Their license model is completely different than that of Google, Bing etc. They sell licenses, primarily target enterprise customs. They had attempted subscriptions based product before, called ArcWeb, never took off successfully. They are attempting second try with product called arcgisonline, with a base map back by government agencies. It's licensing model is new and still changing. The basic is that you buy license for CPU to deploy internally, or subscribe to content, but APIs (lots of them) are free.
Esri is doing same as Google, support more popular API, deprecate less used, with or without advance announcement. However, in their case, Flex API happen to be the most popular one. Interestingly, they deprecated the Google extension in JavaScript API (based on V2 and no plan on V3). Performance wise, based on my experience, it's slightly slower than Google API, but nothing to worry about. It's download size, however, is significantly larger. The result swf file is typically on 1-2M range. On Sep 8, 11:15 am, Jeff Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >I moved to the ESRI Flex API two years ago and haven't looked back :) > >Worth a look if you feel you don't have anything to move to. > >Cheers, Ian > > I was wondering if you could share a little bit from your experience with > this ESRI API. Does it compare well to Bing or MapQuest? Do you pay a > license fee for a certain number of map requests per day? > > Best, > Jeff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API For Flash" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api-for-flash?hl=en.
