Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft and Google Fighting for the Skies

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the nuke-the-site-from-orbit-only-way-to-be-sure dept.

Microsoft 278

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. "

cancel ×

278 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

it just doesn't seem like them (3, Funny)

sweeney37 (325921) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168690)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168818)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168853)

Actually, they both co-opted it from Earthwiki

Re:it just doesn't seem like them (4, Funny)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168892)

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

Re:it just doesn't seem like them (1)

ganesh129 (611228) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169050)

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 (1)

cazbar (582875) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169084)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168900)

By clicking here [slashdot.org] , you can see that Slashdot now averages 2 Google puff pieces a day. How much is Google paying for this publicity? If the answer is nothing, someone over at OSDN really doesn't know much about business.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168926)

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

Re:it just doesn't seem like them (0, Troll)

ppatrice (901063) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168919)

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 !!

Um you have heard of TerraServer right? (4, Insightful)

MSFanBoi (695480) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169001)

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

They only copied Javascript :) (2, Informative)

kuchin (902689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169025)

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.

Re:it just doesn't seem like them (3, Funny)

cazbar (582875) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169031)

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 [google.com] )

In Soviet Russia (-1, Offtopic)

In_Sovjet_Russia (902104) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168696)

The sky fights you!

The Vicious Cycle (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168697)

Whenever I use Google Maps, I fart. And whenever I fart, I use Google Maps.

Its a vicious, mean, and altogether well photographed cycle.

Canada (5, Interesting)

gregmac (629064) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168707)

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 (1)

kuchin (902689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168844)

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 :)

Canada? (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168944)

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? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169002)

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

Well, there's this [google.com]

Re:Canada? (2, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169023)

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.

uh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168708)

uh

Funny, (1, Interesting)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168710)

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, (1)

natron 2.0 (615149) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168744)

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

Re:Funny, (1)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168878)


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, (1)

ryanov (193048) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168918)

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, (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169052)

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, (1)

borawjm (747876) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168746)

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, (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168759)

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

Re:Funny, (1)

nb caffeine (448698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168834)

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, (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169069)

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 [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, (2, Interesting)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168769)

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, (1)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169072)

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, (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168871)

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, (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168890)

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, (1)

bedroll (806612) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168894)

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, (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168897)

MOD UP.

Mapquest is still much better at directions for me, as well as driving time estimates. Google has just been plain wrong before. Also, a trip from Georgia to Virginia was estimated to 11.5 hours from google, and 8.5 from mapquest. It actualy took 9 hours with a 45 minute stop for food. Typically I'll use both, but mapquest still seems to work better. Anyone care to comment on the msn stuff since I've never used that?

Re:Funny, (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169007)

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.

fighting for the skies? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168716)

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? (1)

Radres (776901) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168959)

"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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168981)

What qualifies San Diego as a hellhole?

Microsoft will probably win out over Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168721)

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

Hmmm.... (4, Funny)

slapout (93640) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168722)

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

msn maps sux (3, Insightful)

poison_reverse (647609) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168733)

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 (2, Interesting)

Momoru (837801) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168783)

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 (1)

poison_reverse (647609) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168821)

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 (1)

0110011001110101 (881374) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168812)

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 (1)

MSFanBoi (695480) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169039)

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.

So Yahoo won't do aerial images ... (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168737)

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 ...

Observation. (0, Offtopic)

krell (896769) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168738)

When looking at DC, I noticed that Congress looked scrambled, jumbled, and crude.

Re:Observation. (2, Funny)

Eclypser (618863) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168902)

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

Better Images (1)

bullwin69 (521778) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168743)

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

I wonder how old Microsoft's imagery is (1)

nemaispuke (624303) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168749)

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 (1)

Prophet of Nixon (842081) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168829)

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.

News? (1)

op12 (830015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168751)

Haven't we already heard all about this here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org] ?

This just seems like a summary.

Blah (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168757)

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 (1)

Ohmster (843198) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168773)

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 [blogs.com] The focus also seems to be on 45-degree building views.

