Trimble Juno 3D Review

So I got my hands on the new Juno 3D a few weeks ago. Now I'm thinking to myself, how the am I supposed to review this thing? When I get my hands on the latest and greatest Trimble device, I will set up a gauntlet of accuracy tests-- but this is a Juno. You don't get a Juno for accuracy. You see the paradigm is shifting... In a world where geographic data needs to be both timely and accurate,  more folks are realizing that the timely aspect is becoming much more important. What good is super spatially accurate data if it can't get to the decision makers in a timely fashion?

When I was in the Gulf of Mexico during the Oil Spill, and subsequent emergency responses since, the main goal was to get dots on the map as soon as possible. It's not just to appease the public or some folks in D.C., instead it's about showing folks that you are actively working to assess the situation-- it's proof that you are doing your job.

The new Juno is the way to go for GIS Data Collection in Emergency Responses and other scenarios which require the real-time picture of any given situation.

Hardware

The new Juno comes in two models, one with phone functionality, and one without-- the 3D and 3B respectively. There are a few more frills on the 3D besides the modem hardly worth mentioning, like Microsoft Office Mobile.

The thing is much more durable than previous models. In fact, I believe that the previous years models didn't even include an IP rating. The new Juno 3D and 3B are IP54 rated, which is quite an improvement, given that the price point of this device has not changed.

When you hold it in your hand, you know it's much more durable than its predecessors, but it's still small enough to fit in your pocket. The 5mp camera is much improved as well (up from 3mp from its predecessor).


One interesting tidbit, the 3D comes with a flash on the camera whereas the 3B is without one.

Datasheet Link

GPS

The receiver is a 12 channel L1 only SiRF receiver. I was really hoping for a dual-constellation (GLONNASS capable) receiver on this device, as you can even find that on the iPhone 4S. It's scary to think that a professional mapper is running around with one less satellite constellation than a teenager checking into a coffee shop using FourSquare-- but I guess you could make the argument that it's not the quantity of satellites, it's the quality of processing. Or maybe there really is no excuse for this. It's time to get dual-constellations in this box-- it would literally make it a rockstar.

3.5G Modem/Phone

The phone / modem equipment is standard on the 3D. I love how Trimble does not jump on the AT&T bandwagon and call HPSA+ hardware 4G. However, they probably should, as everyone else is doing it. Personally, If I were to purchase a new Juno, I would opt for the 3B, as the 3D device does not qualify as my daily driver phone-- it would have big shoes to fill from my Nexus S 4G. I'd rather pair the Juno 3B device with a Verizon MiFi for a few reasons:

1. Cheaper cost of hardware $799 for 3B vs $1099 for 3D.
2. I can use a Verizon MiFi to connect multiple devices.
3. Field devices have a season, and I'd rather not carry the cost of an AT&T contract when I'm not using it.
4. Lack of support. There's barely any documentation out there from Trimble on where/how to purchase a sim card, and what plan to get. This is unacceptable from a product management perspective-- but I digress. I'll get off of my soap box.

Battery

This is the best battery that I've seen in an MGIS device... ever. I used the unit on and off for a few weeks and only charged it once. Of course, the way a blogger uses a device is much different than the average field user. But lets just say that you'll easily pull a day + battery life with full usage of this device. The battery is huge. It's a 3060mAh Lithium-Ion Cell, which equates to a large, enduring power plant given the size of this device.

Test Preface

For my tests, I really just tested the precision and the accuracy of the Juno. For such a low price point (under $1100.00 for the best model), I really wanted to get a feel for positional accuracy of this thing. Trimble specs it at 2-5 Real-Time with SBAS (WAAS in USA), and 1-3 Meters post-processed. I know from experience that Trimble is extremely conservative on their accuracy statements, the units will almost always outperform specifications.

Test 1

For my first test, I tested precision. Anyone can easily do this at home. Just bust out some measuring tape, lay it on the ground and take shots at predetermined values. For my test I set up for one minute on 0' and one minute on 10'. I measured using SBAS and post-processed. The results were surprisingly good.

