What would be really cool is if the intro video/examples was automatically generated using map data from your current location.
On another note: it's interesting that it wasn't until I saw this design refresh that I didn't realise just how stale the old design was. It seems like Google revolutionised the maps world when they first released it, and then they let the interface stagnate ever since, so this is nice to see.
I don't really think it was stale or stagnated exactly. You probably saw recently a few posts about how much work goes into them and why exactly they're better than Apple's or Microsoft's. It's very subtle and fundamental stuff. They didn't change much, it's true, but that's because the competition was so bad and they leapfrogged them by so much at the beginning.
We'll see how the new look works in action - I can't say I see a huge improvement, though there are definitely a few features that make it more at-a-glance effective.
Despite not updating Google Voice for HiDPI for what felt like an inexcusably long time, one thing they almost always do right is serve retina stuff whenever and wherever possible (which was probably aided internally a bit by the release of the pixel).
Anyone making graphics-intensive sites (maps, photos, landing pages, etc) that isn't serving @2X versions is now officially Doing It Wrong. The retina iPad has been out for ages, and we now have a sub-$1500 laptop (and of course all of the high-end Apple stuff) on which all of this low-res stuff makes your brand and product look like crap. Seriously, it's not that hard.
Nokia's maps, judging from what here.com shows, seem to be essentially useless outside the U.S./Europe.
Japan/Korea/etc are essentially not covered at all ... they don't even seem to have any roads except for the most major highways—Tokyo on here.com literally has like five roads!—and what very little data they do have is often wrong.
I've used it in South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia, and was very impressed. Little tracks that hardly qualify as a road are there, and reliable. The other big deal in that part of the world is that both maps and navigation are 100% functional when offline.
Google map was the one of the first web applications that revolutionized the web with Ajax. This new Google map could be another one that revolutionize the industry again with WebGL.
Can't try the current one ("request an invite") but I used the experimental version you mention and it always had a pretty poor performance for me, even on brand new hardware which handles other webGL demos and my own webGL projects pretty well. So I guess what this shows is that webGL is still pretty hardware and implementation dependent.
It's too bad WebGL isn't usable yet. It's still disabled by default in multiple popular browsers, and in the browsers that have it enabled, it's a security risk (which is precisely the reason why some browsers, such as Safari, don't enable it).
Which security risks are you talking about? In the spec or in the implementations?
Currently, the biggest security risk in WebGL is, indirectly, your graphics driver. As an example, the latest security problem with WebGL was in OS X and had to to with exposing uninitialized memory contents. Of course, it is true that graphics driver writers are only now warming up to the fact that a webpage shouldn't cause a kernel panic and that it shouldn't leak uninitialized memory. Still, the WebGL spec itself has fixed all of the early problems it had.
Sorry if you were aware of this distinction! I hear many people talking about WebGL security issues as they existed in the draft, and I think some clarification of the public opinion is in order.
I'm talking about the OpenGL drivers. They were never intended to be exposed to untrusted code running on web pages, so they haven't really been hardened appropriately.
This is echo chamber mentality. Why does request-an-invite imply little startup? It just happens to be a strategy startups regularly employee, but why is it only legitimate for startups? Your criticism is hard to parse any other way than that you don't like Google, so whatever they do you find an interpretation of how their behavior is disingenuous and annoying. How the wider consumer world will view this is an open question, but I very much doubt anyone but the tech 1% will even have this thought cross their mind.
And that's only half of it. Users that are likely to request an invite are more likely to be technically savvy and provide better feedback than "maps is b0rked. plz fix!!11". If you are going to have to deal with feedback, it's much better to not have to sift through low quality feedback during the early days of launching a new product.
Spoken like someone who has never tried to buy tickets to Google IO!
But on a serious note, there are some products at Google that clearly scale well beyond what most other groups are capable of, but there are some products at Google that... don't.
Like any big company, things aren't completely uniform across the board.
I believe the "drip-feed" invite idea suffocated Google Wave. When it first came out I was begging my inbox & skype for invites. Once I finally got in it was ... a wasteland. I dished out invites like there was no tomorrow but in all honesty, if people could JUST sign up, I might have had someone to talk to.
Who knows, maybe it might still be running. I'm not sure if there were other factors but personally it never made sense to me.
I believe if Google really wanted to, they could go from 0 to 1 million users in minutes.
