Google's Rasmussen on Google Maps

jbp1337 writes "During a presentation at Sydney University last week, the lead engineer behind Google Maps, Lars Rasmussen offered an interesting insight into how it all came together. Rasmussen is working on a number of AJAX applications that provide a rich desktop-like interface to the end-user from within the Web browser. Other interesting things include a Linux port of Google Earth, the company is opening a new engineering center in Sydney, and Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money. On the rumor of a Web-based office suite from Google, Rasmussen said he is unaware of one 'but there are 3000 people that work for Google'."

Comments

Is XUL part of AJAX?

[bergeron76]

Is XUL part of AJAX? I know it has the XML component, but I'm unclear on this one. Can anyone shed any light on what AJAX is and how it differs from XUL?

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[zallus]

XUL is a user-interface description language created by Mozilla. XAML is a user-interface description language created by Microsoft. AJAX is a method of using Javascript to asynchronously update parts of page content without refreshing the entire page.

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[oliverthered]

In other words, AJAX is a new fancy name for what people have been doing with Javasript for the past five+ years, XUL is a user-interface description language created by and for Mozilla.

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[The OPTiCIAN]

And don't forget XENU, the galactic ruler who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs.

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[Directrix1]

AJAX is using Javascript RPC methods. So that part of the program is running in your browser and the other part on the server.

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Is there a XUL parser for AJAX or any other decent way to run a XUL-described application without downloading to disk first?

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[Directrix1]

Not many people. But yes the XMLHTTPRequest object has been around for quite a while now.

Re:Is XUL part of AJAX?

[oliverthered]

Well, quite a few people and before XMLHTTPRequest existed. Basically exactly the same as AJAX but using popunders to perform cross site scripting and without the fancy name.

Lots of sites that take a Zip and house number and return the full address use pre-AJAX AJAX.

Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[doodaddy]

Does anyone else feel that the released Google Maps is worse than the beta? Interstate names are missing, printing via the print button doesn't work right, the list of streets to choose form is on the left which is awkward. The first page take 5 seconds to load often, which is not very Googlish. If you have half of your street info typed in and the page finally finishes loading, it erased your typing so far...

I also have trouble using is from Mozilla 1.7.x but it may be because of adblock or flashblock. But this has been going on in the beta too.

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[bleckywelcky]

Yeh, and half the time I'm doing an address search, it does a local search instead of a map search. So when I type in 12345 Street, Town, ST it brings up a local search of pizza houses or something ...

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys all smoking crack? You missed the main thing..

Google Earth for Linux!

How can you fail to miss that? Finally! GE for linux! Rock on! Wheeeeee!!!

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll wait until they have something for GNU/linux

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[TeacherOfHeroes]

Google maps seems to be running very slowly, but it doesnt seem that the slow-down is contained to google maps, either. The google mail server continually goes on and off line like a yo-yo, usually right when I'm about to hit 'Send'.

Even their search pages seem to be taking more time than normal to be served. Maybe speedy, widespread adoption of all these new services is comming back to bite them in the rear.

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[elemental23]

Feh, call me when I can run it on OS X.

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The high end stuff already required SuSE - they just need to 'lite' it for release.

Re:Google Maps Release Worse Than Beta?

[Onan]

Overall, I still find Google maps pretty unimpressive. There's exactly one interesting trick, being able to drag-scroll around. But that's only interesting as long as it actually works, which appears to be a pretty small portion of the time. It invariably just stops responding at all after a small amount of use--often before display the first search query at all.

Similarly, yes, the print function often decides to do nothing but redraw the screen. And the searching on location by name is still wackily unpredictable; I've never yet found a phrase to describe an intersection of two streets that will cause it to reliably know what I mean.

And, of course, it breaks completely in the absence of ecmascript, which clearly makes it Not The Web. If it doesn't work with a pure simple html client, then it doesn't belong on the net.

The only good news is that Yahoo's maps continue to actually work elegantly and reliably. My most-preferred browser is w3m, with which Yahoo maps works perfectly. In the unlikely event that Google ever decides to design interfaces that are consistent with the basic design of the web, I'll try it out. But until then, none for me, thanks.

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[Hyperlink Processor]

Does it cost you to do a google search? Does gmail cost? My "opinion" is that that "opinion" is fairly factual. Google uses free services to instill loyalty and keep people coming back... and clicking on their ads.

Hmm, I can't really think of any free MS services off the top of my head. Definitely not any that don't tie in with their OS or something.

It's the same thing

[Fapestniegd]

Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money.

When you sell ad space alongside your applications, end-user loyalty is money.

