Not really sure what to make of this but it seems that Linux, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are teaming up against Google Maps.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/linux-amazon-meta-and-microsoft-want-to-break-the-google-maps-monopoly/
Sounds like Microsoft/Amazon/Meta/TomTom wanted to do something with OSM but without having to deal with that pesky OSM community.
How many millions does it take to buy some damn shields for the base map? :P
Google Maps is hardly a monopoly; they just have such a strong product that most people think of it first when they need a travel aid.
If anything, there's still lots of ways to improve that product by offering different directions based on the vehicle in use. Say, a truck option that would route certain vehicles away from low clearance or weight excluded bridges.
The open source world does not know roads very well, and everyone thinks they are the best driver. Giving every John and Jane Doe the opportunity to "fix" a map, even though they can't tell an interstate from a dirt road, will only lead to disaster. Get certain roads involved, let's say bicycle coalitions, will have them continously "closing" roads, leading to tremendous confusion.
Can't wait to see what the competition provides!
Yep, Google and Bing can only handle so much.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 01:55:25 AM
Sounds like Microsoft/Amazon/Meta/TomTom wanted to do something with OSM but without having to deal with that pesky OSM community.
How many millions does it take to buy some damn shields for the base map? :P
I think a comment on the Ars article put it well:
Quote
My experience with (trying to) contribute to OSM is that there's a lot of stuff OSM explicitly doesn't want. As this press release says (press release in accuracy shocker!), OSM is really kind of a community of map nerds. For instance, I tried to contribute a bunch of street numbers for my city which I'd taken from the city's own sources - after getting the city to publish them under an acceptable license - and doing manual sanity checks and so on. After a bit of debate, OSM rejected them, because apparently they only want street numbers you collect by hand by walking around the city with a GSM tracker. Because that's...what they want, I guess? Importing open data from somewhere else is not okay. Or wasn't at the time.
I believe they also explicitly don't want things like information on commercial businesses. You know, things like names and phone numbers and menus from restaurants.
Which, I mean, cool, OK. Their project, their rules. But if they explicitly don't want useful data, then naturally other projects are going to build on top of the data they do want. Obviously this effort can't just use and contribute to OSM - it's going to want street numbers. And business names. And, you know, things of that nature. Which is stuff OSM apparently just doesn't want.
Sure, us map nerds might like just panning around looking at the roads, and only really have a complaint about the lack of shields, but lots of people use other features that are either half-baked or not available at all in OSM. Driving directions is a big one. I just did a test run between my apartment and my parents. I couldn't even type in my apartment's address. Had to use the dummy address nearby (which I usually use with Google, since it did odd things with my actual address when I first moved here and the habit stuck) or drop the point manually. Not having the list that appears when typing is also an annoyance. It also doesn't let one drag the route (something which I use all the time, as I use directions for estimating travel time and saving routes for later, not for actually figuring out how to get somewhere), and the drive time listed is an hour longer than the trip actually takes (Google is usually right on the dot with how I drive, though an option that wouldn't go faster than the speed limit on any route sections would be nice - not only because I expect that I'll one day have to drive the limit exactly with the proliferation of speed cameras, speed limiters, and the like, but because there are some areas like around DC where traffic flows a lot faster than my usual "speed limit + 5-7 mph" travel speed).
Not to mention the things the comment mentions on businesses. I use that data. If I want to get a website for a business, or their hours, I turn to Google Maps. I also love using Google Maps to get photos of businesses and their products, as well as reviews. I would miss that if I moved my main map browsing somewhere else.
Street view is another big one. Every other product that has attempted it is either less pervasive, doesn't update often (or at all), isn't panoramic, and/or has other interface issues. It's not just fun to look at - it's how I make sure I know where I'm going when driving, by checking out every single turn I'll be making in advance (where possible).
I don't really consider a lack of business information a deal-killer for a mapping service. That's not on state DOT maps, so I've never felt like I need to look it up on Google Maps. It is a handy shortcut that I'll use if I'm, say, staying in an unfamiliar hotel and I'm wanting to pan around and see what food options are nearby. But for stuff near home I'll just put the business's name in Google search if I want their website or hours. Reviews aren't really helpful to me because I'm pretty good at coming up with my own unfounded opinions.