You mean instead of handing out N invites, just pick N users at random? Why would that be better? You confuse and potentially upset the randomly-chosen users, and you disappoint the eager people who actually want to try the new thing.
When google does first-come first served (Google I/O last year) they get dinged. When they do randomized (Nexus4 initial sale and this year's I/O) they get dinged.
Fact is, they can't satisfy everyone. The algorithm used to differentiate the few from the many will obviously upset some groups.
Would you rather they charge for it? That'd be the Microsoft thing to do [1].
The problem with Google I/O is that it was not actually first come first served, but random. As in: the registration site gets pound so hard that you need to be lucky to be able to load the page and proceed with your registration.
Also, for Google I/O it would have served to have people apply, and review applications to pick real developers and not dumbass unable to read a line of code but hoping for a cool gadget to flip on ebay.
Anyway, as much as I want to try the new map right away I would do the invite system like them: you get to ramp up your userbase progressively, and people trying it actually want to try it (not grandma opening Maps and being completely confused by the new UI and possible bugs).
I suppose neither are ideal, really. With an invite only model you run the risk of biasing your feedback. The advantage of a random rollout would be the marketing sleight of hand: "gradual rollout" might be more defensible than "by invitation".
Gmail and Google Groups have both had random rollouts for changes, with optional rollbacks. That seems more fitting (to me at least).
IO is the place to launch new products. It's just slightly more impressive than showing a message "And btw. we've lunched this new version of maps. Check it out (with the probability of 0.00053846)".
It's the disconnect between what Google is (the 800 pound gorilla that can roll out a new product like an appliance manufacturer can roll out a new toaster), and how Google sees itself (the brave disruptive startup launching something cool in private beta).
It's the same disconnect that we know from Microsoft, that couldn't see itself as the monopolist they were, because their self-image was still that of the little startup that took on the mighty IBM.
Of course it could all just be marketing, like every word out of Google these days is just marketing without substance.
Either way, Google doesn't listen to user feedback and is perfectly capable of rolling out a new product on a global scale. "Request an invite" is BS.
You sound very biased against Google. In that particular case, I think the new Maps is not ready for prime launch yet. I think two things tend to prove that this is the truth: no Google Maps API are available for this new Maps, the presenter (forgot his name) mentioned that they were not ready for prime time; also for other products announced today, they rolled them out right away (new Google+, new Google Music, etc.) so why would they not release this one?
> It's the disconnect between what Google is (the 800 pound gorilla that can roll out a new product like an appliance manufacturer can roll out a new toaster), and how Google sees itself (the brave disruptive startup launching something cool in private beta).
How do you know this? I find this Request a clever way to stagger the release of the update. In case there happens to be any issues then only those who volunteered for the update would be affected, hopefully resulting in slightly higher patience.
The difference between a software launch and appliance product launch is that not everyone immediately goes and buys that new product. It slowly penetrates the market and feedback from the first buyers gives the manufacturer a chance to make minor modifications and deal with any issues. If Google flipped the switch and enabled the new maps with a flaw that went unnoticed until consumer use, they could potentially bring the whole service down.
Also, your negativity makes you sound very disgruntled.
I don't know why you assume that an invite system is something that's "cool" or only a viable strategy for small companies. It's a good and reasonable way to scale a new product.
They could at least tell you which account has been signed up. Everything's so easy with 1-click, but now that I have multiple accounts signed in at the same time, I have no idea which one requested the invite and I'm going to have to continue to watch _all_ my inboxes... if it has an Android part, which it better, I sure hope I've linked the right account to the invite so that the device can download the app.
This and all those other places offering a Google Oauth option prevents me from logging in to multiple accounts on my main browser (Chrome). Although if you do a Google Oauth, it will let you select which email you want to use. I hardly use anything else apart from my personal Apps account, and hence it makes sense to have only a single login on your main browser.
You would hope -- I noticed the same issue. I ended up just opening an incognito window and logging into my main account that I use for e-mail and requested an invite there. Hopefully that'll make sure at least something lands into an inbox I check.
I'm not going to complain though, I just want to try it out!
That's a very good strategy - testing new features by controlled rollout so that their potential revenue impact can be fully analyzed. Every company that lives on profit should adopt that strategy.
I don't hate it, but if you have a nice new tab page (i use speeddial 2 for chrome (and I have a link to calendar and drive)), I don't imagine someone using it that often.
It seems legitimate that they'd want to stagger the release of this. I think it's better for everybody that they do it in a way that those who want it, will use it and are interested get it first. Have you seen what the average user thinks when Facebook redesign things?