Re:It's the same thing

[Da Penguin]

When you sell ad space alongside your applications, end-user loyalty is money.

Exactly! So unlike other companies their business models require them to be considerate and helpful. Combine this with not actually taking money from customers at any point, and you have an environment that shareholders cannot rightfully destroy (never mind that most shareholders have non-voting shares anyway).

Re:It's the same thing

[rm999]

Yeah, but when you make less money than you could (say from graphical ads) you are also doing it for your users. It's a longterm thing - make your users happy by not placing colorful flashy ads, and they'll keep coming back. So yeah, it is about money, but the method to get that money is user loyalty.

I'd say they are doing a good job based on how many google fanboys are out there

Re:It's the same thing

[blazzy]

You are *not* the customer. You are the product. Google's customers are the advertisers.

Re:It's the same thing

[Moofie]

So? As long as they keep me happy, their labeling scheme is irrelevant to me.

Suggestion: walk soft, carry big stick

[slittle]

Rasmussen is working on a number of AJAX applications that provide a rich desktop-like interface to the end-user from within the Web browser.

Netscape had the exact same idea a decade ago (sans trendy development tools of course). "We're going to make the operating system obsolete" they said. And we all know what Microsoft thought about that, and what happened to Netscape as a result.

Re:Suggestion: walk soft, carry big stick

[travail_jgd]

A decade ago, Microsoft had a lot of "bling" power with Windows 95, and could do no wrong in the eyes of most people. Also, the computers of that era were "adequate" or "underpowered" for what they were doing. Network connections for the overwhelming majority were limited to dial-up.

Fast forward a decade. You have people using 1 GHz processors (and faster) just to check email and play solitaire. Memory is more abundant, browsers are more robust, and significantly more users have some level of broadband connection.

We shouldn't forget what Microsoft is capable of (ethically or financially), but it's unfair to worry that all new ventures will fail because of the MS presence.

Re:Suggestion: walk soft, carry big stick

[millette]

Also, it was pretty much just a dream in netscape's mind, whereas google is in a much stronger position today when comparing both to microsoft.

Re:Suggestion: walk soft, carry big stick

[Anonymous Coward]

At that time, Netscape made most of their money selling software: they even sold the web browser originally, and they sold server-side software. Microsoft was very able to hurt them: by giving away Internet Explorer, they cut out all the revenue from Netcsape's browser sales (Netscape was forced to give away their browser); by bundling IIS with server versions of Windows, MS put pressure on Netscape's server sales.

Compare with the current situation of Google vs. Microsoft. Microsoft can't force Google to stop selling search, because Google's search service is already free (supported by ads). All Microsoft can do is bring competing services to the market, but that's not a slam-dunk. When MS bundled IE with Windows that really cut into Netscape's browser market share, because most people would not bother to get a web browser if they already had one.

So, trying to compare history with the present, I guess the scariest thing Microsoft could do would be to ship IE with a bunch of links already pointing to Microsoft services. Don't they already do that? And isn't Google still doing well?

Google became the #1 search engine because they returned better results than the competition, and PEOPLE SWITCHED. The browser wars history shows us that people don't usually switch browsers, but Google shows that people do switch web services if one is better.

So all Google has to do is keep offering really good services and there is little Microsoft can do to hurt them. If Google keeps offering the best services, and pioneers new ones to get first-mover advantage, they will keep winning.

Re:Suggestion: walk soft, carry big stick

[Sketch]

> Netscape had the exact same idea a decade ago (sans trendy development tools of course).

Yeah, but back then, we always disabled JavaScript on our browser because it made it more likely to crash...

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[eln]

and clicking on their ads

Which makes them money. Google is "all about" making money, just like every other for-profit company on Earth. They choose to do so by creating loyalty in the users of their products, which drives ad sales. In the case of Google, much like television networks, their "customers" are the advertisers, not the actual end users of their products.

Office Suite

[mordors9]

Obviously Mr. Rasmussen needs to spend more time on Slashdot and he would know that he has in fact preparing to release an office suite.....

Re:AJAX

[Seumas]

Like CSS. :D

Gmail as a web-based word processor

[Sundroid]

Gmail is another AJAX application, and it has immense possibilities. I wrote this comment using Gmail, checked my spelling with its spellchecker, saved it in Draft, and it is stored on Google's server, which is safer than my own hard drive.

Web-based applications are here to stay, and if they are from reputable companies like Google and Yahoo, you know your files stored on their servers will remain there for a long time, if not forever.

