Thursday, 15 September 2005
the good, the bad, and the ugly: microsoft's new katrina photomaps
One of the things I’ve been using—and pointing people to—since Katrina is Google’s brilliant “Katrina” button, which they implemented a few days after the flooding. In addition to their map, satellite, and hybrid views, they added a bright red Katrina view, which showed satellite photos as of 8/31.
While the idea was excellent, the execution was somewhat limited. The photos weren’t very detailed, making it hard to assess damage in specific spots (an important task for people with homes or businesses in New Orleans). And worse, a number of areas of the city were completely missing—so when I searched for a friend’s house, I got a big blank spot on the map. (click image for larger version)
Today, I found that MSN’s Virtual Earth had launched something similar, but with flyover photos (not just satellite) taken last week. These photos, taken from low-flying airplanes rather than orbiting satellites, show a much higher level of detail. Better still, they include the area where my friends live (which, alas, appears to still be underwater. From the standpoint of someone who needs real information about their property in New Orleans, there’s no question that the MSN implementation is far more useful. It also offers a side-by-side before and after view that allows you to pan in tandem, which is also quite useful. (again, click the image for the larger version)
So why the title?
The good is obvious. This is a very helpful tool that addresses many of the shortcomings of Google Maps’ Katrina view.
The bad is that it was slow, and once again, looks too much like a me-too attempt after Google has innovated. It doesn’t matter if the ideas were born at the same time—what matters is that Google captured the mindshare by bringing something out fast when people were starved for information.
The ugly is that it only works in IE on a PC.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
People like Google because their tools just work—regardless of your platform or your browser. They don’t require you to change the way you work and the tools you use in order to get access to the features they’re offering.
Why can’t Microsoft do the same? Why, oh why, do they have to design all of their coolest technology only for those who agree to use their browser on their operating system? It’s not just an issue of market share. It’s an issue of mindshare, and goodwill, and getting your products to be adopted and championed by opinion leaders.
If Microsoft wants to compete in the brave new world of web 2.0, they’re going to have to start designing web sites that just work, rather than crippling them by using technologies that aren’t cross-platform and cross-browser.