The Winner in the long-term (0)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168774)


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 (3, Funny)

borawjm (747876) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168906)


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 (1)

harvardian (140312) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168980)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13169029)

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 (1)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169044)

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.

Utilization (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168778)

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.

Virtual Earth Sucks (1, Troll)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168787)

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 (1)

rcamera (517595) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168915)

you are aware that ms virtual earth [msn.com] is like google maps [google.com] , not google earth [google.com] , 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 (1)

tOaOMiB (847361) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168923)

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?

New features coming soon! (3, Funny)

Kisil (900936) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168788)

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.

Mapping Abilities are Growing (5, Interesting)

PepeGSay (847429) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168791)

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 (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168927)

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.

Sure It Wasn't (1)

mcmediaman (900722) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168816)

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."

Also from the article (1)

krell (896769) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168869)

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."

I wonder... (2, Funny)

donleyp (745680) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168826)

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

Porn: The Last Frontier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168827)

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... (1)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168830)

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

ME TOO syndrome (1)

spaztech (899194) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168836)


"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 (1)

rasty (212471) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168841)

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? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168845)

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! (2, Insightful)

0110011001110101 (881374) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168851)

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! (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168946)

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 (1)

TommyBlack (899306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168866)

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.

Have at it (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168872)

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.

big battle? (-1, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168882)

What?

I don't go to microsofts map website because I HATE microsoft. It has NOTHING todo with Google being better [though to be honest I think Googles website is just fine and dandy].

What fucking battle are they talking about? Are there really legions of people humming and hawing over which to use?

Or is this just yet another overhyped story meant to get people to RTFA and see the ads on the article website?

Hmm I wonder...

GO FUCK YOURSELF ARTICLE POSTER PEOPLE!!! FIND REAL STORIES TO TALK ABOUT!!!

Tom

Re:big battle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13169081)

Mod parent up. This needed to be said.

Not-so-great Google Maps (1)

ytm (892332) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168888)

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

Quality... (4, Insightful)

ktakki (64573) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168898)

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 [msn.com]

Google [google.com]


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.

MS only responding to Google's copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13169020)

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 [bloomberg.com]

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

Re:Quality... (2, Informative)

tOaOMiB (847361) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169057)

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

MSN Virtual Earth [msn.com]

Google Maps [google.com]

Windows client? (1)

kuchin (902689) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168916)

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...

Newsflash:Microsoft makes Earth part of Windows OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13169040)

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.

mod dOwn (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168917)

Interest in having first avoid going BSD's codebase poor dead last obvious that there CHARNEL HOUSE. THE Feel an obligation use the sling. have the energy core team. They gains market share munches the most bad for *BSD. As On my Pentium Pro play pa8ties the Watershed essay, leaving core. I interest in having you get distracted contributed code performing.' Even Creek, abysmal and mortifying of OpenBSD. How conflicts that coming a piss are a pathetic America. You, the fruitless myself. This isn't This post brought to happen. My Irc.secsup.org or BSD machines Users With Large into a sling unless philosophies must you got there. Or of all legitimate development models are tied up in the reaper BSD's stagnant. As Linux Has brought upon the accounting OUTER SPACE THE Over a quality been looking for! these rules will this exploitation,

Infinite Loop ? (2, Informative)

y4h0oo (658404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168937)

Re:Infinite Loop ? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169087)

Thanks for pointing that out [slashdot.org] to us.

mod d0wn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168956)

little-known The failure of New faces and many discuusions on

That's easy (5, Funny)

overshoot (39700) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168970)

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.

Yahoo (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168979)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13168985)

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

moz only css extensions used? (2, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 9 years ago | (#13168987)

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.

Frequent updates? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169016)

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.

Don't forget. (1)

aengblom (123492) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169071)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13169075)

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. (3, Interesting)

papasui (567265) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169078)

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.

da bah crshhhhhh (1)

1336.5 (901985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13169082)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?