Do You Recommend Google Maps API or Microsoft Live Maps?

KSobby writes "The organization that I work for is going to be redoing our website in .Net/AJAX. On the site, our members will have profile pages listing where their organizations are located (our members are scattered throughout the world) as well as other pertinent information for the general public. It is a non-profit organization, so funds are tight. My question to you: If we include maps, which API do we go with: Google or Microsoft? We're in a Microsoft environment (we're non-profit and Microsoft basically gives us everything for free) but the ubiquity of Google may be enough to sway us. Has anyone used either extensively? Used them in conjunction with .Net?"

I let google answer

[by Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=maps&btnG=Search [google.com]

Re:I let google answer

[by Anonymous Coward]

Google really should hire an SEO expert.

Compatibility

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's the same product, but Google maps works with more browsers. Sounds like an easy choice to me.

Re:Compatibility

[garcia (6573)]

Live Maps lacks good sat imagery for a very large portion of the globe.

I think that people should seriously consider using both depending on their needs. If you're looking to do international mapping Google is probably the way to go but if you're going to be centered in large metro areas in the US and you're looking to use SWEET aerial photos, Microsoft's Live Maps kick ass (75m, far more recent than Google Maps, and better resolution).

I live and die by Google Maps API for what I need at work (plotting interest and applicant levels by zip code) because it's easy for people to use and many are already familiar with it. That just works for what I need but that doesn't mean that it's the best option for every application.

*shrug*

go with google

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

I say go with Google. If their map system suddenly changes they'll at least be smart enough to include legacy support or do something remotely responsible and there's no way that their entire map system would just disappear. As for Microsoft, they change their names and systems more often than I change my pants and if suddenly all of that new Microsoft Live crap disappeared, nobody would be surprised at all. Just think how many new Microsoft inventions/projects/experiments there were that either didn't do well enough so they cut them or they did really well and they cut them anyway for who knows what reason.

Re:go with google

[BlowHole666 (1152399)]

As for Microsoft, they change their names and systems more often than I change my pants

You must smell very bad :)

Re:go with google

[fredrik70 (161208)]

quite rubbish, If MS does anything it's hanging on to their old API for far too long. That's why they're so bloody bloated, remember? They might be happy to invent new ways of doing things quite often, but they keep the old stuff, hence the mess they're are in now with Vista - trying to make sure *all* ways of doing things work!

Google Maps

[EjayHire (860402)]

In your situation, I would go with Google. The Live web services are really new, and they will evolve over time, especially if they follow the same model as MS other mapping software.. free -> bundled -> unbundled/not free. Between Microsoft and Google, who do you trust for backwards compatibility in a year or two?

Re:Google Maps

[kripkenstein (913150)]

It took me 4 hours to port our software to Vista [...] The trick to MS backwards compatibility is to not use the undocumented shit.

That might be true, but how is it relevant as a comparison to Google?

The issue isn't Microsoft's desktop backwards compatibility issues (which is debatable in itself). Thing is, Windows and MSN/Live/etc. just happen to exist in the same company, otherwise, nothing is really shared between them. When you compare Microsoft to Google with respect to maps APIs, you need to compare Google to MSN/Live/etc., which has seen many name and strategy changes and is far less mature than Google's offerings. Google APIs are consequently more stable and less likely to change.

A conservative approach will therefore recommend Google APIs. They are more seasoned, more tested, work on more browsers, and used successfully by far more organizations and businesses.

Go with Microsoft, get MapCruncher

[by Anonymous Coward]

I recently discovered MapCruncher [microsoft.com] which is a super cool add-on for the Microsoft Virtual Earth API. Basically, if you have any of your own high resolution maps (like PDF of a floorplan or bicycle route or whatever) you can align it to Virtual Earth and MapCruncher writes the thousands of tiny image tiles needed to make your map easily browsable right on top of Virtual Earth. Google doesn't have anything like this. (Even though Google Earth has an "image overlay" feature, they have nothing that runs in the browser, plus it forces the user to download the entire overlay image instead of just the tiny pieces they're trying to view.)

