I don't think street view is a gimmick. If you have to go to a building you haven't been to before, it can be good to know what it looks like.
When we start seeing people walking around shopping malls with 12 cameras hanging off their bodies, we will know indoor mapping has started.
Some people are saying it's a mapping car and others are saying it's a driverless car. In a few years, why not both? Mapping drones will just become a fact of life.
"it does have some value at looking around to get your bearings somewhere new"
What signs can you read with FlyOver from street level? The one that says HOLLYWOOD on the side of a hill?
I don't think anyone would disagree with you on way you jump from frame to frame with Street View, but I can't see how you can say it's less useful than FlyOver.
Each is useful in its own way. My main beef is with how outdated satellite images are. In my area, several new skyscrapers have been going up over the last few years and both Apple and Google Maps still show them as vacant lots. Not helpful. Both of these companies have billions laying around in the bank - they can afford to pay for more current satellite imagery.
[On a side note: Based on recommendations in this forum, I deleted flash from my MBPro. In the above article, there is a place which says that I am missing the the flash plug-in, so I don't know what I am missing. A little surprised that AI would insert 'Flash-required' content.
It's just a lame video from a local TV station featuring webcam commentary from industry expert Rob Enderle, and larded with non-skippable Geico commercials.
Blame the local TV station for requiring Flash to view their video and thank the forum member who suggested you delete Flash for sparing you from wasting there minutes of your life on worthless drivel.
I have long felt that there are two major things lacking from Apple's Maps if they are to compete with, never mind overtake, Google's (excellent) product.
I have included the 'excellent's in the above because Apple's Maps always remind me of Steve Jobs' comment about skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it is now. And Google has set a very high standard.
The only thing that makes Google Maps "excellent" is the massive amount of data behind it. Their user interface - both on the web and in mobile apps - is crap. I curse Google every time I have to use their lame map interface.
I had a similar thought. If he says it's a self driving car, then it almost certainly isn't.
Actually you can't always assume something is incorrect just because Enderle mentioned it. Bear in mind that his expert opinions are a blend of a) stating the obvious, b) regurgitating what someone else has already predicted, and c) providing completely clueless analysis and predictions of his own. Part "c" is the one to watch out for, as it's usually paid for by some company's PR firm.
Rob Enderle? Seriously? Is he now your go to guy for Apple expertise? Since when is Rob Enderle anything but a laughing stock in the world of Apple? Perhaps you should get an expert second opinion from assclown John C. Dvorak while you're at it. Or maybe Paul Thurrott? And don't forget get to get anal ysis from Henry Blodget on all Apple business matters.
Minivans rock! I have to say that I own a Dodge Caravan R/T and it's a great vehicle. Say what you will about minivans, it's quick off the line and very versatile. I do own a red sports car too so it sort of balances things out a bit.
This may be different than streetview. With streetview the cameras are located in a spherical enclosure. Using this setup, which was designed before Google started using Lidar, panoramas (photo bubbles) are created at intervals. The user then navigates from one panorama to the next panorama. Useful but not the best experience.
Compare that to Apple's setup. The cameras are at the corners of the roof rack. This, combined with the Lidar should allow Apple to create a giant 3d model where the user can seamlessly navigate from one position to the next (along the roadway of course). Think of it as street level flyover. This could get interesting.
Also notice the contraption on the rear wheel. I suspect that this is a device that tracks the distance between the axel and the body of the van. By using such a tool, you can accurately track the position of the rack from the ground in order to get more accurate data for a 3d model.
Thing is, this’ll probably result in an enhanced Flyover. Since planes can’t get low enough to, well, get between buildings and see the street, they’ll likely composite these images into Flyover to let you zoom in further.
That what I thought as well... All areas that are supported by FlyOver, will be able to zoom all the way down to street level... and hopefully those images will be sharp enough to read street numbers off buildings?
Each is useful in its own way. My main beef is with how outdated satellite images are. In my area, several new skyscrapers have been going up over the last few years and both Apple and Google Maps still show them as vacant lots. Not helpful. Both of these companies have billions laying around in the bank - they can afford to pay for more current satellite imagery.
I was just thinking about that. You'd think there could be a real time update system by now for Maps and the like. Streaming updates from satellites should be continuously syncing with the databases and replacing any changes and also shots with better visibility, i.e. sunshine and no clouds. I'm pretty sure the military have long since had this albeit on smaller targeted areas.