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminal computing is here to stay! It's cheaper and safer. The data is centralized, where it can be backed up by people smarter than me. Applications are updated, added, and managed for me!!! I can sit down at any computer in the lab and instantly, get everything I worked on. I mean, like, wow!

Terminal computing ain't going anywhere, not for a long time.

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Some might say that allowing a corporation to store your files forever is a bad thing.

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[russint]

and if they are from reputable companies like Google and Yahoo, you know your files stored on their servers will remain there for a long time, if not forever.

Whether you want it or not

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[nharmon]

What happens when your network goes down? Either because of an outage or because you're with your laptop and you're miles from the nearest net connection?

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[alan.briolat]

All well and good, until the US government yet again exercises their right to obtain any information held on US servers, then you might think twice about using the services if you value your privacy...

What would be good is some kind of encryption integrated into such services, so that nobody can obtain any useful information of yours from the server, however I can't see that happening as Google would get legal flak for 'obstruction of "justice"'. Remember, if you value privacy, you're a terrorist!

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[Anonymous Coward]

Gmail is another AJAX application, and it has immense possibilities. I wrote this comment using Gmail, checked my spelling with its spellchecker, saved it in Draft, and it is stored on Google's server, which is safer than my own hard drive.

For those of us using reliable hardware, that's not a real benefit. I could've written this reply in any of a dozen text editors or word processors on my system, spell checked it, and saved it to my hard drive, a CD, a flash drive, a floppy disk, my work's network or my hosting company's servers. All of which I trust more than google's servers.

Web-based applications are here to stay, and if they are from reputable companies like Google and Yahoo, you know your files stored on their servers will remain there for a long time, if not forever.

Possibly. Or they can cancel your account and delete all your data at their whim. From gmail Terms of Use: Google may at any time and for any reason terminate the Services, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate your account. In the event of termination, your account will be disabled and you may not be granted access to your account or any files or other content contained in your account although residual copies of information may remain in our system.

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[cmglee]

> Yahoo, you know your files stored on their servers will remain there for a long time, if not forever. Try not checking your Yahoo mail for 3 months. Dunno about GMail but I wound't be surprised if they have a similar policy.

Re:Gmail as a web-based word processor

[foreverdisillusioned]

This is what encryption is for. There's even a handy Firefox extension that does it for you, in the case of Gmail.

Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Google have the one thing almost no other advertiser have. User loyalty and brand identity. Who the hell *loves* ClearChannel? No one. I bet even most people that use their services would say they loved them. People never stop saying how much they love Google.

*Everything* Google do is a way to make people look at more adverts. Providing services for users just makes more users look at them. Perhaps this is why they are the largest advertising agency in the world?

Re:Marketing

[bastardsquadmuzz]

> *Everything* Google do is a way to make people look at more adverts.

Slightly off-topic I know, but partly relevant. When Gmail was first released everyone was saying how awful it is that they would be scanning your emails and printing ads. Yet I've been using Gmail for about two weeks and haven't seen any ads yet, and the only ad-blocking software I use is Firefox's pop-up blocker. Is this normal?

Re:Marketing

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Perhaps this is why they are the largest advertising agency in the world?"

Correction...they are not an ad agency, they are in the business of ad sales. The difference is that while an ad agency creates ads for clients, Google sells ad space. Just a note from your friendly local ad exec.

Re:Marketing

[evilneko]

Come to think of it, I'm not seeing any ads on gmail either, and I don't recall ever seeing any in the first place, either.

Mozilla 1.7.7

Re:Marketing

[Baricom]

If your Gmail is anything like my Gmail*, you'll see ads in the right column when you read threads. However, the ads don't always show up when you're not discussing mainstream topics in your e-mail. Others have also found that Gmail will avoid placing ads alongside e-mails which appear to be about sensitive topics such as death.

* Of course, your Gmail might not be anything like my Gmail because I've noticed they have several different versions deployed. For example, there's a RSS reader integrated into some Gmail accounts that I don't have access to.

Re:AJAX

[BarryNorton]

Does Slashdot get a kickback for promoting this stupid acronym?

Seriously, the article summarised does not use this term - it's clearly been added either to push it, or to provoke discussion (again)...

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[Hyperlink Processor]

Google is "all about" making money

Exactly! The users of their products do not buy anything and get access to quality product. "Giving somebody good stuff for free instills loyalty," and "Google ads are easy to ignore."


Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money.

That statement makes a good point, even though it's more like Google's design philosophy is based on using end-user loyalty to make money.

Google spends a lot of it's time developing quality products that people keep coming back to use. Loyalty. Google doesn't develop those products and then sell them, they develop those products to support their user base and therefore their advertisements.

