Virtual Earth 3D Beta Launched 188
Lord Satri writes "Microsoft has announced the launch of Virtual Earth 3D. There are numerous screenshots to be seen, as well as a Google Earth comparison from Spatially Adjusted. You can read the Google Earth Blog on why he thinks it's not a threat to Google. C|Net's coverage and the official press release provide lots of concrete details of the product. You can also read more from the development side or see the CBS report on Virtual Earth 3D. My main gripe: Windows and Internet Explorer 6/7 only. From the official press release: 'When people visit Live Search, type a query into the search box and click the "Maps" tab, they get their search results in a map context that offers the option to explore the area using two-dimensional views (aerial and bird's-eye) or three dimensional models with Virtual Earth 3D. This new technology compiles photographic images of cities and terrain to generate textured, photorealistic 3-D models with engineering level accuracy.'"
Not a threat, but VERY cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows only (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried to test this but it is for IE explorer only. So Google wins by default.
Please explain why Microsoft is threatened? (Score:5, Interesting)
Navigation (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe I'm wrong and didn't spend enough time with it, but that is a huge handicap, better photos or not. With Google Earth I can grab and drag to wherever. Half of what I want to find isn't tied to an address, it is much easier to find by following landmarks.
Some parts cool, others not (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, it has nifty texture mapped buildings for a number of places, but what about the majority? Conversely, Google Earth covers a large part of Earth in quite good detail, but Virtual Earth not even my capital city. Additionally, GE has a large community behind it now, and the layer features provides an extensibility that could be compared to the extensions in Firefox.
Re:Please explain why Microsoft is threatened? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some parts cool, others not (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well said, but wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a threat, but VERY cool (Score:1, Interesting)
Google Maps has no idea about neighborhoods. Search for "West Seattle", "Chinatown" or "North End". It also isn't particularly good at landmarks. Try searching for Mt Rainier or Mt Rushmore. Google Maps can't find any of them. Live Local does exactly what you'd expect it to. It can find West Seattle as expected, Chinatown pops up a div dialog asking which Chinatown you're looking for, North End asks Boston or Springfield. Mt Rainier it finds. Mt Rushmore it finds. Hell, it even corrects Mt Rushmoor.
This is the big seller for me. Hotels near Mt Rainier and Pizza in West Seattle are much more useful than needing to search for hotels in each town around Mt Rainier national park, or filtering out all the pizza joints in the rest of Seattle.
Also, Live Local found more pizza places in West Seattle than Google Maps did in all of Seattle. Granted, Microsoft is a Seattle-local company so maybe the data is better here, but I've just found it to be a superior experience.
Live Local also has data overlays - most importantly up-to-date traffic data. I can put thumbtacks on the map and share that list with people. Check out preview.local.live.com to see what the direction they're moving in is.
Google is still a better general use search than Windows Live is, but Live Local is the superior regional search.