The Real-time SBAS was the best, yielding ~ 2.34' of error.

Post-Processed was not far behind

Test 2

For my next test, I went out and collected a few NGS monuments to test the Accuracy of the device. Maybe I was a little hard on the Juno in my Modem section above, so to even the playing field, I decided to go heads up with my Nexus S 4G just to see how the GPS's performed against each other. In short order, I quickly found that my smartphone just can't even compare when it comes to accuracy. The Juno was hitting 3.6 feet away from the monument in Real-Time (with SBAS), whilst the Nexus S 4G was hitting 36 feet away from the monument-- thats a 10x difference. So let's level the playing field, Trimble has much less ground to cover in the smartphone game than smartphones have to cover in the precision GPS game.

I hit up two NGS Monuments: Designations JOG and COMMITMENT near my house. I occupied each monument for 60 seconds and just placed the Juno directly on top of the monument. I then post processed the results. The Juno did not surprise me-- it hit the 3 - 3.2 ft spec consistently.

What's even better was the 3-Dimensional accuracy of this receiver. You see when I test a GPS, I just don't test 2d performance or vertical performance-- I test 3-Dimensional performance, because we live in a 3D world. The Juno consistently hit within 4 - 5 feet in three-dimensional space during my tests. Below is the spreadsheet to prove it (see NGS Monuments).

NGS Monument Results

Conclusion

I believe that this is the best value in Mobile GIS right now. iPhones, Androids, and Windows Phone 7 devices using ArcGIS for Smartphones are on the verge of disrupting the Mobile GIS Low-End in hardware sales. This hardware release is a testament to that. Technology will get cheaper with smartphones, accuracy will improve, perhaps new positioning technology might come out left field and really disrupt the precision game-- you just never know these days.

This device is the ultimate Emergency Response Hardware, hands-down. I happen to be judging from a purely consumer perspective. However, if a giant oil spill or flood were to happen I'd want a fleet of these devices (probably with the modem and ArcGIS Mobile) to survey the scene, and provide timely information to the people who need it most.

Given the parlance of this technological time, It's extremely dangerous to label this device as a high-end phone-- lead with the GPS. Why do I muddy the water of my Juno review with these facts? Because the Juno is Trimble's low-end entrant. The 3d model that I've had my hands on is actually a phone. In a world on phones, Trimble really has a challenge. Its entrant has a price point of just under $1100 dollars, it isn't running Android, iOS, or Windows Phone-- its running Windows embedded,  and yes it still necessitates a stylus.

But I believe that Trimble has a shorter distance to go in the phone world than smartphones have to go in the Precision Space. Esri (a close business partner of Trimble's) has already built a bridge into these ecosystems with their smartphone apps and api's. There will be a convergence. Mark my word, Dual-constellation receivers will be the norm on smartphones in the next years to come-- thus helping accuracy on this low-end platform. This is an opportunity. Perhaps the next itteration of this product doesn't need to be a box, it needs to be an app.

If I got something wrong, or if you'd like to contribute to the conversation, please leave comments.

Google Glasses as GIS Tools

Nick Bilton, from the NY Times recently posted an article about a new product from Google called Google glasses.

In his article, he talks about how these glasses will use augmented reality to play location-based games, display advertisements, connect with friends, etc. What I found missing from this conversation and subsequent conversations around the web, was the perspective on how geospatial developers would be able to exploit the power of this new medium through an api.

Wouldn't it be great if this could be used as a field tool to help us "literally visualize" the assets in our geospatial datasets?

Imagine a first responder, ambulance driver, police officer being able to know for sure that the address they pulled up at is indeed the right one? What kind of information or data about this property would be useful for this first responder? Given the fact that we already have these E911 datasets, we could take it a step further by integrating them with this tool.

Imagine integrating this tool with a BIM, and arming a firefighter with the ability to navigate through an area with poor to no visibility-- safely.