Lack of driving directions is a big missing feature in OSM, though. Heck, search leaves a lot to be desired. And it is disappointing to not have a Street View equivalent, but there's really no feasible way for an open-source product to acquire that data. (I kind of doubt it's feasible for Google to acquire that data, to be honest. The only way it makes sense is as a loss-leader to get people to look at Google Maps ads, and any day now I'm half-expecting them to hear that they've done away with it to cut costs.)
I've put business names into Google Maps as a shortcut to looking them up on their website. For example, if I have reservations at Fancy Inn in Anytown, I'd have to look up the inn's website to find the exact address. I can look it up by name on Google Maps and find how to get there.
Generally, I find that I'm better served looking it up on the business website anyway–businesses frequently update their hours on the website but not Google Maps, there is additional information like menus or terms and conditions that don't fit the Google Maps template and so are not displayed, etc.
I saw this a few days ago on Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/linux-google-maps-meta-aws-microsoft-tomtom-1849899375). That article says much the same thing. All I have to say is good luck to them. But I have absolutely no faith in their ability to pull it off, mostly because of Microsoft and FB/Meta's being involved.
I'm an iPhone user since the first one came out, as I've been a Mac user since 1987, and my default navigation source on the phone is Google, not Apple. If I'm not mistaken, you can plot a route on the desktop version of Google Maps and port it to your device using your Google account. I don't know how to do that with Apple Maps since there is no Apple Maps desktop app or Web site.
Also, I think that directions generated from the desktop version of Google Maps could be sent to your OnStar receiver in your GM vehicle.
At least for Google for Android, complicated desktop routes cannot be imported (e.g., with via points and the like). It is highly frustrating.
I import complicated routes into my car by writing them on a post-it.
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
I wonder about the quality of their traffic info compared to Google/Waze. That's a huge hurdle to overcome.
I'm imagining this is going to go like pretty much every open source project–implement the 80% of features that are easy and leave out the 20% that are hard or expensive. Fortunately, most of the basic features capture most use cases, so it will be a suitable replacement for most people if they're open to it, but if you're one of those people that demands 120% of the feature set of the corporate software plus requiring it to make coffee and wipe your ass for you, you'll probably have a bad time.
Personally, if a map existed that had attractive cartography with county lines and good wayfinding and search that'd be enough to take care of the majority of what I use Google Maps for. Not having Street View would be sad but I don't expect an open source project to have the resources to collect that. And I don't use the traffic or business data at all so I don't care if that's there or not.
Interesting. I find Google Maps' use of traffic data in routing to be invaluable -- even when I decide to not follow it.
Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup". (This strategy seems like it works pretty well in general for cities based on a grid–I tried it in Las Vegas when the cops pulled the boneheaded move of closing down I-215 for a police officer's funeral, and was able to muddle through despite not having much familiarity with the city.)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 18, 2022, 06:03:04 PM
I'm an iPhone user since the first one came out, as I've been a Mac user since 1987, and my default navigation source on the phone is Google, not Apple. If I'm not mistaken, you can plot a route on the desktop version of Google Maps and port it to your device using your Google account. I don't know how to do that with Apple Maps since there is no Apple Maps desktop app or Web site.
Also, I think that directions generated from the desktop version of Google Maps could be sent to your OnStar receiver in your GM vehicle.
Current versions of MacOS have a Maps program on the desktop, and information from it can be sent to an iPhone. I don't use it that often, and if I need directions on my phone, I just initial the search on my phone to start.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 11:00:49 PM
Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup". (This strategy seems like it works pretty well in general for cities based on a grid–I tried it in Las Vegas when the cops pulled the boneheaded move of closing down I-215 for a police officer's funeral, and was able to muddle through despite not having much familiarity with the city.)
Well, I suppose that works for urban areas to a degree (although I snicker what that approach would do in Syracuse -- greatly take more time than just staying in the backup in a lot of cases). Do you take long road trips often?
I'm thinking of the last total solar eclipse, where traffic in KY and TN went all nuts after it was over. Finding a way around the masses was made a whole lot easier by using Google Maps, even by just knowing where it was sending people to come up with my own detour (got into my destination hours before my parents who followed Google strictly).