MapCruncher rocks!

Checkout refin.com's comparison

[sp00 (639381)]

Redfin did a decent writeup [redfin.com] at the beginning of the year when they were deciding what technology to use. It was helpful to read when I was making the decision for the company I work for. Some of the things they point out have changed/been fixed, but it's still a good overview.

OpenLayers.org API !

[Lord Satri (609291)]

Really. Don't want to get stucked by one of the numerous webmap providers? Use OpenLayers.org [openlayers.org]. OpenLayers, open source, will legally allow you to connect to Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and other providers' data and switch between any without ever changin your code. No jokes, this is the best choice. Of course, it allows you to do *much* more. Want to learn more [slashgeo.org]? Also, OpenLayers works perfectly with other widely used webmapping software, such as GeoServer.org [geoserver.org] and many others. See also the webmapping section over Slashgeo.org [slashgeo.org]. (Yes I'm one of the founders, but it's really on-topic! :-) Why not read this entry on the webmapping APIs and data access [slashgeo.org].

Do both. Seriously.

[xxxJonBoyxxx (565205)]

If we include maps, which API do we go with: Google or Microsoft?

Do both. Seriously.

One of the oldest rules a downstream manufacturer (that's you) should follow is "avoid supplier lock-in". If you code with only one of these software titans in mind, you're subject to their terms. If you code for both, you can tell one vendor to zark off and/or play one rep against the other at pricing/ad-rev negotiation time.

Oh wait - you're a small non-profit with free Microsoft software? In that case there's no reason not to go with Microsoft. Development in 100% Microsoft tools is better than anything Google has...

Google maps == Google earth

[nweaver (113078)]

One of the really nice things about Google maps is the same API is used for google maps and google earth. Well, maps uses a subset.

So you can easily do pretty-ultra-eyecandy that also works well when viewed just through the web.

Data

[Kiaser Zohsay (20134)]

Maps are all about accuracy. Microsoft has more coverage with high res imagery (I can see my house from here!) but some of their street data is several years out of date.

For example [live.com], when I-74 was built, McKinney Road was re-routed to Hwy 601. The map has the correct positioning for I-74, but it still shows the old path of McKinney Road, even though the new path is visible in the image.

On the other hand [google.com], Google shows the roads correctly, but you can't zoom in the imagery nearly as close.

So its a matter of priorities. Do you want accurate or pretty?

Actually niether

[mhollis (727905)]

I set up a website for a brick-and-mortar store about seven months ago on my Mac. I then went to Google's maps and provided a link for directions. Then Google quit working with Safari browsers. Now, I know Apple's browser has its problems and has so many that many Mac users are not using the Apple-supplied beta browser because of problems with their release version but I cannot afford for anyone to not be able to load a map due to a problem with someone's map API. So I switched the website to use Mapquest. [mapquest.com]

Yes, I know that Mapquest is a slag-heap of a company since AO-Hell purchased it. I also know they're not innovating, they're just resting on their laurels and being used to provide AO-Hell with cash. But it works with all browsers I tested on Windows and Macintosh platforms, including some pretty obscure ones like iCab and Netscape's Navigator 2.0. Unless of until I get absolute assurances from Google that they'll never roll out new code again unless they test it first, I'm not using Google Maps for anything.

Haven't tried Microsoft's. Probably won't either as they won't work well with Macs or Linux or Unix and I cannot afford to disenfranchise anyone.

Redfin dev blog

[|/|/||| (179020)]

Here's a comparison [redfin.com] that I saw a while back on the dev blog for redfin.com.

Re:Google will spy on your members

[Trelane (16124)]

They actually have a privacy policy.

You mean the link that says "Privacy Policy" at the bottom of the Google Maps API page [google.com] which links to, maybe, the google privacy policy [google.com] doesn't actually exist?

Dang. My mind is more powerful than I thought!

