There was a lot of fuss about Google’s street view when it first launched a couple of years ago – mainly because people thought it was an invasion of privacy. Well, some people thought that anyway, although I’m still not completely sure why (the pictures were only taken down public roads). I’m ignoring the issues with WiFi network data collection of course, which was a completely different matter. It’s quite surprising, then, that Microsoft have decided to offer their own version.
According to MS, their version of StreetView isn’t going to try and be as comprehensive as Google’s, and is instead going to concentrate on mapping urban streets where people are most likely to find something. This makes sense to me, as I bet huge areas of Google’s streetview are never looked it because they are too remote.
What I don’t get is how the companies make money with these types of services? Is advertising enough to recoup their investment? I understand that some people find it a useful tool for “scouting” an area and seeing where local services are before they get there, but surely the number of people who use the tool doesn’t make it worthwhile considering the cost.
Apparently, MS have said they they’ll need to collect WiFi data while taking pictures for streetview in order to combine it with “location based services”. I don’t know enough about it to comment, but this seems like it could run into similar problems as Google did. Apparently Google stored private information and Microsoft won’t, but it still seems very similar.