Generally, I use paper maps when I'm on the road if I can help it. Much easier than trying to refer to the phone if I'm behind the wheel (you usually don't have to worry about the map closing itself, and when it does you don't have to fuss around with unlocking it, and the need to "pan" is much less frequent because most state-DOT-style maps include more detail than the equivalent zoom level on digital maps).
Granted, that does nothing to help with backups in rural areas, but you have to admit that situations like the eclipse you mentioned aren't terribly common. Much of the time, getting off the freeway in a rural area to circumvent a backup isn't going to help much anyway and just result in a lengthy detour, especially if you don't trust the county roads.
Using paper maps is much more distracting from driving than having my phone running a map app.
Sure, the eclipse was just one extreme example. Still, it could be applied to when there are backups outside of urban areas. Also reminds me of the time I-95 was completely jammed somewhere in southern NH with incredible delay times (another data report that is useful that you're not getting from a paper map). Gave me the info I needed to choose a different way given the time trade-off.
I don't really see how a paper map could be more distracting. Before I put the car into gear, I unfold it, put it on the seat, and glance over when I need to.
With the phone, I glance over and see a blank black screen. So now I have to press the unlock button, draw the unlock pattern on it, hope that the last thing I used on it was the map and if not hunt around on the home screen to find the map program icon, pan the map to where I am, zoom in or out to see what what I need to see...
The traffic info shouldn't be too difficult to collect; it just requires permissions by users to send traffic data to a central source. The problems are who holds the data, who can use the data, how the data is used, who updates the data and how is it updated, etc. Google spends a fair amount on all aspects of Google Maps; it's not just GSV. Their users (both Maps and Waze) constantly contribute traffic data in real-time. They have a centralized system for updating from contributors. They work with Digital Globe and others to keep their imagery current even in many areas with few people. I'm not worried about the Linux Foundation wanting to do the right thing. I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.
Quote from: skluth on December 19, 2022, 03:00:01 PM
I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.
Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 19, 2022, 03:00:01 PM
I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.
Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...
I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size. Some older players like me consider it ruined.
I wonder if sharks smell blood, and Google is loosing steam. My recent experience with them was... pretty underwhelming, to put it very mildly.
On the other hand, MS and FB... Well, we'll see.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 11:00:49 PM
Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup".
In many cases, the reason to look up routes around congestion isn't because you're unfamiliar with the alternatives, but rather (1) to find out if those alternatives are also congested and how much, and (2) to find out
where exactly the backup ends so you know when to head back to the freeway (especially if it's an accident or other non-recurring backup).
Quote from: webny99 on December 19, 2022, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 11:00:49 PM
Oklahoma City's trouble spots are predictable enough in times and locations that I have no need to look up routes around them. If there is a surprise backup due to an accident or whatever, the detour will invariably be "exit to the surface street grid, jump over a mile, and run parallel to the freeway until you think you're past the backup".
In many cases, the reason to look up routes around congestion isn't because you're unfamiliar with the alternatives, but rather (1) to find out if those alternatives are also congested and how much, and (2) to find out where exactly the backup ends so you know when to head back to the freeway (especially if it's an accident or other non-recurring backup).
(1) they aren't ever
(2) most of the time I just take the surface street the rest of the way home because it's not like the freeway saves me that much time anyway
(2a) if I really wanted to get back on the freeway, I just go back to it and look at it to decide whether or not to get on or keep going
I just really don't care about the traffic feature, guys.
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2022, 06:24:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 19, 2022, 03:00:01 PM
I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.
Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...
I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size. Some older players like me consider it ruined.
I just hate how long it takes to find iron now.
It's worth noting that the traffic feature doesn't just have real-time traffic, but Google also knows what the typical traffic will be in an area and adjust the projected drive time accordingly. Very handy if, say, driving to/from Long Island. It's very good for estimating how long route clinching trips will take, though I do have to make sure to check the time at a similar time/day of the week as when I'd take the trip.
And yeah, avoiding backups isn't nearly so easy in places where the roads aren't a grid. And around here, if the Northway is sufficiently bad, the one parallel road (Wolf Road and old Wolf Road from NY 5 to NY 155, Wade Road from there to NY 7, and US 9 north of there) can sometimes get congested too.
