Curiously, I haven't seen any mention of Google Earth Engine (GEE) in these comments so far. On top of offering a massive data repo of optical and SAR satellite imagery dating back to the 70s (LANDSAT 1-9, Sentinel 1-2 and others), it also has a Python API module (and thus can also use GIS, web integration etc.) and you can also use the in-browser JavaScript version (GEE Code Editor) all for free. With that, you can create your own indexes for whatever purpose with some image arithmetics. Its business model is that you have to pay monthly if you're sourcing massive amounts of data or using it at enterprise scale. I think the best part of the JS version (despite being slow at times) is being able to share an entire project with a link.
It seems that Nimbo is trying to offer a more analysis-ready alternative with some pre-processing like cloud removal done beforehand, which can be done yourself with some coding and with greater control on GEE. The lack of mention of the exact spatial or temporal resolution and surface coverage is an odd choice to me. These parameters are what I look for first and foremost when considering alternative data sources. With multiple data products, I think the website should atleast give a range (Minutes, days? Centimeter, meters?) of what resolutions are available. The comparison with Google Earth seen on the website is also bizarre to me as GEE is a more apt comparison because it is specifically meant for manipulating and sourcing satellite imagery. It would be more compelling to see a comparison of that instead.
I previously used GEE at university for flood mapping and mapping forest fire damage. This tool is also actively being used in peer reviewed journals with a large community around it. And yes, you can use it to see the effects of climate change and human impact on nature, I will leave it as an exercise for you to search for examples.
I imagine that the usual protections will deal with this (e.g. too many requests from the same ASN or same user agent or something).
Then they can ask for a phone number or credit card (fly.io reluctantly did this).
Then they can always remove the free tier, at this point the abusing party will have ruined yet another free platform for everyone.
Looks like they mostly use Sentinel-2 data and apply some processing on top. So it's basically (publicly funded?) open data [1, 2], available in multiple viewers [3, 4] and even on AWS [5]. Still a cool project!
On a related note: I think it's kind of puzzling that all this data is freely available but seems to be rather complicated to access. One would assume building/operating satellites is more complex than making that data available in formats the average startup web developer can use almost instantly. IMHO you can see a similar pattern in weather data: it seems like there are a bunch of platforms which are basically wrapping public weather service's domain specific formats in a 'nicer' REST API. One could argue there's documentation on these formats, just read the docs, duh. However, I think lowering the barrier to entry by providing easy access and documentation could enable way more people to work with this data.
IMHO if you know some basic python and know your way around the requests library, it should be trivial for you to get started working with these datasets. That's just my personal opinion based on my experiences from a few years ago. Maybe it's way easier by now and there's a bunch of great free open APIs for this stuff. It always feels like they fulfill all the basic requirements to open the dataset and write some documentation but the last (small) step of writing the basic 'getting started' docs/blog posts and maybe some REST API for access is missing. Instead, confronted with lower than expected usage, a bunch of industry-transfer projects are spun-up to increase adoption. I guess DX also matters for open data hosted by public entities. /rant
> One would assume building/operating satellites is more complex than making that data available in formats the average startup web developer can use almost instantly.
That sounds intentional to me.
They provide the data as a public service without getting their servers hammered by people who don't understand "free" isn't costless.
Many applications educating us about human's influence on earth and climate change can be realized with this tool. I'm wondering if and how this service could also be used to quicker stop conflicts and bring peace to the world. Any ideas?
I'm very pessimistic. Short of totalitarian control over people and their minds, or maybe a techno-utopia with infinite resources for all, we'll never have a perfect world without conflict.
At the lower end of the market, the main competition (Google, Bing, Apple) are totally free. The emphasis on QGIS support suggests that they're hoping to capture "prosumer" and smaller business applications that would get value out of a more professional toolset but aren't in a position to get into the ESRI pricing tier. If you can get people to do their basic looking around in your product for free, you have a way better chance of making some money off of them when they want a more specialized product from time to time.
I'm in that sort of position, I have research projects that I've even paid for custom satellite tasking for (not as expensive as you would think these days!), but I don't have the budget for a costly subscription. It's only in recent years that there are services that appeal to these lower-dollar user types though. The free for the basics, fee for analytics and tasking model is pretty common for newer remote sensing companies and I think the trend will continue.
It's also based on open and freely accessible data: Sentinel2.
That's not to take anything away from what they're doing. They've done a very very nice job. But there's a precedent for folks expecting open data and paying for additional services/etc.
Advertising and free samples, in short. From their explanations:
Nimbo features and satellite layers open for everyone
We have indeed chosen to let everyone explore our whole dataset of satellite images for free, so that more people, even not specialized in the field, can give a go at navigating geospatial imagery.
That is why all our features are entirely available for all geography enthusiasts to enjoy : split view, swipe and our amazing timelapse animation tool. Also free are our four satellite layers, namely natural colors, infrared, NDVI (vegetation health) and radar. A fifth layer, displaying our LAI index, can be accessed under a paid plan.
Free satellite views, but not unlimited
So subscription to, and use of Nimbo Earth Online is entirely free. Free, but not unlimited. This means that any user will get an amount of browsing credits per month – we call them geocredits – to navigate our maps as they please. Once these credits run out, all services will stop until they automatically refill at the start of the following month. So, kind of like a mobile phone plan, but at no charge.
But don’t worry, Nimbo’s free geocredit allocation is amply sufficient to enjoy Earth exploration as you please. And should you need more, just get in touch with us to learn more about our paid plans !
It's interesting that this common decision, both for business and 'mission' purposes (often people also love what they do, the community around it, etc.), is mysterious.
It seems that Nimbo is trying to offer a more analysis-ready alternative with some pre-processing like cloud removal done beforehand, which can be done yourself with some coding and with greater control on GEE. The lack of mention of the exact spatial or temporal resolution and surface coverage is an odd choice to me. These parameters are what I look for first and foremost when considering alternative data sources. With multiple data products, I think the website should atleast give a range (Minutes, days? Centimeter, meters?) of what resolutions are available. The comparison with Google Earth seen on the website is also bizarre to me as GEE is a more apt comparison because it is specifically meant for manipulating and sourcing satellite imagery. It would be more compelling to see a comparison of that instead.
I previously used GEE at university for flood mapping and mapping forest fire damage. This tool is also actively being used in peer reviewed journals with a large community around it. And yes, you can use it to see the effects of climate change and human impact on nature, I will leave it as an exercise for you to search for examples.