As you may have already heard, MSN Virtual Earth is now available for use. Although it is nice that you do not have to download special software to use it (unlike Google Earth), I did not find it nearly as fun and intuitive as Google Earth (granted, that was not the most obvious interface either). Moreover, I find it somewhat curious that Microsoft calls its service Virtual *Earth* when they cover so little of the globe in detail. When trying to zoom in on various parts of Europe, I could not get anything more than a regional view. That is a far cry from what you can get using Google Earth, or these days, even Google Maps.
What’s more curious, however, is their depiction of certain areas. The Register caught some of these reporting that the NYC photos still show the World Trade Center towers (compare to the Google Maps version, hybrid view). Also, there is nothing to be found of Apple’s Cupertino headquarters (see it on Google Maps).
[thanks – Note the interesting blog link loop. I am acknowledging a post that acknowledges me.:)]
{ 5 comments }
Seth Finkelstein 07.26.05 at 1:29 am
The database of some images is apparently very old. Nothing more than that.
boo 07.26.05 at 1:41 am
Virtual Earth is not like Google Earth, it is like Google maps. Only the names are similiar.
As was discussed on Slashdot, in some places Google has more up to date maps and in other places MS has more up to date maps. Apple’s headquarter’s did not exist in 1991 when the MSN picture was taken.
“Moreover, I find it somewhat curious that Microsoft calls its service Virtual Earth when they cover so little of the globe in detail. When trying to zoom in on various parts of Europe, I could not get anything more than a regional view. That is a far cry from what you can get using Google Earth, or these days, even Google Maps.”
Try using Google maps and zoom in on Germany. What do you see? Nothing.
Question: When does the UK become all of “Europe”? Answer: When it’s time to bash Microsoft.
Eszter 07.26.05 at 1:52 am
If you launch a service in 2005, perhaps you should be using images somewhat more recent than 1991 or 2001 especially when a competing company is able to offer much more recent views.
Boo – Your last comment seems to have some very wrong assumptions about how I think about and try out these services.
Barry 07.26.05 at 6:21 am
On the other hand, it certainly froze my browser (right now, IE for the Mac [not my computer]).
Chris 07.26.05 at 6:26 am
I think that much of Google’s advantage in this case comes from their acquisition of the Keyhole company. By taking advantage of the Keyhole database, Google already had a running start here. I suspect that Microsoft just started with their TerraServer database.
The thing that excites me about this is that while the images may be a bit out of date at the moment (check out Chicago’s Millennium Park in Google Maps/Earth), things will only improve. On the other hand, I can’t imagine that satellite/aerial photography is all that cheap, so who knows?
Comments on this entry are closed.