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[BFaucet]

End user loyalty isn't charity at all. It's a long term profit tactic.

AJAX in a nutshell

[The MAZZTer]

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=1121 98633625636&w=2 This explains it very simply and easily. Basically you have the backend deliver content on-demand, and the frontend is a single HTML page powered by JavaScript which queries the backend for the necessary data. Just like a desktop application.

Technology vs Ethics

[NetSettler]

Rasmussen offered plain advice for people wanting to develop a Web application, "Don't break the simplicity of the Web" because that is what made it so popular in the first place.

"Google has an amazing infrastructure to do this [and] we have the power to process it; all we need are engineers," he said.

What about ethicists? How many of the people at Google are in charge of considering the impact of what they do, or do they all just assume the spread of knowledge is unconditionally good? (It hasn't necessarily worked out that way in atomic energy, for example. And even less auspicious technological advances like reverse-indexing the phone book have had mixed results sociologically. Not to mention search engines themselves, which haven't been 100% positive in their privacy impact.)

Knowledge is not Wisdom. The Ability to do something is not the Right to do it. Were it so, terrorism would be utterly defensible because it pretty uniformly involves the use of knowledge and ability to take some action that serves the selfish or thoughtless need of the person doing it. What stands between terrorism and righteous/respected power is not ability but ethics--not the knowledge of how to do something, but the wisdom to know when not to do something.

Note that I have not called the Google folks terrorists nor said they shouldn't do what they do. I'm just tired of seeing stories about what Google can do, and I'm interested in seeing more stories about how Google itself decides what is good and bad for it to actually do. Is it really mere lack of engineers that is holding them back from doing arbitrary things? Or do they factor in issues of privacy, security, morality, etc. into their basic design. I'd love to see some stories about that because in stories like this one here, it always seems to be a lacking element. Is profit motive and national law all that the world needs to adjust in order to assure that our collective sensibilities are not violated? If something is not illegal, is that an invitation for Google to do it (ready supply of engineers permitting, of course)?

I don't think they only need engineers. I think they also need ethicists. What I don't know is whether they think that.

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[Mathiasdm]

You know, engineers have ethics too...

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[NetSettler]

You know, engineers have ethics too...

I never said they didn't. (Nor that they did.) Engineers are people. Some are ethical, some are not. On the whole, probably most are ethical just like any other cross-section of society. But engineers do not have the power to enforce their ethics.

If I, as an engineer at a search engine company, told my boss that I didn't think I felt ethically good about some product we were deploying, I'd feel my job was on the line. It's not like there's a federal protection like the "whistleblower law" that ensures my safety. Besides, ethics is often something that involves more information and time than the average engineer has. It's just not his/her job to worry about. But I think it should be someone's.

Not that all cases are even so clearcut as binary Good and Bad. Some ethical lines are complicated and require discussion. I just never hear stories about such discussion. And the people involved in the discussion when it does happen rarely sound to me like a group of employees at the company in question who are specifically charged with coming up with an ethical position, protected from being fired for actually taking a position contrary to "go ahead", and reliably capable of influencing rollout based on such a position.

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[Mostly a lurker]

The same kinds of concerns you raise could also be used with respect to libraries or even printing presses. Progress is impossible without limited negative consequences. The important thing is that the negative is out balanced by the positive and that deliberate evil should be avoided. I may be naive, but I believe Google when they claim they try not to do evil. I think they are actually unusual among US corporations in having that attitude.

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[danFL-NERaves]

What they should do? Google is a corporation. That is, they are a legal entity which was created for the purpose of creating value and limiting the liability of a group of owners. It's mandate is to do whatever it is capable of doing in pursuit of creating additional value for the owners.

Why would Google have Ethicists 'in charge' of considering the impact of what it does? Ethicists function best when they are able to independently comment on the actions of such corporate entities in a forum conducive to public review and consideration. A forum where an open debate of the pros and cons of actions can be proposed by a plurality of Ethicists and concerned observers. Having an Ethicist in a position where their self interest is coincident with the business interests of their employer seems like a situation designed to marginalize the ability of the Ethicist to affect change.

Dan

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[NetSettler]

I believe Google when they claim they try not to do evil

I don't know if I'd believe or disbelieve such a statement, but I've not seen it in so plain a form. But even then, to "try" is an interesting thing. In a person, I take it to imply that meaningful amounts of energy are expended toward the acheivement of the stated goal. So what really interests me is how they implement it. Trying not to do evil has to be more than simply an accidental effect of getting probably-well-intentioned people together and letting them do hopefully-well-intentioned things; I would not accept that as a process. If they do have a process, I'd like to hear something about why it leads to a better-than-chance set of ill effects. If they don't have a process, I'd like to know why they think they can make such claims (if they even do).