Quote from: GaryV on December 18, 2022, 05:15:33 PM
I've put business names into Google Maps as a shortcut to looking them up on their website. For example, if I have reservations at Fancy Inn in Anytown, I'd have to look up the inn's website to find the exact address. I can look it up by name on Google Maps and find how to get there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 05:26:50 PM
Generally, I find that I'm better served looking it up on the business website anyway–businesses frequently update their hours on the website but not Google Maps, there is additional information like menus or terms and conditions that don't fit the Google Maps template and so are not displayed, etc.
That's assuming you know what the business's website even is to begin with. There have been plenty of times that I searched Google for a small business's website but couldn't easily find it on a Google search, then went to Google Maps and simply clicked on the link for its website.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
*trigger*
Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux Linux
Aw geez, someone just had to say the L-word...
Quote from: vdeane on December 18, 2022, 03:58:10 PM
Street view is another big one. Every other product that has attempted it is either less pervasive, doesn't update often (or at all), isn't panoramic, and/or has other interface issues. It's not just fun to look at - it's how I make sure I know where I'm going when driving, by checking out every single turn I'll be making in advance (where possible).
Glad I'm not the only one who does that!
In March, my pastor and I flew into Monterrey (Mexico), where our friends picked us up, then we all went to the historic district for lunch, and then we headed out of the city to the west. I had detailed directions for how to find our exits, including guide sign legends. I was able to give point-by-point directions to the driver, telling him in advance which lane to choose and what signs to look for. And all of that came from looking at GSV in detail ahead of time.
Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2022, 08:55:19 PM
And yeah, avoiding backups isn't nearly so easy in places where the roads aren't a grid. And around here, if the Northway is sufficiently bad, the one parallel road (Wolf Road and old Wolf Road from NY 5 to NY 155, Wade Road from there to NY 7, and US 9 north of there) can sometimes get congested too.
Certainly agreed.. and even if the road network is somewhat coherent, congestion on the alternates can still happen quickly if they're only two lanes (see Winton Rd when NY 590 is congested, or Ridge Rd when NY 104 is congested). Four-lane arterials paralleling the freeway for long stretches aren't found on a consistent basis in the Northeast like they are in other parts of the country.
I imagine that an open-source version of the live traffic data that Google provides would have to be managed similarly to the schedules and live arrivals/positioning information that is fed into a variety of apps by transit agencies (GTFS). They could attempt to create a standard and have various state and city/county DOTs sign on, but maintaining it would be difficult.
And adding to the previous discussion: live traffic data is a huge timesaver when out near popular hiking areas on weekends, as they can suddenly congest or have collisions/incidents that block off the only routes for miles around. And not to mention during inclement weather, where one can easily track where snow is really affecting traffic by looking at the orange/red/black lines:
(https://i.imgur.com/rEEmdog.png)
(Taken just now at 10:45 pm)
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 20, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2022, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 20, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.
it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 20, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
All this is ignoring the other major player in mapping services, ESRI (https://www.esri.com/en-us/home). There are already plenty of ESRI map applications on the web from WISDOT's traffic counts (https://wisdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e12a4f051de4ea9bc865ec6393731f8) to FEMA flood maps (https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd). ESRI is not in direct competition with Google Maps but both are major players in mapping services.
Quote from: kalvado on December 20, 2022, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2022, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 20, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.
it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though
If the Linux Foundation is involved, I'm pretty sure the goal is not to collect fees. That's never been something they've been into; they're into the philosophy of "make the best software possible by letting everyone see and critique the code". If the point was to create a product you could charge people for, the Linux Foundation wouldn't have signed on.
More likely, the play is to provide a free map library that is unencumbered by copyright restrictions and which can be used by everyone without having to ask permission from anyone. The Linux Foundation would like this because they're allergic to important services being solely under corporate control. Microsoft and Meta would like this because, while they don't get money off of it, it takes Google down a peg (and means that they don't have to pay their competitor any time they need a map).
