This evening reading the TechCrunch take on Microsoft Live 3D Maps, the thought occurred that it would be a lot cooler if I could actually see somewhere I know, mapped in 3D.
Imagine my shock - Northampton (UK), my home town, amongst only 9 that are thus far available.
Glossing over why on earth anybody would choose Northampton over, say, London, Birmingham or Manchester to map, this is indeed very cool. Whilst not perfect (you do need to let your mind ignore the non-3D flatter objects), this is the most the Live brand has impressed me to date. Marvel at the Market Square. I took a glide around the corner to see if the Chronicle & Echo building had the newspaper logo on the front but I can't remember which building it is. Perhaps this is asking a little much in any case.
Another point, Live Maps seems more willing to give me up close imagery of my current Leicestershire locality. Google only manages a fairly greenish blur over most of the Midlands, as if to say "only trees and huts between the major cities, move along".
Strangely, for all practical uses, I still prefer Google. It seems snappier. About to comment on Google's platform independence I now realise that Live Maps in its 2D guise works perfectly well in Firefox, so that might not be valid.
Bottom line here, the mapping battle is a fantastic battle to watch. Is it even worth looking at any of the other contenders at this point or is it a two horse race? Hard to say if they're not all aiming for the same goal. 3D mapping and route planning both need perfecting, then combining. I'd like one of these contenders to take my start point and destination, then show me in full 3D how to get there (sped up, naturally). At this point I don't mind which contender manages it first.
No comments:
Post a Comment