Lets hope they release an API for it, google maps api still only 2d and google earth api got discontinued years ago
Google Earth Redesigned
251–260 of 292 posts
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like the first hurdle is that it's relying on the deprecated document.registerElement API from an early draft of the Web Components specs, which prevents the app from booting in Firefox. Edit: Paul Kinlan reports that Earth is using PNaCl ( https://twitter.com/Paul_Kinlan/status/854351477506277378 ), which means it fundamentally can't run outside of Blink.
Earth uses Polymer, which works cross-platform using polyfills, so that's not what's making it Chrome-only. It's NaCl.
Either the polyfills aren't being shipped or their feature detection is broken, because I get "document.registerElement is not a function" in Firefox Nightly with a spoofed UA string, and I get marginally further if I turn on our experimental native support for Web Components: http://imgur.com/a/TgnrQ
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you'd like to plan trips that have elevation data, I highly recommend komoot.com. It uses OpenStreetMap, and is a great tool for planning hiking or cycling trips.
I'll check it out, thanks. We were using Maps in a more adhoc manner when touring Scotland. It was great, now not so much.
For any serious trip abroad I use OSMand (but only on Android) ... you can use hiking routes (GPX), all offline (great if you have no phone signal). Also helped me more than once for parking or finding the next public toilet (haha). You can even using for skiing, biking or navigation on the water.
And regarding elevation it seems it is also there inside: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1795
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What I want is for a web site to use standard web technologies so I can use it with my browser of choice. 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 an…
In which case you're in luck - Native Client is completely open, both the source code and the executable format[1]. However, it's new and hasn't been submitted to the standardization bodies yet.
With that in mind, I have a real hard time getting worked up over Google putting a draft feature they're working on in their own browser. I suppose if Mozilla and Microsoft really want to implement a moving target, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.
If Chrome doesn't restrict it, then they start getting negative press about how this new thing they created doesn't work.
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#255There is no information on the redesign. The only thing I know is they made Chrome a requirement to use it.
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
NaCl
Bad news > 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.
I suspect a future version will use WASM
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth uses Polymer, which works cross-platform using polyfills, so that's not what's making it Chrome-only. It's NaCl.
Either the polyfills aren't being shipped or their feature detection is broken, because I get "document.registerElement is not a function" in Firefox Nightly with a spoofed UA string, and I get marginally further if I turn on our experimental native support for Web Components: http://imgur.com/a/TgnrQ
The polyfills aren't being shipped, since Earth is using NaCl which is already Chrome-only.
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#258Embrace and Extend the web with Chrome only apps like this. Google are basically old Microsoft at this point.
Google has already said other browser support is coming soon.
So I guess your little analogy doesn't work anymore.
>Get the new Google Earth now on the web in Chrome; on Android as it rolls out this week; and on iOS and other browsers in the near future. (Of course, you can still access and download Google Earth 7 for desktop.)
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#259"Google Chrome required" - sure, because current crop of web developers are too young to remember dark age of Internet Explorer domination.
How long before we see the same notification on Google Search and Gmail?
Presumably never, since that would make a serious cut into their advertising revenue, and provide quite an opening for competitors in both spaces to snap up disgruntled users.
Re: Google Earth Redesigned
#260"Google Chrome required" - sure, because current crop of web developers are too young to remember dark age of Internet Explorer domination.
How long before we see the same notification on Google Search and Gmail?
Google already serves a degraded Google Search UI (the "heirloom" interface) to Firefox on Android. You have to spoof your UA string to get the modern UI: http://imgur.com/a/cIH7T