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. "

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.

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,

[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: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.

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.

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.

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: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/ [google.com], or whatever it'll be, to go live.

Re:msn maps sux

[Goose In Orbit]

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

Re:New features coming soon!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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

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/ [microsoft.com]

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: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.