6 ms·

The article keeps mentioning satellites but Google's imagery data is mostly provided by planes, not satellites. They have their own fleet of planes, which they

The article keeps mentioning satellites but Google's imagery data is mostly provided by planes, not satellites. They have their own fleet of planes, which they have hollowed out and redesigned (with the supervision and authorization of the FAA) and fitted with their cameras. Also, it's not as simple as "Google has a six year lead on Apple in imagery": it's more that Apple can't keep up. As the article correctly states, Apple started collecting aerial imagery around the same time that Google did, they just haven't been able to execute on it as fast as Google did, and by now, they probably never will.

kuschku 9y ago
If Apple can’t keep up with Google, how is anyone ever expected to launch a competitor to Google without VC money?
- Arnt 9y ago
  Same as usual: Picking a niche and trusting that Google prefers to spend its attention on improving adwords rather than on inventing a niche product. Google is scary, because it's unusually competent for a big company. But apart from that it's the same as usual: The bigcos can devote a big team to build whatever it is you're building and then leverage their existing customer relationships to sell it to many of their existing customers. But they usually don't. They work on their big core products instead.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Most bigcos aren't doing that because it's illegal, not because they don't want to. If you, e.g., have market dominance in operating systems, you can't prefer any web browser, install any browser as default, or advertise any based on the OS. In the same way, if you control web search, you can't prefer one web shopping site, or one web maps service. And you especially can't integrate one, but not the other. The goal of all this legislation was to ensure that a company like Google can't use their advantage in search to gain an advantage in maps, to avoid exactly the current situation.
    - bjt 9y ago
      It's not as clear cut as that. Someone actually has to bring the antitrust suit. In the last few decades, the US government hasn't been doing as much of that as they used to. Once in the suit, then you have to argue about the "relevant market" to determine which other companies count as competitors. This question probably consumes more time in an antitrust case than any other. Then you have to argue about how much of that market the defendant controls. At least in the US, I know of no legislation forbidding a dominant OS maker from preferring some browser. Microsoft was put under some rules like that after their antitrust suit, but that's very different from legislation forbidding all companies from having such preferences. Europe is different. I've not studied their antitrust law as I have that of the US, but I believe they're more aggressive on both the enforcement and legislation sides. I think the average American would be better off if US antitrust policy were more aggressive than it is now.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Of the three cases I named, 2 already were ruled antitrust violations under EU law, actually. And against the third, a case is also ongoing. So, from an EU perspective, it is as clear cut as that :)
    - Arnt 9y ago
      I used the word 'niche', you counter with web browsers.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        So you're saying that we shouldn't expect any new competition in web browsing, and it's expected to stay an Oligopoly forever, unless a new entrant to the market gets a significant advantage? That, too, sounds exactly like what would be needed to demand more government regulation of that market. One of the tasks of the government is to ensure that any market is free to new entrants, and that only the best product wins, and network effects are eliminated.
bob_theslob646 9y ago
It is a combination of data. > You can see a large collection of imagery in Google Earth, including satellite, aerial, 3D, and Street View images. Images are collected over time from providers and platforms. Images aren't in real time, so you won't see live changes. (https://support.google.com/earth/answer/6327779?hl=en https://support.google.com/earth/answer/6327779?hl=en) I am sure they buy some data from a plethora of companies, such as Harris Geospatial(http://www.harrisgeospatial.com/ http://www.harrisgeospatial.com/) Satellite Data They bought and sold a satellite imagery company, renamed it Terra Bella and then it was acquired by Planet Labs. > On April 14, 2017, we officially welcomed the Terra Bella team to Planet. Over the next year, our new team will work hard to make SkySat imagery available through the Planet platform. This will take a huge combined effort across our entire organization—from our mission operations and software teams to our product, marketing and sales teams. (https://www.planet.com/terrabella/ https://www.planet.com/terrabella/) (https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-acquire-terra-bella-from-google/ https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-acquire-terra-bella-f...)

kuschku 9y ago

If Apple can’t keep up with Google, how is anyone ever expected to launch a competitor to Google without VC money?

Arnt 9y ago
Same as usual: Picking a niche and trusting that Google prefers to spend its attention on improving adwords rather than on inventing a niche product. Google is scary, because it's unusually competent for a big company. But apart from that it's the same as usual: The bigcos can devote a big team to build whatever it is you're building and then leverage their existing customer relationships to sell it to many of their existing customers. But they usually don't. They work on their big core products instead.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Most bigcos aren't doing that because it's illegal, not because they don't want to. If you, e.g., have market dominance in operating systems, you can't prefer any web browser, install any browser as default, or advertise any based on the OS. In the same way, if you control web search, you can't prefer one web shopping site, or one web maps service. And you especially can't integrate one, but not the other. The goal of all this legislation was to ensure that a company like Google can't use their advantage in search to gain an advantage in maps, to avoid exactly the current situation.
  - bjt 9y ago
    It's not as clear cut as that. Someone actually has to bring the antitrust suit. In the last few decades, the US government hasn't been doing as much of that as they used to. Once in the suit, then you have to argue about the "relevant market" to determine which other companies count as competitors. This question probably consumes more time in an antitrust case than any other. Then you have to argue about how much of that market the defendant controls. At least in the US, I know of no legislation forbidding a dominant OS maker from preferring some browser. Microsoft was put under some rules like that after their antitrust suit, but that's very different from legislation forbidding all companies from having such preferences. Europe is different. I've not studied their antitrust law as I have that of the US, but I believe they're more aggressive on both the enforcement and legislation sides. I think the average American would be better off if US antitrust policy were more aggressive than it is now.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Of the three cases I named, 2 already were ruled antitrust violations under EU law, actually. And against the third, a case is also ongoing. So, from an EU perspective, it is as clear cut as that :)
  - Arnt 9y ago
    I used the word 'niche', you counter with web browsers.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      So you're saying that we shouldn't expect any new competition in web browsing, and it's expected to stay an Oligopoly forever, unless a new entrant to the market gets a significant advantage? That, too, sounds exactly like what would be needed to demand more government regulation of that market. One of the tasks of the government is to ensure that any market is free to new entrants, and that only the best product wins, and network effects are eliminated.

bob_theslob646 9y ago

It is a combination of data. > You can see a large collection of imagery in Google Earth, including satellite, aerial, 3D, and Street View images. Images are collected over time from providers and platforms. Images aren't in real time, so you won't see live changes. (https://support.google.com/earth/answer/6327779?hl=en https://support.google.com/earth/answer/6327779?hl=en) I am sure they buy some data from a plethora of companies, such as Harris Geospatial(http://www.harrisgeospatial.com/ http://www.harrisgeospatial.com/) Satellite Data They bought and sold a satellite imagery company, renamed it Terra Bella and then it was acquired by Planet Labs. > On April 14, 2017, we officially welcomed the Terra Bella team to Planet. Over the next year, our new team will work hard to make SkySat imagery available through the Planet platform. This will take a huge combined effort across our entire organization—from our mission operations and software teams to our product, marketing and sales teams. (https://www.planet.com/terrabella/ https://www.planet.com/terrabella/) (https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-acquire-terra-bella-from-google/ https://www.planet.com/pulse/planet-to-acquire-terra-bella-f...)