Heck, for that matter, as a first round of discussion, I'd almost bargain down to a clear definition of the goal they are "trying" to achieve--that is, an understanding of what they think is the "evil" they are trying to avoid. Without knowing what they think is good and evil, how can I know that the evil they are trying to avoid is the evil I or you or anyone cares about? And if I don't know that, I don't know what it means to trust them. They might mean that claim in all good faith, and yet not be doing what I want or need them to do.

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[Thing 1]

But, in point of fact, I don't take it as fixed that corporations must have as their sole goal the instantaneous enrichment of their stockholders.

Not a businessman, are you?

If a corporation spent greater than 0% of their resources on something that was not profit-related, then the corporate officers need to explain to the shareholders why that money was spent, and how it will lead to increased profits (like Apple donating computers to schools, for example; it was a short-term loss, but resulted in new tech grads knowing (and recommending purchase of) Apples).

Please defend your position, because I just don't see it. Yeah, it's nice in a "communism would work if nobody cheated", but capitalism works even when people cheat.

Re:Technology vs Ethics

[Thing 1]

If something is not illegal, is that an invitation for Google to do it (ready supply of engineers permitting, of course)?

The Constitution of the United States states that, if something is not illegal, then, yes, it is an invitation for anyone to do it!

Do you know spanish?

[Tei]

If you know spanish and like web games like OGame, you may try a new XUL app for OGame, its a XUL shell to play OGame seamlessly. Read about XELL

pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovation

[SuperBanana]

Rasmussen is working on a number of AJAX applications that provide a rich desktop-like interface to the end-user from within the Web browser.

Too bad the only thing going for Google maps is that it is pretty (antialiased graphics, map can be as large as you want) and lets you pan. That's really the ONLY thing that is innovative about it- not even the "use google maps for displaying stuff from your site" is innovative; Yahoo and Mapquest have been doing this for years.

• You cannot save addresses (such as your home address).
• You cannot change the route or set preferences (ie avoid toll roads etc).
• You can't see traffic or construction information.
• You cannot do multi-point routes. Ie go from your house to Jane's house and then to the movie theater. Laughable, except that's something people want to do quite a bit.
• Interstate numbers and road names are not shown nearly enough. Except for major highways, Google uses uncommon, unmarked road names. For example- headed into Tufts University, you take Route 2 to Route 16, and that is how they are marked on the streets. But Google Maps refers to it as "route 2 to Concord Turnpike to Alewife Brook Parkway. 99% of people in Boston would have no idea where "Concord Turnpike" is; 95% of them don't call Route 16 anything but "16", and it's not MARKED anything but "16"!
• Local search is almost worthless. It only finds addresses which are on websites (was it too much effort to buy a yellow pages directory database?) and when you do a search and specify "in the map area below", it promptly COMPLETELY ignores you and shows you have a effing STATE.
• Printing prints a LOW RESOLUTION version of the big map. Great, so I can tell I'm going from somewhere in the middle of Massachusetts, to somewhere in the middle of Boston, via the mass turnpike. Wonderful.

Funny thing, but MS Streets has NONE of these problems- it's not perfect, but it is FAR superior to Google Maps in useability and features people need; it has a nice way of compressing the map into a page, it's high resolution, saves addresses, does a near PERFECT job of finding "what's within the radius circle I draw", and it uses both route numbers and the uncommon road names. Nothing sets Google Maps apart from its web-based cousins, either- except for the basic map display. It certainly hasn't revolutionized online maps.

AJAX Info

[AngryNick]

From a ComputerWorld article on AJAX (July 2005):

The AJAX acronym was born on Feb. 18, 2005, when it first appeared in a paper titled "Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications", which was written by Jesse James Garrett, a founder of Web consultancy Adaptive Path LLC. The term has generated a lot of buzz among developers and bloggers so far this year, but it's only the name that's new.

3000 eh?

[mccalli]

Wonder if one of them could find time to update their maps data to be correct. I'm in the UK - put in my postcode and it has me in a completely different town. Reported as a bug about three months ago (within a week of Google Maps UK launching, don't know exact date), reported by others since and still more people I know have reported that they've been placed incorrectly too.

It's the only mapping service to get me in the wrong place. Streetmap.co.uk is fine, multimap.com is fine, the MS one whose name temporarily escapes me is fine...just Google. Wonder where they're sourcing their data from?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:AJAX

[Gnascher]

You might want to go ahead and view source.

