Half a decade ago, the big name in web maps was MapQuest. You wanted directions, you went to MapQuest. You wanted maps, maybe with satellite imagery? MapQuest was the only place to go. These days, though, every other mapping website lives in the shadow of one runaway success: Google Maps. And for good reasons, too: Google maps has better coverage, better browser support, a better interface, and much better satellite imagery.
And really, the satellite imagery is what a lot of people come for. Everyone knows it’s fun to look up your house, or for that matter, somebody else’s, and see what it looks like from space. (Usually, it looks like a roof. Not much, really. But bear with me.) Google’s satellite imagery is not only on average a lot newer than the competition’s (1-3 years old, compared to 2-3 years old on Live Maps and 4-5 years old on Yahoo Maps), it’s a lot clearer. And see that picture above? That was taken with a new high-image-quality satellite that Google has exclusive rights to the images from.
Google also leads, though, in map and directory coverage. Google has full maps of Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States, while Live Maps only has the United States, Canada, the UK, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and India. And Live Maps doesn’t even cover the northern Canadian territories. Not that anybody cares, but still.
Google’s browser support is better (6 supported browsers vs. 3 or 4), and their mobile device support is outstanding. Google Maps is built into every one of the twelve million iPhones out there. They’re faster, easier, and a whole lot better looking than the competition. Plus, they have Street View. (Imagine how cool it would be to have street view, and turn-by-turn directions, on the iPhone.)
Sure, Live Maps has 3D features that Google Maps doesn’t. But they require a special browser plugin that’s slow to install and slow to use. You might as well download the free Google Earth, which provides a far better 3D experience. While Google might not have been the first to come up with webmail, GMail now outshines the competition by far; I think Google Maps will be doing the same thing before long.
Really? Isn’t that like saying Ford owns the future of the automobile? Surely this is about choice?
Organisations need choice because they may have data that does not ‘fit’ well on Google Maps. They might need to offer mapping that is fundamentally different to that offered by Google Maps. They may even have so much data that it simply is impossible to use with Google Maps. Other organisations may need a map system that integrates better within an existing website, perhaps with branding and styling, or simply do not wish to use the same as everyone else. Is there anything wrong with that?
A one-size-fits-all mentality is OK some of the time, but even wth Google Maps’ merits it is not the panacea for geospatial project managers that you seem to think.
I like Google Maps very much. It is perfect for many smaller projects. But I see no sense in positioning a product from a foreign country as the only web mapping solution when it simply cannot deliver everything to everyone.
Dave.