Download: Password: Three times botton.
I'm new to GIS, having only dabbled with ArcGIS for Desktop for about 4 weeks in 2007. The business I am at wants to target writing complete solutions that involve GIS as it would benefit their hardware sales. They do not know which market they want to target but want me to pick the GIS software to use, yet I am very green to GIS markets. All i know if target platforms are windows, windows mobile, android and web applications. The idea of mobile applications means data connection is not 100% so internet based services may need to be ruled out, i.e. I was struggling to work out how to phrase this as a question, given the huge range of GIS products available, Esri's ArcGIS for Desktop, CadCorp, MapInfo, GoogleMap/Earth, qGIS, Manifold, openJump, openstreetmap etc. To avoid the what do I buy question, I instead ask the question why do you use Esri ArcGIS.
From my experience its slow to navigate around maps and quite verbose to program in causing quite a lead time in development. Esri is also the most expensive product on the market, and i believe also the most popular.
But why do people continue to use it, when other systems like CadCorp have the same functionality if not more, seem to be more responsive, can import Esri data and cost less. I feel that I must be overlooking something here. I know client demands in some industries like defense, want Esri but why is it still so popular, given I often hear how other products are betters (Is this a Windows vs. Mac example on market share vs. Quality) P.s. This question has been spawned from.
The OP has not been to our site in over 3 years. Questions and answers are not the property of their original authors; rather, the community is encouraged to improve Q&As through comments, edits, etc. Since this is one of the more popular Q&As on the site, it obviously has value and doesn't deserve to be closed without some attempt to salvage it. Moreover, I don't think the question's nature changed, and since the OP will in all likelihood never be back I don't think they'll mind. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. Feel free to open a discussion on meta about it if you like. – Jun 24 '14 at 1:46.
First of all, easy to use. I have been using ArcGIS for almost 7 years now and I can tell you that people love it's simplicity and how to build simple maps and analysis. I have been tracking and also using QGIS for almost 3 years now and as other have pointed, QGIS is getting closer on funcionality, but still 'ESRI' is printed on peoples mind. ArcGIS has a solid documentation, large use base and support for old products that most of other companies cannot provide. They have been investing in new technologies and spread of new concepts (which may be something or not - check out GeoDesign).
QGIS is a very strong candidate for a replacement of ArcGIS. There is one specific project, for a municipality here in Brazil (a large north capital) where we were able to stick with QGIS and they seem to be very happy with it.
Customizing it is another point, but it doesn't seem hard - everyone just need to 'get used to it'. One point in favor of ESRIs tool is its native cartographic output which is still the best, and looks like it will be for some years.
EDIT explaining the native cartographic output comment: Well, most of GIS softwares nowdays can export to a different format, such as PDF and SVG, to be edited outside the boundaries of GIS scope. I've heard that many many people uses FOSS GIS software to generate the basic layouts of their maps, and then change to something like and refine the look and feel of that map.
Natively, ArcGIS has the best cartographic control and output of all. It has extensive labelling features, symbol creation, it's has many features of a vector graphics software. Thats what I meant as native cartographic output:D.
@Chad yes we used publisher for a couple of years. We found the overhead of maintaining two datastores and two parallel ses of map compositions too expensive. It was ok for one-off maps but ones which need to be updated there was a lot of duplicated effort, making a change on the published map and then making the same change in the analytical datastore, or vice versa. I was unaware they added the ability to read file geodatabases.
I wonder how they did that without the file-gdb API? That might change things. – Mar 7 '11 at 19:02. While I technically cannot actually answer this, since I don't use ESRI products, I can have a stab at the '. But why is it still so popular' question. (This is just my opinion based on discussions over the years with folks much more knowledgeable than me, so I can't really back it up with facts but it seems to make sense to me).
The major reason is market and mind share. 'Most people' know ESRI software, and most people who've heard of GIS think of ESRI. That's just general wisdom in the atmosphere, because of huge numbers of companies and government departments and educational institutions that have deployed ESRI software en masse. Market share is one reason to choose something, but (depending on your business model) it can be far more important to assess the technical match of a product to your needs. (That's what I think you should be asking questions about btw). I think many expect something as 'serious' as GIS to need to be huge, and so the perception is that it's expensive, so it's good, lots of people use it, it must be the best. Since it does cost a lot to invest in it you also won't hear many argue against it's cost-effectiveness no matter what they truly feel, since they are committed to a big investment (this is obviously contentious, and is not meant to antagonize people for whom ESRI really is the right choice).
That is changing with more cost-effective solutions from open source and more affordable products (GDAL and QGIS are very widely known these days, and there are many others), but it's not changing with dyed-in-the-wool ESRI users - partly since it's people who are brand new to GIS that are using the new tools, not the old-school - and also since the current users will be a much harder market to crack - that's just not effective for organizations wanting to invest in software that they want lots of new people to use. Hi again mdsummer.
I appreciate the comment and could not agree more with asking what I want from GIS. The killer problem is I do not know as I haven't been given specific requirements, there are target markets but as it stands without a focused problem the requirements cannot be defined. It made asking a question quite difficult. I have heard that Esri may loose share to google within 10 years, given that google have huge amounts of information and the google maps/earth platform to deploy it to. Your comments about existing esri developers is a very valid point i missed. – Mar 2 '11 at 10:55.
I'm on the other side of the boat, where I started using Qgis in 2006 and switched to ArcGIS in 2009. Although there is 'nothing' you can do in ESRI that you can't do in QGIS, the issue is time. If you're a consultant or an employee, with salary of $X per hour. Lean and efficiency dictates that you minimize your operation cost with an acceptable increase in capital cost (license purchase). Producing a model, outputting the results, and making the map look pretty damn sexy are achieved a lot easier using ESRI. Second, a lot of ESRI users use their software on a lighter base such as mapbooks, printed maps, web maps, dynamic/web interactive maps.