Seems like a smart decision to me. I probably wouldn't have cared about GMail if thirteen year old me didn't want an invite more than anything. Anyway, it's still a gradual rollout, just with hype. Seems like a smart decision to me if they don't overuse the gimmick.
Speaking as someone who was also 13 around the time GMail was doing their invite thing, yes. I coveted that thing. I listened to TWiT with Leo Laporte and heard them talk and talk about it, and scoured web forums looking for one.
I think coldtea was implying that there's something else that 13 year old boys (assumption from GP name) generally want more than anything, and it's generally a bit more physical than Gmail invites.
That was my first thought as well. Nope. Not going to go begging for a Google invite this time. I can see throttling your users to help test the product, but it's a Maps app for goodness sake. Maybe something other than "Invite" would be more palatable, like "Sign Up for Beta" for instance.
Exactly. I don't need to see it rolled out at maps.google.com for the world to start using, but I'd at least like to be able to follow a link to TRY it after seeing it in the keynote.
Invite-only creates hype around your product. Google wants people to Tweet and post on Facebook: "I got an invite into the new Google Maps!". Simple marketing.
I think this type of thing risks tiring people out though. There are only so many times people can get excited about getting an invite to a new service before it feels like chasing old highs.
This is a straight up attack on yelp, targeting local commerce. Their goal is that instead of searching yelp for massage therapy, you search google maps. That sort of query is extremely valuable (trust me - my company pays for it every day). It makes a lot of business sense - it's probably the most lucrative way to monetize maps, and get people to use google reviews more.
And I wish Google well in this realm. Given yelp's somewhat shady practices, I welcome more competition (well, I would welcome the competition regardless, but especially in this case).
My company's currently the subject of sabotage on yelp, and it's having a pretty substantial effect. Now, I don't think that yelp itself is responsible, but they make it pretty easy to attack competitors if you've got no scruples. Check my hn username and email me if you want specifics.
Seems like such a feature could help other sites (like yelp) too though: at least where I live, the "what stuff is at this location" feature of google maps shows not just Google reviews, but also has appropriate links into other review services (not yelp, as they don't seem to be a player here, but other very well-known restaurant/store review sites). This is very useful for the user, as there are often many more and better quality reviews on these popular sites.
Yelp built a community around top reviewers and incentives people to review. Google Places doesn't really offer incentives for people to review or to spend time reviewing.
But what Google has clearly started to do here is an extension of classic Information Retrieval (IR) techniques also applied in its search products. About time.
Basic IR intro, skip this paragraph if you know the drill: Basic text search can be thought of as "looking for your search terms in relevant documents" (ala TF-IDF[1]). More sophisticated search layers on various other metrics. Google famously employed its Page Rank algorithm[2] as one such example. Modern search engines with enough traffic can also use click streams themselves as a search metric: for the given search terms, which link(s) were actually clicked on?
Back on point: What users click on and where they go (if the data is available) and how many times they go (again, if the data is available) are usable metrics, physical equivalents of click-stream traffic.
Likewise, information from other sources about relatedness of locations can also be integrated. Think "semantic fisheye views." E.g. you clicked on a pub, and Google knows about other pubs and bars in the area. Or perhaps you clicked on a Yoga studio, which causes different location relationships to be (de-)emphasized. Google at very least can draw on their classic search data as well as the more structured location and business data they've been building for some time.
Google can easily transform reviews into a simple social network feature. Something that becomes a byproduct of the ways that people use maps ordinarily. This is potentially quite huge, because reviews always have a problem of opt-in self-selection. If people start using maps to keep track of which restaurants they personally like the most then that gives a huge amount of implicit information for other people searching for restaurants.
It's like the way pagerank works. It doesn't rely on explicit rankings, it relies on extracting implicit trust and authority information from the natural and organic ways that people link things on the web.
Google has Search to promote their stuff, even if it's inferior. Put theirs on top, meaning other reviews are much harder to find (people click on top links). That's how many people installed Chrome for example
You really think Chrome when launched was an inferior browser? It had a radically simplified UI, secure multiprocess sandboxing, vastly faster Javascript engine, and continuously autoupdating system. It reignited the browser wars again, and I congratulate Firefox for upping their game, and now overall, if you look at browsers today (Chrome, Firefox, IE11) they are vastly more capable than the situation before when Chrome 1.0 was launched. Yes, Google marketed Chrome, but users love it, just like iPhone users love it regardless of the number of Apple billboards or commercials, because fundamentally, it is a good product.
