCowboy]

MSN Virtual Earth is more like Alpha than beta by Google's quality standards. And although as some have pointed out some of MS' images are more detailed than Google's, there are simply less images in total on MSN VE. Also, Google does a much better job of stitching images together--it'll magnify and dither less-detailed shots and stich them in if at least some of the images in the mosaic are of higher detail. MS leaves big ugly distracting holes.

Try zooming in on any costal or border state in the MS offering. The US border is like the "end of the earth" Hell, with MS being headquartered in Redmond Washington and some of their Windows OS codenames being named after locations in neighbouring British Columbia (Whistler, Blackcomb) that MS would at least map THAT part of Canada.

Nope...the city I live in - sized around a MILLION PEOPLE - is but a smudge on a sattelite map, and that's if you find it at all. Try this on for a chucke: Look for "Calgary, Alberta, Canada" on MSN Virtual Earth. It'll point you to a fuzzy, 50-mile-high view of....EDMONTON. It can't seem to find Fredricton, NB (maybe it was a gltich but it centred me on Pickering, ON) And Saskatoon, SK is too hard to find for Microsoft's technology (its fist instince was to point me to Kelowna, BC). C'mon man it's SASKATCHEWAN--it is a flat, dry rectangle--not exactly a challenge for mapping!

All in all pretty crappy there Microsoft. If you are gonna try to look like a serious competitor then you should only put out a wide release when you are ready. You really blew it this time.