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2022, 05:30:11 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 20, 2022, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2022, 11:37:33 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on December 20, 2022, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 18, 2022, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 18, 2022, 08:06:52 PM
I can tell you what Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Linux are trying to do here will flop. There's no way they will break the Google Maps monopoly.
I don't know if I'd be that confident in their failure. If the Linux Foundation is involved, that means the end result will be open-source. If you can get it to even 80% of the feature set of Google Maps, not having to pay Google for licensing nor deal with any of their API horseshit will be enough to tip the scales in its favor for enough use cases to make the project worth it.
Speaking in the general sense, whenever I'm choosing software, I habitually sacrifice features for the ability to control my own data and/or keep costs (system resources and financial) down. Not everyone is willing to make that sacrifice but it's nice for there to be an option to do so if it makes sense for your use case.
This is the larger issue. While I'm sure the Overture Project wants desktop, web, and phone app users, their major focus will likely be things like embedded maps on websites and phone apps put out by other companies that integrate their maps. For example, the Montana road conditions map from MDT uses overlays on Google Maps to show the current status. This is how Overture will more likely want to reach us: through apps that provide more specific data overlaid on their maps and generic data.
That limited approach doesn't sound like a Google Maps killer to me.
it sounds like "we can easily collect fees that way" though
If the Linux Foundation is involved, I'm pretty sure the goal is not to collect fees. That's never been something they've been into; they're into the philosophy of "make the best software possible by letting everyone see and critique the code". If the point was to create a product you could charge people for, the Linux Foundation wouldn't have signed on.
More likely, the play is to provide a free map library that is unencumbered by copyright restrictions and which can be used by everyone without having to ask permission from anyone. The Linux Foundation would like this because they're allergic to important services being solely under corporate control. Microsoft and Meta would like this because, while they don't get money off of it, it takes Google down a peg (and means that they don't have to pay their competitor any time they need a map).
True, question is who owns - and pays for collecting - map data. Even if the library is free, database may be more involved.
Then, governments naturally have a lot of map data for their use - and I believe that is not copyrightable. I wonder if that is a part of the game. For example, would charging governments for maintaining their GIS be feasible? Our county tax maps are hosted on a for-profit company's site, so at least one government already pays for that....
I think you might be somewhat misunderstanding what the underlying philosophy of the Linux Foundation is (and kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post, but I think it's important to understand where the Linux people are coming from if you want to understand what sort of project they're going to want to make). Linux is open-source software–anyone who has the inclination can just download the code and read it, and if you have the technical knowledge that will tell you exactly how it works. There is nothing secret there.
Now, this has a lot of implications. First off, you can't really sell something like that, because why would you pay someone for something that anyone could just download for free and build their own version of?* But the benefits of this arrangement are enough to make up for it–because anyone can look at the code, if a technically-inclined user runs across a bug or a missing feature, they don't have to write in to the company saying "hey, the program crashes when I do X-Y-Z". Instead, their correspondence is more like "On line 2142 the greater-than sign should be a less-than. I fixed it and now the program works better; please fix this in the master codebase too." Everyone is familiar with Wikipedia these days–the people that invented the wiki got the idea from watching the Linux people.
Of course for all of this to work and be legal there can't really be any copyrights or anything, because that just gets in the way of programmers trying to make the software better. (This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.)
So if the Linux people are involved in this, they are going to insist that all of the code be free of copyright (probably licensed under the General Public License, which governs just about every open-source software project), and that all of the data be free of copyright too. That's the way OSM works already, and they're building on top of OSM, so it would make sense to follow the same kind of licensing OSM uses. This basically will guarantee that anyone in the world can take the Overture data set and software and use it for anything they want, for free.
Now, that's all well and good for the Linux people, but why would Microsoft and Meta be interested in this? Well, I would imagine it's because they want to include maps in their products, but aren't all that interested in selling maps as a product. For Meta, for example, perhaps they want to embed a map in an event page on Facebook showing where it will take place at. To make their own cartography system would be a tremendous expense that they're not going to be able to recoup easily. So it makes sense to farm that out to someone else. Right now, the big kahuna is Google (and ESRI also exists), but you have to pay them for commercial use of their maps–and you know they'd salivate over the idea of charging Meta seven figures or so for that. So instead, they can go halfsies with Microsoft to establish an open-source project that they can pull free maps from whenever they like.