You think when Google Maps was launched their primary competitors (e.g. MapQuest) had anything comparable? Maps was one of the first, large scale, Web 2.0/AJAX applications. At the time, most other mapping products were still reloading an iframe or the whole page everytime you needed to change the map.
Gmail was lightyears better in both performance, spam filtering, organization, and speed compared to other major WebMails at the time.
The New Google Maps is a quantum leap over competitors like Bing Maps, even native iOS maps.
It's sort of hilarious that it's taken this long for google to realize how beneficial and valuable it can be to add simple social features to their existing products rather than trying to shoehorn a social experience onto everything even when it doesn't add anything in hopes of driving adoption. Pull is almost always better than push.
Let's presume that Google in ~2010 believed that more personal services (like Google Now today) are the future. That requires identification to be layered onto everything they do, including search. But requiring a login for search seems absurd and immediately seems creepy (even if the intent is innocent) and would have been met with intense resistance.
It seems a far easier strategy to create a social service where identification is a presumed requirement, and then sprinkle a bit of that across all of the other services. By 2011, half a billion users had been trained by Facebook that logging in with your real identity was the norm. After all, all of your friends were doing it.
Thus, Google+ was born. It was the first time that all of Google made a consolidated step toward identification across all of their services. It was a rally point internally and externally, was easily understood, had a clear product roadmap, and opened the door to all kinds of new, stickier products.
I think that the expectations of G+ being a Facebook killer were misguided. Google would love to replace the FB News Feed, but I think it's already achieved much of what it set out to do.
Does it feel odd to anyone else that you click the "Request an invite" button and it doesn't ask who you are? Also nowhere on the page does it show my identity.
It was odd indeed. And I checked to see which account I was logged in under, and it wasn't my "normal" account. So I switched to my Gmail/Google+ account and re-clicked, and then it said "you've already requested an invite." Odd.
Perhaps if you don't realize you're logged into gmail. I thought it was well understood that being logged into gmail meant you were logged into all of google's services?
It asks me to sign in when I click "Request Invite" in a browser that has never logged in to google. Also asks me to sign in if I've signed out of google.
...and Apple Maps is trapped on only one platform (iOS - not even a web gateway), so only receiving a relative trickle of usage-based feedback... and Apple Maps perhaps only ever existed as a leverage chip against Google.
Apple Maps might need to ally with other Google rivals to get the mindshare/critical-mass needed to have any competitive chance.
Good point, maybe Apple will let users embed them in web pages and wave any fees for x years. Google and Bing charge after a certain number of free API requests so Apple should offer it for free for a while. It's not like they are hurting for cash ;)
See this is what people don't get. Apple isn't trying to complete with Google Maps.
They are just trying to get a 95% default solution to prevent Google from using its leverage to make changes to the OS e.g. sending more user information to Google. And by all accounts they have achieved this.
I don't like it at all. It has a cartoonish interface and eats my battery alive. I don't need real-time traffic information while I'm driving, I get that by looking out the windshield.
Granted, I'm sure that interface can evolve, but the fact of the matter is that Waze's technology is not defensible.
Waze can tell you if there's an accident along your route, and point out where it is, and it is pretty accurate most of the time. That feature alone has saved me countless hours. As far as battery usage goes, it's no worse than Google Maps.
I'm not a huge fan of the interface, or the gamification aspect, but the data is just that good.
Isn't that information dependent on the number of users in a given area? So if very few people in a metropolitan area use Waze, the information would suck?
So I used to have MapsGL enabled, and now I got a popup saying "MapsGL is going away". Well, then I clicked the "Classic" button and now I can't find any way to re-enable MapsGL :(
The WebGL version of maps is not this new version- presumably it was the early work which led to it. So it's not surprising that they are phasing out the 'old' WebGL maps. They weren't that great, anyway.
I'm curious to see how people react to how it adjusts to what you click. I can see that leading to a lot of confusion or frustration among less tech-savvy folks, although I'm sure Google has already user-tested to hell and back again.
I only saw the video, didn't try this yet, but one thing looks like it has the potential to drive me insane: The search results list (and map view) changes when I click one of the results!?