Except for the last two, there is no other software out there FOSS or not that can do that as pretty, efficient, and as fast as ESRI Third, Map and model maintenance, ESRI excels in making maps that are easy to update with current data or pull out archived versions of the map that showcase older data. Fourth, really it's not that expensive.
If you think of TransCAD (transportation GIS) or EMME2/3 (another transportation GIS software) their costs run up to $50,000 per license, and most of the time you still need ArcGIS to finalize the job Fifth, innovation. I think all FOSS and non FOSS software are playing catchup to ArcGIS, whether we like to admit it or not. Although some might argue that with FOSS you have better R and R-py support, or with GRASS you have better modeling, at the end of the day, ESRI's innovation extends beyond the models, and makes their software a lot easier to use and makes map production from collected data to printed map cycle a lot easier and prettier. Sixth, I hate ArcGIS's horrible ui, but you get used to it, and I think that is one of their biggest downfalls. Hi, it interesting to see your comments as you moved from QGIS to ERSI.
As the business is just starting they have hired myself and a web developer, two recent uni graduates. So costs to the business in labour are on the lower end, but they do want to do releases quickly. My take on ESRI was it is slow, development and map scrolling, so I am surprised to see you find it quick to develop on.
Whilst i am tasked to find GIS software, am I looking to much into this, should I seek to report back we need to focus on defining a problem before looking at which GIS to apply to it. – Mar 3 '11 at 10:32. I have been in this space 21 years in the Petroleum Exploration Industry and have used all versions of ArcGIS software since the early 1990s both on the desktop and in the enterprise. I've also used most the products you mention in the past. Esri tools are tried, true, tested, and work better than anything else in the marketplace. Are they perfect? Is anything, no?
Are they responsive to continuous improvement? Because of the complexity of solving nuts and bolts mapping problems, I do not see Esri dominance changing. I have used many of the other products you mention, but when you get down to it they do not have the user base, broad functionality, or detailed technical and domain knowledge that you need to get your job done. I'm in Petroleum GIS - an entirely separate world of domain experience and technical know-how is required. We love some open source solutions, particularly products like postgreSQL.
I like that Esri plays well with it - makes us even happier. I mention it so that you can see I am not closed minded to open source solutions if they are good and focused. I go to FOSS conferences. It's great for what it does but they just do not have the financial resources of an Esri for GIS. Finally, it is our customers' product of choice and we like to be compatible with them and their work flows.
It would introduce a lot of hidden and not-so-hidden costs for us to move to anything else even if there were other options. This is a good discussion topic.
Here's my take. I learned to use GIS software in a university setting - a university that has a ELA with ESRI, like many do. This brings many users into GIS on ESRI software. Does ESRI have a large market share? Is it good software?
In my opinion, yes. It is well supported, stable, constantly improved, scalable, inter-operable, and has a HUGE user community to go to for support and ideas. I think that most everyday users (and probably corporations for that matter) are going to go with a product that meets the criteria I described above simply because it's easier for them. The ArcGIS platform is tried, tested, and dependable in the long run. I work for a medium-size corporation that of course can afford enterprise licensing of a product like ArcGIS. For that matter, ESRI licensing is chump change, as we have other software packages whose ELAs run into the millions of dollars.
I also consult on the side, and have a personal license of ArcGIS - ArcView. Why did I spend $1500 on that you might ask? Because my clients all use it and I am in business to provide them solutions using the package that they are also using. Well, that and I honestly like ArcGIS. You use ESRI products usually because you have to.
Almost every government organization uses them and you have no choice when employed by them. I love the ArcGIS suite of products, I have yet to see another GIS program that is as powerful, easy to use and used by so many. Still, ArcGIS sucks.
The number one reason ESRI sucks: the programs are prohibitively expensive, the extension's are a rip off and it makes the GIS division of any organization look horrible on the budget sheet. Non-GIS users can never understand why it cost's so much. It forces most to look for alternatives. In the end the prices for ArcGIS are to high and unless they lower them, people will bolt soon as QGIS really takes off. Functionality - When I first started really delving into the Analysis side of ArcGIS I found a lot of bugs, crashes and slowdowns. In the end I felt like I was sold a product that doesn't preform as well as it way hyped.
ArcGIS is great for analysis, but when you spend half your day troubleshooting bugs in the program, restarting your computer and contacting support, that to me is unacceptable. Unfixed Errors - ArcGIS 10.0 cannot clip a shapefile that has over 500,000 vertices. It's a fact ESRI rekognizes it. Okay, their is a bug, programs have bugs.
But, the fact that they aren't fixing it till 10.1 is like kicking you while your down. They have us a product that doesn't completely work.
But, they fixed it, if you can afford to upgrade (or pay the service fee). LiDAR Data - If your going to be working with LiDAR, stay away from ArcMap.
It can't even open a file without crashing and I have an great computer. I still say ESRI is the best GIS platform out their but, look at your alternatives. I'd go with something else if I could.
Attention, Internet Explorer User Announcement: Jive has discontinued support for Internet Explorer 7 and below. In order to provide the best platform for continued innovation, Jive no longer supports Internet Explorer 7. Jive will not function with this version of Internet Explorer. Please consider upgrading to a more recent version of Internet Explorer, or trying another browser such as Firefox, Safari, or Google Chrome. (Please remember to honor your company's IT policies before installing new software!).