How about utility companies? Surely it would be nice if they could drive right up to an asset, visualize it in real-time, and update the asset database more easily.

What I'm speaking about already exists. However the tools that accomplish these tasks are in the form of Toughbooks strapped to the inside of a vehicle, or a pda that can be a hindrance during a critical moment that you would need both of your hands. The underlying datasets that these existing tools pull from already exist-- they are curated by Geospatial professionals in our field. In addition, one would assume that these glasses would integrate with the Maps API, which happens to be the most popular Google api in the world right now-- for which many organizations have already confidently embraced.

The tools to exploit these datasets might change form factors one day; and I believe these Google Glasses are a good tool to bridge the gap between augmented reality and GIS.

Cheers,

Alex Mahrou

The definition of dead...

There has been much talk in the tech community about how Flash, (and to some extent Silverlight) is now dead. This is amid announcements from Adobe, that they are discontinuing support for flash mobile. The GIS community tends to adopt technology on the coattails of the greater tech communities' adoptions. 

Some talking heads in the greater tech community are proclaiming that Flash is dead! Silverlight is dead! Now as one would expect, some GIS talking heads are analogously shouting flex is dead! Silverlight is dead! The folks in the community who are shouting these things are usually GIS Entrepreneurs who have heavily-vested their incomes on custom (non-out-of-the-box) solutions.-- Not that there is anything wrong with that...

I'll point you to a tweet from a tech podcaster/journalist that I follow, Joshua Topolsky, "Pronouncing something as dead, is usually a sign that it is very much alive."

HTML5 is the future. It's non-proprietary, more foot-loose, and it will allow for much more flexibility when designing applications that run in the mobile space. However, Flex/Flash, and Silverlight are in the present-tense-- which is not in the past. Therefore, I would not call it dead. Stop calling things dead. It's cute, and you'll definitely get some attention for it. However it shows an utter ignorance as to how things are currently working in the present-tense. 

I seriously doubt that the Esri UC will be filled with HTML5-only apps. Get with the times man. You've saddled up on the "it's dead" tech bandwagon and tried to to apply its ridiculous principles to the present-tense in GIS. Those attending the Esri UC should be looking at the problems that are solved using GIS. It would be a shame if people were fixated on how current or hip the platform is that gets you there. These are the same dudes who are leading the no-sql, no-gis boutique movements to no-where.

Esri's been very smart in their approach to the community talk of HTML5 and the future of their platforms. They have not proclaimed anything as dead, and they have seen that HTML5 is part of the future landscape.

Many in the community cite Google as leading the charge for HTML5. Whilst Google is a huge backer of HTML5, there's a reality check-- In the PRESENT-TENSE a little Geospatial app called Street-View (not sure if you've heard of it) on Google Maps, still leverages Adobe Flash.

This landscape is in-fact changing. There's a really good podcast by Directions Mag how far we have come, and what we might expect from HTML5.

I look forward expanding my horizons in GIS by learning how to leverage/customize apps that run on HTML5 in the FUTURE. However I'm currently (Present-tense) building geospatial web applications that run on Adobe Flex. The environment fits my clients needs, and there is great support from a community of developers that's building widgets on top of this platform.

My only point in writing this little post, is to hopefully arm folks with enough ammunition the next time they hear someone say "that's dead". There is a difference between the Past, Present, and Future. Don't believe all the hype. HTML5 is the future, however it has not gained a critical mass in Geospatial usage. Be proud of your Flex/Silverlight apps. They are allowing you to share information that helps to solve todays problems in the PRESENT-TENSE. So long as they continue to do this, there is no reason why you should abandon them. You'll never hear me proclaim that any technology is dead.-- It's always good to keep your options open, use tools that solve todays problems, and keep abreast of what's on the horizon.

A very smart past co-worker of mine told me something that stuck with me years ago, "Never apply technology for technology's sake". 

Cheers,

Alex