This page has SIX linked style sheets for various aspects of the page, as well as for print and handheld media.

Looks to me like Slasdot's gone to CSS school.

please stop

[spoonyfork]

You misspelled AJAX. It is supposed to be spelled j-a-v-a-s-c-r-i-p-t. What you memers call "AJAX" is some company's rebranding of existing javascript functionality that's been around for years. Please stop.

Re:please stop

[hey]

Guess what, whether or not AJAX should be called AJAX... it is now.
Someday it will even be Ajax.

Re:please stop

[VJ42]

Someday it will even be Ajax

No it won't, Ajax is a dutch football team

Re:please stop

[same_old_story]

yeah right...

and sun is also the name of a star...
and there is a fruit called apple...

Re:please stop

[Maian]

Honestly, who cares, besides grammar Nazis? It's easier to say than x-m-l-h-t-t-p-r-e-q-u-e-s-t or even x-h-r. Does it really matter if some company came up with the name? It's not like they "own" AJAX - it's up to the people whether they choose to accept it, and looks like the people have chosen.

Besides, AJAX is not simply JS. In fact, the key component of it doesn't need JS - in IE, VBScript can do "AJAX", and later once Mozilla integrates Python support, soon Python can do "AJAX". Now, this does make the acronym bad (async JavaScript and XML), but it was already bad in the first place - not that it really matters anyway.

Why I don't care

[ZachPruckowski]

No offense, but it doesn't really matter right now. If a result of Google serving it's advertising customers is a bunch of good stuff for me, I'm generally happy. I mean, there is a risk that the advertisers could then have so much power over Google as its "customers" that they force Google to do things we don't like. But given how that is possible in other industries where the customer-company relationship is traditional (i.e. TiVo), it doesn't seem like any sort of negative change.

Two google posts today.

[LoveTheIRS]

Yep...we've doubled the rate of the google articles on slashdot. Seems, that there's now one "google is awesomers!" post, and one "google is so popular it is making corrput governments worried post."

Re:AJAX

[Seumas]

Hi, you must be new here.

Slashdot only implemented proper CSS within the last couple weeks.

Still not spelled right.

[oneiros27]

It's spelled e-c-m-a-s-c-r-i-p-t, or even better, d-h-t-m-l.

And I agree-- 'ajax' is a marketing term. Even those guy who coined the phrase admitted it (see the Q/A at the bottom).

Re:Still not spelled right.

[elemental23]

You were right up until the part about DHTML, which is exactly the same thing as AJAX: A buzzword for things which already exist. What is DHTML but the combination of HTML with CSS/DOM scripting?

Re:AJAX

[Gnascher]

Quite aware of that ... and they did a fine job of it too.

My point is that your post is a couple weeks late, since CSS is no longer a technology that is too advanced for Cmdr Taco to implement on Slashdot. ;)

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[jlarocco]

Hmm, I can't really think of any free MS services off the top of my head. Definitely not any that don't tie in with their OS or something.

MSN search, MSN messenger, maps.msn.com, hotmail, encarta online, ...

Have you even looked for free services from Microsoft?

Ah ha

[Da Penguin]

Like a secret society you have to know how to pick up on their clues.

>Rasmussen said he is unaware of one 'but there are 3000 people that work for Google'.

He is wrong about the latter, so he must be wrong about the former as well! Maybe he discovered something that he wasn't supposed to, so he left some mental hints lodged deep in his brain to remind himself of what he is aware of.

See, Google is much cooler than Microsoft.

Re:AJAX

[Seumas]

Except, I'm pretty sure all he did was implement it. I don't keep up on the goings on of slashcode, but I seem to recall that others had cleaned up and fixed the CSS stuff in slashcode long ago and they just got around to actually activiating it on Slashdot itself.

So what is the next technology Malda needs to implement? And remember, it'll be a good six years before it actually happens. I'm thinking some sort of dupe-detector that does a quick link/headline search of previous articles and forces the editor to see a list of them after submitting the article, but before publishing. It's revolutionary, but . .. it just might work!

Giving up responsibility

[drx]

All this stuff is just about giving up responsibilty on the simplest things. Like storing your own files and making backups. Why should i want a "web app" that technically simply cannot compete with a desktop app? ... so Google gives how many Gigabytes of Mail memory, and has database search and threading ... well i have a 120 GB harrdrive here and Opera mail. Computing speed and storage was never cheaper, easier, more portable or saver than now, great free software in beer and speech is behind every corner and exactly at this very moment all these "web apps" are becoming a success. I think this is plain weird.