That what I thought as well... <span style="line-height:1.4em;">All areas that are supported by FlyOver, will be able to zoom all the way down to street level... and hopefully those images will be sharp enough to read street numbers off buildings?</span>
That said, I have to wonder why drones are not being used a lot more. OK in an urban environment there would be issues with a whopping big drone flying down Main Street but 97% of earth isn't urban. Really low level detailed imigary of the rest of the planet would be pretty cool. Ok flying through a rain forrest might be tough too
This may be different than streetview. With streetview the cameras are located in a spherical enclosure. Using this setup, which was designed before Google started using Lidar, panoramas (photo bubbles) are created at intervals. The user then navigates from one panorama to the next panorama. Useful but not the best experience.
Compare that to Apple's setup. The cameras are at the corners of the roof rack. This, combined with the Lidar should allow Apple to create a giant 3d model where the user can seamlessly navigate from one position to the next (along the roadway of course). Think of it as street level flyover. This could get interesting.
Also notice the contraption on the rear wheel. I suspect that this is a device that tracks the distance between the axel and the body of the van. By using such a tool, you can accurately track the position of the rack from the ground in order to get more accurate data for a 3d model.
C
Could very well be another case of Apple seeing what others have tried to do and improving on it vastly for the user experience.
Could be very interesting.
If they just hit major cities first, they'd be on to something for a good chunk of the population.
I was just thinking about that. You'd think there could be a real time update system by now for Maps and the like. Streaming updates from satellites should be continuously syncing with the databases and replacing any changes and also shots with better visibility, i.e. sunshine and no clouds. I'm pretty sure the military have long since had this albeit on smaller targeted areas.
It's not a technical limitation but a business one. The companies who own the satellites charge a premium for the most current and highest resolution imagery. The highest resolution data is probably controlled by the military and is not for sale at any price. Also, once you zoom into an area you're almost certainly viewing imagery photographed from planes, not from satellites.
Google and Apple pay a fee for the image data you see in their maps, much of which is years out of date or of low resolution. It would probably be cost prohibitive for them to provide near real time images, but I suspect there's a middle ground where they can secure much more current data than what they have now at a cost that they can easily absorb.
Comments
I don't think street view is a gimmick. If you have to go to a building you haven't been to before, it can be good to know what it looks like.
When we start seeing people walking around shopping malls with 12 cameras hanging off their bodies, we will know indoor mapping has started.
Some people are saying it's a mapping car and others are saying it's a driverless car. In a few years, why not both? Mapping drones will just become a fact of life.
"it does have some value at looking around to get your bearings somewhere new"
Yep and no reason why Apple can't provide both with seamless integration and no use of Flash.
What signs can you read with FlyOver from street level? The one that says HOLLYWOOD on the side of a hill?
I don't think anyone would disagree with you on way you jump from frame to frame with Street View, but I can't see how you can say it's less useful than FlyOver.
Each is useful in its own way. My main beef is with how outdated satellite images are. In my area, several new skyscrapers have been going up over the last few years and both Apple and Google Maps still show them as vacant lots. Not helpful. Both of these companies have billions laying around in the bank - they can afford to pay for more current satellite imagery.
[On a side note: Based on recommendations in this forum, I deleted flash from my MBPro. In the above article, there is a place which says that I am missing the the flash plug-in, so I don't know what I am missing. A little surprised that AI would insert 'Flash-required' content.
It's just a lame video from a local TV station featuring webcam commentary from industry expert Rob Enderle, and larded with non-skippable Geico commercials.
Blame the local TV station for requiring Flash to view their video and thank the forum member who suggested you delete Flash for sparing you from wasting there minutes of your life on worthless drivel.
I have long felt that there are two major things lacking from Apple's Maps if they are to compete with, never mind overtake, Google's (excellent) product.
I have included the 'excellent's in the above because Apple's Maps always remind me of Steve Jobs' comment about skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it is now. And Google has set a very high standard.
The only thing that makes Google Maps "excellent" is the massive amount of data behind it. Their user interface - both on the web and in mobile apps - is crap. I curse Google every time I have to use their lame map interface.
