231–240 of 292 posts
If any Googlers are reading this: What does the new Earth require that Firefox is missing? I'm happy to help file things in Bugzilla so that this Chrome App can grow into a standards-based Web app.
NaCl
> Mozilla's Christopher Blizzard criticized NaCl, claiming that native code cannot evolve in the same way that the source code-driven web can. He also compared NaCl to Microsoft's ActiveX technology, plagued with DLL Hell.
For anybody who wants to see what this is a pale imitation of, Google Earth Pro for desktop is still downloadable and still free (and still full of weird unfixed bugs because they've been working on this "replacement" instead)
What is the difference to the 3D view in Google Maps? edit: (honest question, dear downvoters...)
I want to VR around the earth. I was kind of excited and hoping this was that
"Google Chrome required" - sure, because current crop of web developers are too young to remember dark age of Internet Explorer domination.
Yeah, I noticed the contradiction: "Explore the far reaches of the world, right in your browser. " But my browser is FireFox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What web technology does this use, specifically, that prevents firefox usage? Or is it just a chrome plugin they decided not to port?
I think the issues is that it uses NaCl - I assume they compiled the existing Earth engine to run on the web. Most likely web-based Earth was launching just too early to switch from NaCl to WASM, which just shipped, and they'll port to NaCl soon.
"Google Chrome required" - sure, because current crop of web developers are too young to remember dark age of Internet Explorer domination.
This is the same with the new YouTube TV too. I'm not sure if it's a DRM issue or not. Especially galling if so given the controversy over HTML5 DRM content, after other browsers have decided to support it, to then roll your own solution anyway...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I respectfully disagree. [P]NaCl is bad for the web just like ActiveX was. They have a Google Earth desktop client if you want a desktop application. As this is sitting on the open web it should use open standards.
I also disagree. There is nothing even sorta objectionable about Google software on Google servers requesting you use a Google browser to access them because it uses Google-developed browser features that aren't even part of web standards, and wouldn't be for years even if that was the goal. The alternative would be a moral stance that "no non-RFC stuff on port 80", and that makes zero sense to me. What, they're not…
I have no issue with Google putting things over the wire via HTTP but if it only works with a specific client it isn't, to me, a web site but an internet-based application akin to Microsoft ActiveX-based sites which were awful for the web.
The whole point of the web is that it was developed as an open platform and we had to fight with Microsoft to stop them turning it into an Internet Explorer only platform. I don't want the same thing to happen with Google/Chrome.
I want an open web where I don't have to use one particular browser for certain services.
I should also say I do think Google do a lot of good though. They do work with the web standards committee and they do a pretty good job of making their innovations open so I am not quite as worried as I was about Microsoft but, to me, it is better to stop it before it happens than fight to get it back.
I'm really impressed by the amount of detail in the 3D views (hold middle mouse button to look around). Even the fair at the field near my house [0] can be viewed in 3D!. Coincidentally they are currently building that same fair today, so for a moment I thought the images were live... [0] https://earth.google.com/web/@52.08511654,4.31805086,0.37952...
How are they building the 3D views? Mapping cars driving around with sensors? I was under the impression that the shapes were inferred from satellite images, but the moment I step outside the major cities, it's back to flat maps. Even the couple hand-modelled buildings previously present in maps seem to be missing here.
Rural areas probably have lower-quality image data (or noisier aircraft position data).
I'm really impressed by the amount of detail in the 3D views (hold middle mouse button to look around). Even the fair at the field near my house [0] can be viewed in 3D!. Coincidentally they are currently building that same fair today, so for a moment I thought the images were live... [0] https://earth.google.com/web/@52.08511654,4.31805086,0.37952...