Re:Giving up responsibility

[daviddennis]

When was the last time a non-geek friend of yours made a backup of his personal hard drive?

Thought so.

D

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[vavilu]

So whose talking about charity anyways? And whats so wrong with making money while it serves the purpose for which millions of people come in ?? I use to you yahoo for email since 90's and now that I am hooked on to Gmail (read that as end-user satisfaction converted to end-user loyalty) and now I don't mind paying to Google. Its simple economics which is taught in all theoretical lessons. Its just that companies like google implement it in a new way, which later is known as 'googlism'. I don't know about you, but as far as most of the things go, things being legal, I don't mind if someone makes money if I get my work done.

end-user loyalty

[Karamchand]

I didn't notice anything of this end-user loyalty when Google switched from the old Google Groups to the new layout & design. The old, loyal user base cried out against this move but Google didn't listen.

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[millette]

"Local search is almost worthless. It only finds addresses which are on websites (was it too much effort to buy a yellow pages directory database?)"

Why can't I find a particular business listing in Google Local?

Where does Google Local get its information?

Aside from the ms remark (can't comment on that), the rest of your points are quite valid. So everything that google touches doesn't turn to gold, what a relief.

How does Google Maps Work?

[HeyBob!]

I've seen a few articles on it but what I'm really interested in is how they do the scrolling. I'd like to build a slideshow based on the same priciples: load only the image the browser is currently showing and when the user scrolls the image left or right, load the proper image and get rid of the older ones. I've seen all the buzzwords (xmlhttprequest,dhtml,xml, ajax, etc.) but not any actual examples of code.
Cheers.

Re:How does Google Maps Work?

[giMlids]

Some Google folks gave a talk at my school. The map is made of tiles that extend well beyond the edge of the display...when you drag to the right, the tiles on the far left are moved to the far right and new images are loaded inside them.

Re:How does Google Maps Work?

[/dev/trash]

I'd like to know how MS implements NTFS. I hear it's a form of C++ and .NET.

Re:How does Google Maps Work?

[lemnisca]

I was actually at the talk Rasmussen gave at the University of Sydney. He gave quite a good explanation of how it all works. I wrote about it here: http://freespace.atomicscript.com/. Note, however, that I'm not a web developer or particularly good with javascript, so my interpretation of what he said could well have errors.

Re:How does Google Maps Work?

[linuxhansl]

It is actually pretty simple (a similar scheme was also used for old C64 games with sprites).

1. you devide the visible map in tiles.
2. every tile is an image; it has a x/y poition on the screen and a source url, which "points" to the correct sub image of the map
3. when you drag the map around you just change the positions of the tiles
4. when a tile leaves the visible area you "reset" it (the x/y position and the url) and set its position to the other side
5. you make the map larger than the visible area in order to have the browser cache some image.

None if this is hard, mouse dragging scripts can be found anywhere. I guess the hard part is to come by the satellite data and to develop an adressing scheme (for the image urls) to address the correct subpart of the images that still works with different resolutions, etc.

I am not saying this is exactly how Google does is, but it could work this way (and it is how I would solve it).

You need to report it here

[NigelJohnstone]

I'm doing a test on this, if you report it through the proper email addresses it gets filtered, you get that 'we welcome your feedback' crap from their Google *bots* in customer relations. If you mention it on a discussion board that the programmers read it will get fixed, quote the response number.

So describe it now in response to a Google story.

Read "Suggestions -> /dev/null ?"
http://www.nigeljohnstone.com/archives/2005/10/sug gestions_-_d.html
(My blog, so its full of half assed ideas).

For Google I've been doing the numbers, if you explain your comment or suggestion here, you get a much better response rate than their email addresses.

Re:Mercator projection

[s-orbital]

Hey, I live in (Alaska|Greenland|Russia) you insensitive clod!!! (Actually Russia, but I used to live in Alaska). The Mercator Projection really stretches out the Northern and Southern areas of the world quite badly.

I Like Google...

[xquark]

thats all i have to say about that...

Re:AJAX

[VagaStorm]

It might be stupid, but it a hell of a lot easyer to tell your boss your gona use ajax for a project then telling him that your gona use a javascript that talks to whatewer backend which returs the neded data as xml which the javascript then can use to dynamicly update the page.

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[soliptic]

Completely agree: I never use Google maps, I stick with Multimap. No fancy Ajax interface, a smaller viewable map, and a lot more (offensive) adverts, may seem to make this a weird choice, but there's another point you didn't mention which swings it for me:

Google's projection simply f#&%ing sucks!