The way I usually browser through a list of results is by clicking each map bubble and taking action based on the details that pop up (open a new tab, call the place, refine my search, ignore the result, etc). This new version of maps seems to infer from me clicking on a bubble, that I like the underlying result. Which of course is not true because I clicked the bubble in order to figure out if I like it. Anyone else think they have this backward?
This new design looks really impressive, and neatly with the new iOS app branding - Google's eye for design has definitely improved over the last few years. I love the fact they've gone full screen on the map as that sidebar was often awkward and most of the time ignored in my use of google maps. Love the little popups with more info too. My one complaint on the iOS app they have is that it's harder to access streetview, and I'm always opening the side panel by mistake, so I hope they've focussed on the core features people like as opposed to glitzy but less useful features like 3D support and tilting the maps. When Apple switched maps I realised just how much thought has gone into google maps at a subtle level - town names popping at the correct zoom level, sizing and placement of labels, and choice of colouring, are all areas where Apple could still learn quite a lot from the Google maps styling, and with this new restyle they've moved on again.
Re the invites, I suppose when you get to the scale of Google you simply have to limit uptake or the service will be swamped on the first day and everyone will go away with a terrible impression. Better that they get the kinks out first, and they must have decided that request an invite is the simplest way to limit access to the beta while showing it to people who care about seeing it.
I'm a little hesitant about one aspect of this though because it seems they've decided to include adverts on the actual maps - to my mind a better way to do this would have been for businesses which are already featured by the likes of Zagat to be able to play for a nicer entry, with more images etc. Having paid adverts on there seems a bit cheesy and a bit too close to digital billboards.
Combine this with Google's push to take over our digital lives, and it leaves me with an uneasy feeling - like most of the major corporations (Facebook, Apple, MS, Amazon), they want to control every aspect of your online life that they can. Sometimes I wish software companies would just focus on getting a niche just right, and not try to take over our entire life online, but it seems that's just not the nature of large corporations, and so we have a constant negotiation with them as to just how much of our life we're willing to share.
I've always found Google Maps' listings a bit lacking. For something that is supposed to map the world, it still won't show me all the restaurants on a main avenue in NYC[0]. It still doesn't pinpoint the right locations for some places and for others it simply can't find them.
I think we're still far from the future of a 'one true map' that has it all, unfortunately. I still don't trust Google Maps to return quality results with a query like "restaurants near 14th st nyc"—which, from an idealistic standpoint, I should trust it with.
Yes, I hope so, but I'm not hopeful, because Zagat isn't as good as Yelp.
The biggest thing that Apple Maps has over Google Maps is their partnership with Yelp. Yelp is arguably the best source of business information in cities where it's available. It's up-to-date address-wise, lists pretty much every restaurant and attraction, has hours for many of them, and even menus. Plus decent reviews, and lots of them. Google and Zagat can't come anywhere close.
And the rest of us aren't looking for places to eat in the Mission using public transit. (BTW, folks in the Mission skateboard, bike or walk.)
Anyhoo, some of us live in L.A. We drive something called cars, often on roads called freeways.
We want to know if we have to make six lane changes from the carpool lane to merge onto another freeway. Or if we can just stay in the carpool lane and make one lane change to the left in a few minutes.
We also want to know how long our trip will take if we use the carpool lane and FasTrak.
I don't see anything wrong with this. There are any number of scalability, data quality, and other problems that will inevitably crop up when you scale out something like this. Short of a Death Star full of genetically engineered QA monkeys Google has to launch this incrementally to avoid the complete disaster that was Apple Maps.
An invitation/queue system seems like the perfect answer.
Tangent question: Does anyone have tips on making demo videos like the one embedded here? Basically something like Camtasia, but with supports the fake-perspective shots that are used in parts.
That's weird because I searched it on YouTube but it wasn't there before. Bit too early I guess... ;-)
Not overly impressed by any of the new features though, looks like they just pushed their recommendation engine more to the front and brushed up the UI map rendering a bit, but that's about it. Still a lot better than any other map service though.
I'm not convinced that's a good thing in all cases -- a centralized list of search results can be useful. For example if I search google maps for "seattle register car" I get a couple results for actual auto registration places, along with airport parking, car dealerships, etc... being able to quickly filter out the junk results without mousing all over a map seems nice.
Honestly now that I think about it I have no idea what my "usual" google maps usage is so it'll be interesting to see how much that matters!
A couple use cases that I'm still waiting for on mapping applications:
- I have a bike, and a pass that gets me on any local bus or light rail car. Busses and light rail cars can carry people with bikes. What are the best two or three route options from point A to B using some combination of bike routes and public transit?