(for reference, the MS Maps privacy policy is here [microsoft.com]).

How about this then?

[megaditto (982598)]

Privacy Group Gives Google Lowest Possible Grade [slashdot.org]

Err...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I've seen their report and I know what they do. However, I see good reason to trust Google (if they betray my trust, I'll dump them flat and they seem to know this; they've actually done meaningful things to increase privacy; they're honest and direct about what their actual policies are) and not so much reason to trust the other people listed. At least, no more than Google.

In the mean time, didn't Microsoft & Yahoo turn over dissidents to China? And didn't Google refuse the subpoena of user data from the US government when Microsoft & Yahoo gave it over without question?

I understand paranoia about your identity perfectly well. It just seems stupid to focus on the smaller threats when there are larger ones nearby, you know?

Actually, maybe I understand the paranoia better than you. I mean, you posted that while logged in...

Re:How about this then?

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

Did you actually read that report? In my humble opinion, it was basically some guys opinion dressed up as a scientific study. There was no repeatable methodology and the author didn't even bother to fully fill out the matrix. Go read the comments on the story you linked to, if you want to get more detailed commentary.

Incidentally, I say this as a very biased person. I work for Google, on Google Maps. As per usual, what's written here is my own opinion and not that of my employers. I won't comment on the Google vs Microsoft debate - it's not my place to do so - but I'd like to say that I've seen first hand (and participated in) the very strict procedures we have in place to protect peoples privacy.

For instance, I'm one of the very few people who have Maps logs access (ie, I can see cookies and IP addresses), and that's only because I work directly with the servers on a day-to-day basis and do abuse handling as part of my job. The vast majority of Maps developers have no logs access at all. I have to periodically rejustify my access, I'm not allowed to track any individual cookie or IP address for longer than 24 hours, my own usage of the logs is recorded and audited, I'm not allowed to take the logs out of their secure holding area and am not allowed to give logs in non-scrubbed form to anybody else. Violating these rules is grounds for instant termination. Contrast this with ISPs which sell clickstream data [seekingalpha.com] on the open market.

I'm not trying to make any statement of policy or anything, because that's not my job, but if end-user privacy is going to be a deciding factor in which maps product to use, hopefully now you have more insight into how seriously we treat end user data (what I described applies to all Google products by the way).

Re:How about this then?

[cyber-dragon.net (899244)]

except that Google says no when asked... Microsoft says yes. I would say that is a vastly different policy.

Re:OpenStreetMap?

[nwf (25607)]

Even though it is not complete

I'll say. The entire city of Philadelphia is missing, and it's not exactly a small city. In fact, looking at the eastern US, it's pretty much useless at this point. Alas.

Re:Use Mapquest Posts

[Applekid (993327)]

I think your giant string-concatenating code makes baby Blaise Pascal cry.

Slashbot Rhyme

[by Anonymous Coward]

I make a dash to the Slash to the D-O-T
Coz them news for nerds makes sense to me
So let this serve as a warning to the spammers and trolls
You may have a fat pipe but you ain't got bawls.

There's a new manifesto by ESR
And the stats of the watts of a hybrid car
I gots love for Perens and miguel, et al
And I voted CowboyNeal on the Slashdot Poll

I'm Microsoft bashin' like every single day
Coz the OS got holes and Exploder's teh gay
Now SCO's talkin' trash so I give firefox a ride
To reply as a Coward so I can hate on McBride

I will flame you with language I won't say to your face
And I bet you can't guess who gots all your base
There's one way to know if your server is rotting
Just post a link and you'll get a slashdotting

You can mod me down coz I'm a karma whore
And I'm a decorated veteran of a recent flame war
Where they fought about an app with a K or a G
And a heated debate on what was meant by "Free"

As a slashbot, when Linux receives a threat,
My palms begin to sweat and my evil bit is set
You best believe I'll be posting a rant
And I'll be surfin' Slashdot 'til my mom says I can't.