AGX is not positioned as a Google killer – bah!
Been thinking about this for a while and then this blog post just brought it all home: Google Earth Blog: MIT’s Technology Review – Google Earth Becoming a Standard.
James points out to me that AGX is seen as a google earth killer because ESRI has really done little to dissuade people of that fact. For my purposes it is positioned google killer because free is a lot better than $400 – so if I can use AGX like GE but for $400 less then I am all about it. And no matter what ESRI says about geoprocessing blah blah blah – if it doesn’t do what google earth does and at least as well then forget it. I have used geoprocessing enough to know I am not going to really try to sell that to Management as a compelling reason to use AGX and Server over google earth and exports from ArcMap.
GE is the standard now for 3D geovisualization and ESRI missed the boat. Each day delayed for AGX, with it’s closed beta and hush hush on publicity, is yet another nail in the coffin. At the point I have just about given up on AGX. Server, even the cheap version still ain’t cheap. ArcScene is archaic compared to GE and so I have little hope that AGX will be much better. Sorry this was a negative post but the whole AGX thing is really starting to bug me (in case you couldn’t tell).
[update: I changed to title to make it clear that ESRI has claimed AGX is not a google killer but I think that they are kidding themselves]