Amazon A9 Maps
Before EveryScape and Google Street View existed (and yes, we were doing this before Google was), there were a couple of attempts of street-level photography by companies you might have heard of: Amazon and Microsoft.
Amazon had their A9 Block View (shown above) and Microsoft had (has?) their Streetside.
My question is: Why did they fail?
In some sense, their intensions were the same as EveryScape and Google — to enable users to virtually see places, businesses, points of interest from the comfort of your browser for various use cases and applications.
One obvious “feature” difference is that they did not use panoramic imagery. One could argue that panoramic imagery is more immersive and experiential.
Does panoramic imagery make that much of a difference? Isn’t one of the beauties of the Web is that “keep it simple, stupid” wins?
Or are the users really looking for richer online experiences? A better UI/UX (a la Apple and iPhone)? Were their approach limiting feature wise?
More questions than answers, unfortunately. Facts or biases, your feedback is appreciated.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:34 am
May be…that “hidden view” wasn’t very attractive for average statistics of the inquiries of the search or it has a web-lobbying)))))Lol
But the first version is more likely and believable for web-space.The Search-sum( of Google or of ….)solves: To Be or Not to Be…What is the Question
(from Shak.)
July 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
There are people that are browsing (explorer/tourist types) and there are people that have an objective.
A9 and Streetside satisfactorily solved NONE of the needs of either. Lack of immersion is the reason as Mok stated. Breaking it down a bit further…
Browsers needs immersion, they are attempting to virtually immerse themselves. A9 and Streetside did not fulfill that.
People with objectives are looking for specific landmarks, whether they be targets and/or waypoints RELATIVE to something else around them. A9 and Streetside failed here too.
At A9 and Streetside, nobody seemed to have really thought the problem through to get the minimum requirements, or got discouraged by the prospect of even addressing it in the minimal manner possible, which is 360 degree static shots of various points on the map.
Another significant issue is coverage. I’m of the opinion that given limited resources, comprehensive coverage of a small locale is significantly more important than sparse coverage over a large area, if you want to attract the type of people with objectives.
Reliability is key for people with objectives. With sparse coverage, only browsers will hang around.
Google doesn’t have interiors of public spaces (like subway station platform exit locations, or restaurant ambience) yet, perhaps that side is available for capture. If a company does that, Google may just acquire and plug in interior-scapes into their Street View. The restaurant ambience interior can have a viable profit model.
Just rambling again.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Tx, HappyDuck.
Seems like immersion and scalability are quite important to users.