I can't stand it, it looks ridiculous and almost unrecognisable compared to both the world as I know it and other maps (OS, etc) that I've already seen.

Crystal ball

[Agmon]

That guy mentions a lot his crystal ball in the interview. What a poor chap.. I hope his other ball is real.

Re:a bit of a "plug" for google in the submission

[emurphy42]

"Google ads are easy to ignore."

Not to mention "Google ads are more likely to be something you actually care about".

"people don't usually switch browsers"

[Vryl]

I stuck with Netscape as long as I could out of hatred for m$. Eventually, I could not sustain the ideological position in the face of facts, IE was better. NS sucked. I changed.

Then when Mozilla was plainly better I switched. Then I switched to Firebird/fox.

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[rheotaxis]

OK, I can't decide which I want, the slick GUI in MSN Virtual Earth or the color satellite photos in Google Maps, while MSN still only has B&W in places. I've spent some time comparing the map data in MSN and Google, and I think there are places where each is better than the other, but no clear winner in all cases. At least I like that Google Maps is asking its API users to submit error reports. But I also like the 'scratch pad' feature in MSN compared to the ballons in Google maps. Oh well, freedom of choice is better than no choice at all, right?

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[ua6oxa]

I'll come out and say it: You're Wrong.

Funny thing, MS Streets has NONE of these problems ...

Funny thing, you mean the MS Streets that costs $40 and isn't accessible from any computer except those on which it is installed? That's what I thought... Concerning MSN MapPoint, MapQuest and Yahoo! Maps, they all get it wrong: PEOPLE HATE USING FORMS. Seriously. For every additional form input I have to fill out on a site, I hate using that site 10x more. Not only do all of the above have multiple forms you have to fill out depending on what you want to do (find an address, get directions, find a business), but each of the forms has multiple fields! People don't want to use that crap! I want to type "pizza in cleveland, oh" and see all the nearest pizza places. I want to type "cleveland, oh to rochester, ny" so I can see how to go visit my friend. Visual interface aside, this is the biggest reason I use Google Maps above everything else -- friendly input (and less input in general) is the future, not nitpicking over which name for a street is more popular. Google gets it right with a single line of input.

The Uni Tour

[miknight]

Lars must be doing the rounds in Sydney. Just the other week he did this same presentation at Macquarie University. Rob Pike was there too.

Other Google mapping bogosity

[xixax]

There's a few hidden warts under the pretty veneer.For example, Google Earth uses a sphere instead of a proper coordinate space, making it silly to try read absolute location values. I am also (from first hand tinkering with the maps API) a bit dubious of connectivity via published standards (aka WMS, WFS).

My fear is that we'll lose a bunch of basic functionality in the rush to get pretty user interfaces.

Xix.

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[GerritHoll]

I think you are forgetting a pretty major issue.

You can't visit continental Europe.

Re:Less bloat, better search

[Marco Rossi]

They already did.

Re:AJAX

[waamaral]

Except if you live in Brazil, which mean you would have to explain your boss why you're using soap (ajax - a soap brand) on a project.

Re:pretty, but that's it; no real feature innovati

[Sketch]

> Too bad the only thing going for Google maps is that it is pretty (antialiased graphics, map can be as large as you want) and lets you pan. That's really the ONLY thing that is innovative about it- not even the "use google maps for displaying stuff from your site" is innovative; Yahoo and Mapquest have been doing this for years.

Unless you consider the innovation which sprung up around it - adding nearly all of those features through client side javascripts (usally through browser extensions like greasemonkey) or other websites with modified versions of the Google javascript. Yahoo and Mapquest may have let you display stuff from your site, but all I've ever seen is the standard maps they already provided. Not all of the improvements and new data sources people added to Google Maps. I think the easy hackability is really what made Google Maps as popular as it is, as much as the simple easy-to-use interface.

Feature #2 is the only one I haven't seen added. MapQuest _used_ to have this feature, but got rid of it quite some time ago. I think it was at the same time they got rid of the "big map" feature (which still wasn't as big Google maps can be, but made the forms based interface not quite as annoying.) Ah, how I used to love MapQuest, before they castrated their site...

BTW, Google just added a limited version of your first feature a week or so ago - you can now set your "Home location".

Re:Mercator projection

[orasio]

I wouldn't wait for Coke to freeze just below 0 degrees C. It would take some more degrees under zero.
On the other hand, if they made anti-freeze coke, you wouldn't be able to get Coke smoothies.

Re:Mercator projection

[s-orbital]

Water, Coke, etc.... Why do you think everyone here drinks vokda?