Microsoft already has Bing Maps, but with this project they can shove the actual mapmaking parts off on an open-source community so they don't have to worry about minutiae like where the exact termini of I-11 are at the moment. They can just grab the Overture map and layer their Streetscape, ads, business information, etc. over top of it.
Amazon is probably mostly involved because then they can charge Microsoft and Meta to host all of this stuff. Amazon has such an extensive server infrastructure system that they actually run a pretty big chunk of the Internet that has nothing to do with Amazon.
*Linux companies do exist, but the value-add there is basically "If you buy our copy of Linux, you can call our team of techs to help you fix anything that breaks". With the free stuff, "support" consists of either what comes up on Google, or what you can get out of a condescending nerd on a forum or Discord server.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2022, 08:38:16 PM
I think you might be somewhat misunderstanding what the underlying philosophy of the Linux Foundation is (and kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post, but I think it's important to understand where the Linux people are coming from if you want to understand what sort of project they're going to want to make). Linux is open-source software–anyone who has the inclination can just download it and read it, and if you have the technical knowledge that will tell you exactly how it works. There is nothing secret there.
Now, this has a lot of implications. First off, you can't really sell something like that, because why would you pay someone for something that anyone could just download for free and build their own version of? But the benefits of this arrangement are enough to make up for it–because anyone can look at the code, if a technically-inclined user runs across a bug or a missing feature, they don't have to write in to the company saying "hey, the program crashes when I do X-Y-Z". Instead, their correspondence is more like "On line 2142 the greater-than sign should be a less-than. I fixed it and now the program works better; please fix this in the master codebase too." Everyone is familiar with Wikipedia these days–the people that invented the wiki got the idea from watching the Linux people.
Of course for all of this to work and be legal there can't really be any copyrights or anything, because that just gets in the way of programmers trying to make the software better. (This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.)
So if the Linux people are involved in this, they are going to insist that all of the code be free of copyright (probably licensed under the General Public License, which governs just about every open-source software project), and that all of the data be free of copyright too. That's the way OSM works already, and they're building on top of OSM, so it would make sense to follow the same kind of licensing OSM uses. This basically will guarantee that anyone in the world can take the Overture data set and software and use it for anything they want, for free.
Now, that's all well and good for the Linux people, but why would Microsoft and Meta be interested in this? Well, I would imagine it's because they want to include maps in their products, but aren't all that interested in selling maps as a product. For Meta, for example, perhaps they want to embed a map in an event page on Facebook showing where it will take place at. To make their own cartography system would be a tremendous expense that they're not going to be able to recoup easily. So it makes sense to farm that out to someone else. Right now, the big kahuna is Google (and ESRI also exists), but you have to pay them for commercial use of their maps–and you know they'd salivate over the idea of charging Meta seven figures or so for that. So instead, they can go halfsies with Microsoft to establish an open-source project that they can pull free maps from whenever they like.
Microsoft already has Bing Maps, but with this project they can shove the actual mapmaking parts off on an open-source community so they don't have to worry about minutiae like where the exact termini of I-11 are at the moment. They can just grab the Overture map and layer their Streetscape, ads, business information, etc. over top of it.
Amazon is probably mostly involved because then they can charge Microsoft and Meta to host all of this stuff. Amazon has such an extensive server infrastructure system that they actually run a pretty big chunk of the Internet that has nothing to do with Amazon.
That's all great, now can you explain how redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?
Quote from: kalvado on December 20, 2022, 08:49:12 PM
That's all great, now can you explain how redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?
You must have seen my post before I edited in the footnote. How Red Hat makes their money is selling support.
There are two versions of the Red Hat code base. One is called Fedora Linux (http://fedoraproject.org/), which is free and can be downloaded and installed without contacting Red Hat at all. I'm running it on the computer I'm typing this post on. Now, by running Fedora, I'm on the hook for fixing anything that breaks. If I can't figure it out, my support options are basically to Google frantically and hope I find a solution to the problem, or beg someone on a forum or Reddit for the answer.
