Open Tread

December 1st, 2006 · 23 Comments · GIS

I’m heading out for the day so now posts probably until Monday. Until then I’m sure some of you have some things to get off your chest about ArcGIS 9.2, ArcGIS Explorer, Jay Cutler and the contradiction of using open source geo-servers with closed clients.

Tags:

23 responses so far ↓

1 Stefan // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:26 am

Doesn’t the marriage of open source and closed source have a long and established history? Look at the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X.
2 James Fee // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:29 am

Sure, but why not go all open source? I mean if you have to buy Google Earth pro, you might as well buy a server product such as ArcGIS Server or MapGuide Enterprise.

The freedom of open source servers is only have the battle. Freedom from closed platform clients should be an equivalent goal, no? Especially when they are comparable.
3 broncofan // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:30 am

OK, your Jay Cutler reference made my day!
4 Casey // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:36 am

OpenSource/Closed source : Isn’t it partially a balance of resources? Why should someone spend the time developing a GE equivalent when you can spend a small amount purchasing it? When the costs sky-rocket (like full-blown GIS servers, the acceptable solutions change). We have not used Server partially because it was not “part of the basic package” negotiated with ESRI. It is now, so we’ll get a chance to see what we can do.

Ultimately, OpenSource seems like the way to go, but what does that say about the Market-based economy of the US when we all think everything should be free? As with life, its a balance. Ramble over.
5 James Fee // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:42 am

The cost of AGS can be blown away by the cost of the clients. $400 a pop for Google Earth? At 50 clients you are already way beyond the cost of ArcGIS Server.

Google Earth is and will for ever be the dominate player on the non-commercial/personal use marketplace. But who can afford the client in a corporate world?
6 Chad // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:49 am

*gets out some popcorn and waits for the Manifold users to chime in*

“Why should someone spend the time developing a GE equivalent” .. well, why not? Office has been for years, yet OpenOffice development and use is going strong and growing.

But we are not talking starting from scratch, we are talking about using what is out there already.

And Jay Cutler… just plain scarry lookin.
7 Sean Gillies // Dec 1, 2006 at 9:04 am

Predictions: Broncos run the table and Manifold hijacks this thread before comment 20.
8 anon // Dec 1, 2006 at 9:37 am

“…and Manifold hijacks this thread before comment 20.”

With this statement the Observer Effect has been put into play
9 Brian Timoney // Dec 1, 2006 at 9:46 am

One of the contradictions I see is that people glibly talk about distributing content “to a broader audience” using this server technology or that front-end without confronting the uncomfortable question of “will people bother to use it?” Circa 2006, the corporate world is littered with high-dollar IT white elephants that may well accomplish the tasks they set out to solve because, well, people flat out don’t like to use them.

And that’s a big problem with the GIS sector–it has always favored functionality over usability. And if you want a modestly motivated employee in a professional workplace to change how they perform their daily tasks, you damn well better provide a user experience that makes them want to change. Because, at the end of the day, they’ve managed to stay in business without your great technical innovation…

By (initially) aiming at the consumer market, Google/Yahoo/Microsoft put usability first–and look at the results. Think back before GYM and count the number of times someone outside the industry emailed you a link to a “cool” site powered by ArcIMS?

In short, if you’re serious about expanding the user base of your GIS services, you best be sure that in the minds of those who you want to adopt those tools they’re comparing your stuff to the what you dismiss as “consumer oriented” platforms.

All that said, the professional licensing for Google Earth is asinine. If you want to charge $400/user, or $50-$150K for an Enterprise version, you better have
– a significant support services divison
–brain-less, wizard-driven modules to connect to back-end data (that goes beyond “placemarks”)
–a developer network that’s more than a handful of guys on a bulletin board

Or, you could go to an advertising-driven model where everyone gets the service for free and they pay if

–they want the advertising to go away
–the extra add-ins (printing, movies, etc.)
–on-call technical support
etc.

With a much broader market willing to experiment with the interface in the workplace, developers would naturally step up to serve the need. With more development the interface becomes more useful, hence it becomes more broadly adopted. A ‘virtuous cycle’ I think they call it.

In short, the biggest obstacle to Google Earth being a serious professional tool is not technical, but its own current licensing disaster.

Brian Timoney
10 Rob // Dec 1, 2006 at 10:46 am

Casey -

“What does that say about the Market based economy of the US” - you gotta read up about free beer!

Open source software isn’t necessarily free, not as in free beer, it’s freedom to do what you need with a peice of software, you’re free to bug fix yourself, you’re free to incorporate enhancements yourself, but it will cost money, eithier your time, or the time of a programmer you employ to make the changes. Even when open source software is given away for free (with the free beer) such a decision can often be justified by the market oppoutunity it creates, that might be consultancy or support services (think RedHat).

If you think I’ve been on the beer, not just writing about it, try google…”free beer”.

As for the state of the market based economy of the US, well that’s for another forum.
11 Jesse L. // Dec 1, 2006 at 11:16 am

To Brian Timoney:

Hear, hear! Well said!

Personally I’ve only seen a handful of practical, widely-used web mapping applications:

1. driving directions/points of interest (google, yahoo, mapquest, etc.)