Why the ??? ... I had clients collecting data with Apple ][s 37 years ago.
I had a similar thought. If he says it's a self driving car, then it almost certainly isn't.
Actually you can't always assume something is incorrect just because Enderle mentioned it. Bear in mind that his expert opinions are a blend of a) stating the obvious, b) regurgitating what someone else has already predicted, and c) providing completely clueless analysis and predictions of his own. Part "c" is the one to watch out for, as it's usually paid for by some company's PR firm.
Car like ride, and roomy interior. What's to process?
Since when is Rob Enderle anything but a laughing stock in the world of Apple?
Perhaps you should get an expert second opinion from assclown John C. Dvorak while you're at it. Or maybe Paul Thurrott?
And don't forget get to get anal ysis from Henry Blodget on all Apple business matters.
Holy crap, AppleInsider!
Minivans rock! I have to say that I own a Dodge Caravan R/T and it's a great vehicle. Say what you will about minivans, it's quick off the line and very versatile. I do own a red sports car too so it sort of balances things out a bit.
Compare that to Apple's setup. The cameras are at the corners of the roof rack. This, combined with the Lidar should allow Apple to create a giant 3d model where the user can seamlessly navigate from one position to the next (along the roadway of course). Think of it as street level flyover. This could get interesting.
Also notice the contraption on the rear wheel. I suspect that this is a device that tracks the distance between the axel and the body of the van. By using such a tool, you can accurately track the position of the rack from the ground in order to get more accurate data for a 3d model.
Thing is, this’ll probably result in an enhanced Flyover. Since planes can’t get low enough to, well, get between buildings and see the street, they’ll likely composite these images into Flyover to let you zoom in further.
That what I thought as well... All areas that are supported by FlyOver, will be able to zoom all the way down to street level... and hopefully those images will be sharp enough to read street numbers off buildings?
I was just thinking about that. You'd think there could be a real time update system by now for Maps and the like. Streaming updates from satellites should be continuously syncing with the databases and replacing any changes and also shots with better visibility, i.e. sunshine and no clouds. I'm pretty sure the military have long since had this albeit on smaller targeted areas.
That said, I have to wonder why drones are not being used a lot more. OK in an urban environment there would be issues with a whopping big drone flying down Main Street but 97% of earth isn't urban. Really low level detailed imigary of the rest of the planet would be pretty cool. Ok flying through a rain forrest might be tough too
Clearly can't be a Steve Jobs project. It has license plates on it. Steve would never do that.
Somebody should check to see if they use disabled parking spaces...
This may be different than streetview. With streetview the cameras are located in a spherical enclosure. Using this setup, which was designed before Google started using Lidar, panoramas (photo bubbles) are created at intervals. The user then navigates from one panorama to the next panorama. Useful but not the best experience.
Compare that to Apple's setup. The cameras are at the corners of the roof rack. This, combined with the Lidar should allow Apple to create a giant 3d model where the user can seamlessly navigate from one position to the next (along the roadway of course). Think of it as street level flyover. This could get interesting.
Also notice the contraption on the rear wheel. I suspect that this is a device that tracks the distance between the axel and the body of the van. By using such a tool, you can accurately track the position of the rack from the ground in order to get more accurate data for a 3d model.
Could very well be another case of Apple seeing what others have tried to do and improving on it vastly for the user experience.
Could be very interesting.
If they just hit major cities first, they'd be on to something for a good chunk of the population.
I was just thinking about that. You'd think there could be a real time update system by now for Maps and the like. Streaming updates from satellites should be continuously syncing with the databases and replacing any changes and also shots with better visibility, i.e. sunshine and no clouds. I'm pretty sure the military have long since had this albeit on smaller targeted areas.
It's not a technical limitation but a business one. The companies who own the satellites charge a premium for the most current and highest resolution imagery. The highest resolution data is probably controlled by the military and is not for sale at any price. Also, once you zoom into an area you're almost certainly viewing imagery photographed from planes, not from satellites.
Google and Apple pay a fee for the image data you see in their maps, much of which is years out of date or of low resolution. It would probably be cost prohibitive for them to provide near real time images, but I suspect there's a middle ground where they can secure much more current data than what they have now at a cost that they can easily absorb.
Apple computers. He stated Apple CPUs 25 years ago.