Now, I'm an individual user that can put up with that (mostly because I've been running Fedora for 17 years at this point so I'm pretty decent at fixing it myself), but if I'm running a business that can't just take a day off to fix their computer when it breaks, that's not going to be acceptable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is made by periodically taking the Fedora code, cleaning it up a bit, and selling it. When you buy a copy of RHEL, you are buying the right to call up Red Hat and say "Hey, so this morning my computer can't find the printer drivers and I don't know why." And then they'll have the answer. But at its core? It's the same code as Fedora.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2022, 09:04:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 20, 2022, 08:49:12 PM
That's all great, now can you explain how redhat enterprise linux fits into that rosy view?
You must have seen my post before I edited in the footnote. How Red Hat makes their money is selling support.
There are two versions of the Red Hat code base. One is called Fedora Linux (http://fedoraproject.org/), which is free and can be downloaded and installed without contacting Red Hat at all. I'm running it on the computer I'm typing this post on. Now, by running Fedora, I'm on the hook for fixing anything that breaks. If I can't figure it out, my support options are basically to Google frantically and hope I find a solution to the problem, or beg someone on a forum or Reddit for the answer.
Now, I'm an individual user that can put up with that (mostly because I've been running Fedora for 17 years at this point so I'm pretty decent at fixing it myself), but if I'm running a business that can't just take a day off to fix their computer when it breaks, that's not going to be acceptable. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is made by periodically taking the Fedora code, cleaning it up a bit, and selling it. When you buy a copy of RHEL, you are buying the right to call up Red Hat and say "Hey, so this morning my computer can't find the printer drivers and I don't know why." And then they'll have the answer. But at its core? It's the same code as Fedora.
My point rather is that money can be made even in open-source world. Google maps are free for individual users (not open source, but still) - with certain limitations. Now those limitations can be seen every time truck roof is sheared off by a low bridge...
I am not sure how that would fit into mapping ecosystem, bit value-adding services on top of base map library isn't something hard to imagine.
And if you wonder, I type this on PC running Ubuntu. Just saying
This appears to be a bunch of second-tier map providers banding together to better compete with Google Maps (plus Amazon, who I assume wants to do logistics things without paying tons of money to Google to use their directions API). It appears that their strategy to compete with Google's ginormous data lake is to turn over the data collection, identification, and curation to an open-source community project managed by the Linux Foundation. I think this is an interesting and commendable strategy (open-core vs Google's closed core), albeit not one that I'm sure will work.
Google's advantage is and will continue to be its massive reserve of and access to data from which it can produce useful and richly populated end-user applications. Google knows current traffic and typical patterns because it has access to roughly a billion Android devices and their locations. Google knows business information because it crawls the entire Web for business web sites and correlates that with data gathered from Street View to produce location imagery. Google knows street sign and address information because it has Street View to cross-reference. Only Google currently has the scale to manage this size data operation and they rightfully charge a large premium for others to gain access to it.
OSM is proof that a project like this can potentially work (indeed, MS and Meta are notably large contributors to OSM (https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/8/5/232)), however as others have noted, the project has governance issues that have limited its usefulness as a Google Maps replacement. A big issue will be the license of the OSM content that they plan to ingest; it's a share-alike license, meaning that any data set that is derived from it must also be open-source. This will limit the number of companies willing to invest in this ecosystem as they won't be able to turn the data into any sort of secret sauce logistics model. I assume this is why they went to the Linux Foundation to handle governance as they have experience in getting corporations to participate in open-core projects and building value-added paid products on top of them while preventing them from taking their toys and going home.
Anyway, a few questions I have lingering:
- Does this mean that MS or TomTom will open-source their Street View imagery?
- How will Overture Maps get its traffic data? Inrix isn't open-source and both Google and Apple are getting very stingy about handing device location info for client applications. Apple recently killed a large chunk of Facebook's business model essentially overnight with its user tracking changes.
- Apple's lack of explicit involvement is interesting, though I wonder if their relationship with TomTom might be in effect here?
- Does Amazon plan on incorporating the technologies developed by this project into AWS? Does MS plan to with Azure?
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2022, 08:38:16 PM
kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post ... This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.
Actually... What is the relationship between Unix and Linux? In all seriousness.