2. parcel/taxlot maps (usually through muncipalities or counties)

3. a very small handful of google mash-ups (i.e. the famous craigslist housing mashup)

4. real-estate related (i.e. zillow.com)

Most of the other web mapping applications I’ve ever seen are of the “gee-whiz isn’t web-mapping cool?” or the “we’re mandated to make our GIS data accessible to the public, so we’re doing it with ArcIMS/MapServer/Etc.)” varieties.

I’ve tried selling our staff on developing several web-mapping applications, and at best I only ever received luke-warm interest (maybe I’m just a bad salesman though…)
12 Rachel // Dec 1, 2006 at 11:22 am

Anyone been watching jeopardy this week? The guy who won from Tuesday - (lost last night) is a “GIS Planner”.
He tried to explain GIS to Alex trebek, gave up and said “I make maps”
13 Not Huey Long // Dec 1, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Casual users of GE do not understand the ramifications of its widespread installation on a corporate network, i.e. sucking up bandwidth and downloading huge cache files that can bring a WAN to its knees.
14 a corporate guy // Dec 1, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Well we have hundreds of GE Pro clients across our large organization. We have no GE enterprise software since we don’t need to share our own imagery which is the only value proposition for that configuration worth talking about today. We are not paying for “expensive software” with this solution, we are subscribing to the use of quality content worldwide in a user-friendly platform. We paid just as much for other ASP-based imagery/data services in the past. Don’t look for this stuff to be free to business anytime soon. And if you license enough copies of GE Pro (as with any software vendor) the unit costs may come down. Will we start seriously using ArcGIS Server with Explorer instead? Only if the content, performance, and easy-of-use gets a whole lot more like GE. And I am not at all hopeful about #2 on that list…ESRI has no network infrastructure to compete with Google. And when the fire hose of 3D urban model data is turned on - game over.
15 Chad // Dec 1, 2006 at 4:10 pm

Ok, here is the Manifold post.. kind of interesting of someone’s attempt at using Manifold.

http://priour.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/manifold-wms-arcgis-explorer-train-wreck/
16 KoS // Dec 1, 2006 at 4:20 pm

Umm corporate guy and others who think the same. I know I”m repeating myself, once again. And I know others disagree with my thoughts.

GE and AGX isn’t a apple to apple comparsion. They are two different beasts. If you want more content and easy of use with AGX. Then do it yourself. Don’t wait on or expect ESRI to do it for you.

If you want more content, then tie into “others” servers and data. Or server up your own. If you want easy of use, then modify the AGX to suit your needs. There is a AGX SDK avaliable.

There is plenty of data out there. Get out there and look around, don’t expect someone else to do it for you.

All this reminds me of students asking for help, when they could have found the answer in a help file or on the web. For whatever reason, it’s was too much work to look the answer up themselves. It’s much easier to have someone else do it for them.

KoS
17 Gonzo // Dec 1, 2006 at 4:35 pm

“ESRI has no network infrastructure to compete with Google.”

This point could be argued, considering that ESRI services are published from AT&T data centers in Virginia and New Mexico, also offering triple redundancy of power and geographic redundancy.
Do not forget that AGS is built on the same common architecture as ArcGIS Desktop. When using AGS you are getting power desktop use on the server. Everyone knows this, but it seemingly gets lost in this needless evaluation or AGS vs. GE.
18 GE Enterprise User // Dec 1, 2006 at 5:30 pm

GE Enterprise is not equivelant to ArcGIS explorer or any sort of a replacement. We have to run both for various reasons. The augment each other.

I don’t expect GE to ever be AGX competiton, nor do I expect AGX to be GE competition. I will be interesting to see how AGX and WW move away from an Acrobat type approach and leave that low hanging fruit to Google.
19 sg // Dec 2, 2006 at 8:19 pm

The organization I work for currently uses ArcSDE and ArcIMS but we do not use ArcGIS Server. Since we pay maintenance on these products, we will receive the Enterprise ArcGIS Server Standard software. I was under the impression that (with 9.2) ArcGIS Server must be installed in order to use ArcSDE. Is it possible to use ArcSDE without installing ArcGIS Server?
20 Chris C. // Dec 4, 2006 at 10:36 am

Comment 20: Several posts referring to Manifold - all expecting an ambush that never came. Maybe we’re not such a rabid bunch after all!
21 broncofan // Dec 4, 2006 at 11:13 am

/me thinks that is a joke Chris, but I’ve noticed you’ve been the one most of the time inserting Manifold’s name here. I’ll give you that you’ve been rational with your posts, but it was your comment a while back that set all this Manifold mess in motion.

Before that comment, I see nothing in James’ blog that references Manifold. I gotta hope they are giving you some free swag for that.
22 brian // Dec 4, 2006 at 10:33 pm

Oh, talk about Manifold users aggressively attacking the contained rest.

First, one of the contained ones claims he is sure that Manifold users will chim in and destroy the thread (#6).

Then, presumably having seen no mention of Manifold and wanting to spice things up a bit, that same person brings up an inflammatory blog post taking shots at Manifold (#15).

Then, another contained one helpfully points out that Manifold has been first mentioned in this blog by a Manifold user, as if in search of a policeman (#21).

Well, sorry guys, but the proponents of Manifold have a lot more class.
23 Ken // Oct 19, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Thanks for making the world a more open space.,