- I am already following a route to get somewhere. Suddenly I decide I want/need to stop at a (gas station | cafe | restaurant | other). Make it easy to find such a place (optimizing for not taking me too far off my route, and doing it soon if it's a long route), add it to the route, and don't forget the original destination.
Google Maps on Android seemed farther along than iOS last I used it, but neither really handled these use cases well, last I tried.
I hate to say it, but aside from a little bit of "social" stuff which I'll never use, and a slightly revised UI, it doesn't really seem all that different. I'd prefer fixes to the map data itself. I've been having pretty severe routing issues in the last few weeks.
I have a tangential question: What screen capture software is this?
It's unlike any other I've seen, because the screen looks like it is viewed from an upper left angle (like at 0:10). Really brings the video alive; I'd love to use this software to make some video tutorials.
The search sequences don’t show actual webpages. They are a combination of HiDPI screenshots and vector animations, made in post-production software like Adobe AfterEffects.
You can replicate the look by recording your tour in one of OS X’s HiDPI modes[1] and then adjusting the perspective in a non-lineair editing suite (such as Final Cut Pro) or post-production software (such as AfterEffects).
I can't figure out how to do the simplest thing with Google Maps: send a location to my phone (running Android) in such a way that I'm guaranteed that it will appear as the top choice when I click the Google Maps icon in Applications.
I can "send to phone" (SMS) a link, email a link, or send to a car I don't own or a GPS unit I haven't purchased however.
So I have meeting tomorrow, I want to be sure that when I click the Google Maps icon the address I want to navigate to will be the first thing listed.
If I get directions to a destination on Maps desktop (web), then I can use Android Google Maps, press the search button, and that same destination is the first option. This only works for directions, not just looking up a location.
I do agree getting little things between devices still feels hard. Chrome to Phone works for URLs and works one way, but I feel like things should be seamless, instant, and universal. Still missing in every ecosystem.
The chrome to phone extension does exactly this. If you search for an address in Chrome, and click the extension's button, it'll fire up Maps with the address selected in your phone. It can be finicky about making you log in all the time, but it's nice for this exact case.
Once upon a time a new google product being launch was really exciting and I'd sign up however I could. Now I just feel a little scared as I watch new services being offered that aren't really innovations just attempts to devour other businesses. Every new release these days seems to either be reimplementing features available elsewhere on the web by perfectly good sites or a direct affront on my privacy.
Bing Maps are quite aware of the zip code change that happened to my neighborhood more than a year ago and can map my address quite well. Google Maps are still pointing to a location that does not exist in real world unfortunately. I'd have hoped that they fixed these things first.
Have you submitted a 'Problem Report'? I had a similar issue that was fixed in about 3 days after I submitted the report. They can only fix things that they know about.
Not sure if everybody sees the same example but the map I see with different ways by car and by train is cute but obviously very wrong. A railway is rarely straight and even less so in the middle of the Alps...
Yeah, I thought that was weird. I'd much prefer the transit being mapped out on it's actual path, with symbols for stops. In the video it does show a cool new feature where different transit options are compared in a timeline.
As an aside, the new look of the maps reminds me a lot of my beloved Michelin maps. Google used to have zero terrain on the regular map, only forest/park shading, but now they have a minimal amount, just like Michelin. It really does help me "read" the landscape. A lot of the colors also seem to be converging to Michelin standards.
The public-transit lines just connect the different stations/stops. Riders don't usually care so much where exactly their bus or train goes through, since they can only alight at certain points.
Hmm, the current google maps correctly shows rail trips on the map as following the actual rail line, so I'm guessing they'll get the new one doing that too by the time its really release... :]
It's personal bias from my previous experience in travel -- but it's very interesting to see the small (grayed out) 'flight' logo as one of the navigation options in the top-left.
Warning, "monster milktruck demo" and "flight simulator" will take about 4 to 8 hours of your free time. Not as addictive as most video games, but approach with caution.
I think there is a flag where you can turn it on. In the flight simulator you can crash into buildings. Also, try the grand canyon with the monster milktruck, set aside 5 hours for this.
On another note: it's interesting that it wasn't until I saw this design refresh that I didn't realise just how stale the old design was. It seems like Google revolutionised the maps world when they first released it, and then they let the interface stagnate ever since, so this is nice to see.