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2022, 10:09:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2022, 08:38:16 PM
kphoger is going to make fun of me for this post ... This is something that the people who later ended up in the Linux camp learned from experience in the 1970s and 1980s; they were trying an early version of this with Unix, but AT&T had copyright to it, which ended up breaking a whole lot of stuff for reasons that aren't interesting to read or write about.
Actually... What is the relationship between Unix and Linux? In all seriousness.
The answer is sort of complicated, so this is a summary from off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm getting the details wrong (and there's lots of stuff that's up for debate as to who was responsible for what when). There's been books written about this, though, so if you want more information it's out there.
Unix started out around 1970 as a side project of Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs. (These two guys were also responsible for inventing the C programming language, which pretty much the entire world runs on top of; if it's not written in C it's written in something that runs on top of something written in C.) This was mostly intended as just an interesting research project, not a product for Bell Labs's parent company AT&T, and as such the source code was shared around with comp-sci people at various universities, most notably UC Berkeley. However, once it reached academia, it started to be used for actually useful stuff.
The suits at AT&T eventually found out about Unix and decided they wanted to monetize it. This turned into a total mess, because while they could enforce copyright on the code that Bell Labs employees wrote, they couldn't over the code that was written at Berkeley. The project basically got balkanized between System V Unix and the Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD), and some other minor versions of Unix that various companies had the rights to sell for some reason. That being said, Unix was useful enough that everyone agreed they needed some way to keep all of the various Unixes on the same page, so they came up with something called the POSIX standards. But it was still a pretty contentious environment, with various Unix companies suing each other all the time over who had the rights to which code and things like that.
In the early 1990s, random Finnish college student Linus Torvalds, who had nothing to do with any of this, bought his first computer with a 386 processor and a textbook called
Operating Systems: Design and Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. Tanenbaum had written a small Unix clone called Minix that was distributed with the textbook as a working example of the concepts therein, which Linus installed and learned the basics of Unix from. As a fun way to learn how the 386 processor worked, he started writing a program in the Unix style that talked directly to the processor, instead of going through Minix. (Linus has stated that this was mostly because there is nothing else to do during winter in Finland.) This was all well and good and just a fun project until one day he tried to connect to the Internet, but because of a bug in his code, his modem sent the data to his hard disk instead, destroying his Minix install. He could have reinstalled it, but he looked at how much code he had written for his fun project and thought "Gee, I might as well just write the last little bit to make this a full standalone operating system". So he ended up getting a copy of the POSIX standards and finished it off according to those. When he was done, he showed it off on the Internet. He initially wanted to call it Freax but the guy who was hosting the files thought that was a dumb name and renamed it Linux.
What Linus wasn't counting on was that now, all of a sudden, here was a brand new Unix-compatible operating system that AT&T had absolutely no copyright claim to–it was written in isolation in a Finnish college student's bedroom, so what possible claim would they have had?–which instantly cut the Gordian knot of legal issues surrounding Unix. Since Linus had written it according to POSIX standards, it was trivial to port software from the old Unixes to Linux, so pretty much everyone who had a stake in Unix basically swapped over to Linux within a few years. Unix still exists in the form of various flavors of BSD that are still chugging on, but for just about anything serious Unix used to be used for, Linux is now used instead.
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2022, 06:24:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 19, 2022, 03:00:01 PM
I just don't trust Meta or Microsoft to play well with the others as their past history is to stovepipe what they want into their own environments.
Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground. Meta, on the other hand...
I wonder how Minecraft is dong since they totally changed the mining dynamics and increased the world size. Some older players like me consider it ruined.
1.18?
I mean, it's different, but it isn't ruined... at least that update didn't ruin it.
The chat moderation fiasco, now THAT has basically ruined it. Now you can be permanently banned from multiplayer for basically no reason.
Yeah... GG Microsoft, you pissed everyone off again!
Quote from: MCRoads on December 25, 2022, 07:43:37 PM
Yeah... GG Microsoft, you pissed everyone off again!
It's a company tradition dating back to 1981.
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 03:02:37 PM
Microsoft bought out Minecraft and didn't run it to the ground.
One of the most false statements of all time, considering the tone-deafness when it comes to the chat reporting system.