Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Will Block Access To Its Autocomplete API On August 10

Posted by timothy on from the keeping-coders-in-suspense-since dept.

An anonymous reader writes with news reported by VentureBeat that Google will be discontinuing developer access to its unofficial Autocomplete API, as of August 10 of this year. A snippet from the article: Google currently supports more than 80 APIs that developers can use to integrate Google services and data into their applications. The company also has unsupported and unpublished APIs which people outside the company have discovered and leveraged. One of those is the Autocomplete API. The company says it is making this move "in the interest of maintaining the integrity of autocomplete as part of Search," that it wants to "ensure that users experience autocomplete as it was designed to be used," and finally that "this provides the best user experience for both services." I'm sure many will disagree.

35 of 59 comments (clear)

  1. As it was designed to be used... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...it wants to "ensure that users experience autocomplete as it was designed to be used,... That is, solely and exclusively for the profit of google. I suspect too many others were making a profit on the API, pulling those dollars away from google.

    .
    At the rate that google pulls working software out of production and mothballs it, I am surprised that anyone relies on any product that google has.

    There does not appear to be any such thing as a long-term supported google product.

    1. Re:As it was designed to be used... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Looks like I hit a nerve....

    2. Re:As it was designed to be used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't a Google "product", dumbass. If Google ever intended anyone to use it, then it wouldn't be an unpublished API. Complaining about Google pulling actual published APIs a applications is one thing, but Google is 100% within its rights to block access to people using their services in ways that they never authorised or intended.

    3. Re:As it was designed to be used... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Like the previous response said, this particular thing isn't a product. But you are right. Long term is not in Google's lexicon. That is 19th century thinking to all the new money flying over our heads. Their products last about as the bubbles in boiling mud. BUT! Mail is still up. Despite all my ISP's ownership changes, I can keep the same email. Actually for long term, AOL is the way to go. I have a 25 year old account, but can't remember the damn password.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:As it was designed to be used... by Octorian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that because Google does it first and/or best and/or "sufficiently free for adoption", there tend to not be any well known competing products. As such, everyone ends up relying on Google offerings "by default" and doesn't scramble to create replacements until their hands are forced.

      Of course maybe this means that its a good investment to build alternatives to all of Google's offerings, just waiting to take an onrush of new business the moment Google loses interest in them. Then again, that's probably far easier in theory than practice.

    5. Re:As it was designed to be used... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you just failed at formatting.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:As it was designed to be used... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Google is still 100% within its rights to block access to their published and supported APIs too. Even if it would be a dick move.

    7. Re:As it was designed to be used... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe they meant that they hit their own sciatic nerve?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:As it was designed to be used... by Otis_INF · · Score: 1

      > This isn't a Google "product", dumbass

      WTF is this? Reddit? Behave, please. And shame on you all who upmodded flames like this.

      --
      Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  2. Autocomplete by pellik · · Score: 1, Funny

    Google is a bunch of

  3. undocumented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you use undocumented calls you are all going to have a bad time mmm kay.

    It seems every 'generation' of programmers gets to re-learn this lesson.

    1. Re:undocumented by paul_metcalfe · · Score: 1

      Eh, sometimes it's all you have because you know how much developers like writing documentation.

      --
      Always read at -1, don't let others decide what you should and should not read.
  4. Re:Not Evil by Krojack · · Score: 1

    How so? Would you rather they charge to use it? Maybe $0.01/query?

  5. The moral of the story... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And the moral of the story is to never rely on anything Google offers to the public as it may disappear one day with minimal warning.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:The moral of the story... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the general sentiment of your statement is correct - given the plurality of services they have discontinued in the past - do note that this autocomplete API wasn't particularly "offered to the public"; it was never official or particularly supported.

      Relying on undocumented / unofficial APIs always carries such a risk.

    2. Re:The moral of the story... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except Google didn't offer it to the public. It is an unpublished API that is and was unsupported for external use.

      I don't see the problem here. Don't rely on undocumented APIs.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:The moral of the story... by HKcastaway · · Score: 2

      Using Google service carries such a risk, whether publish, or undocumented, actived, core or non core.... Google will pull the plug at any minute. Their technology is ideal if you want built in obsolescence you are delivering to a customer.

      Use Google API/service
      Deploy at customer
      Wait until it gets cancelled.
      Redo with something else
      Profit$$$

    4. Re:The moral of the story... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except Google didn't offer it to the public. It is an unpublished API that is and was unsupported for external use.

      I don't see the problem here.

      Actually, they did offer it to the public. This was an undocumented API. However, like the undocumented maps API, it was exposed to the public. As such, it was offered, just not documented.

      Don't rely on undocumented APIs

      Google actually encourages people to experiment with their public but undocumented APIs as part of their strategy. However, however experimenting with and releasing a product based on it are two different things. Google has a tendency to throw things against the wall and see what sticks. Maps, definitely stuck and they could even monetize it. Likely, this API also stuck, or it wouldn't be news. However, it probably was being used in ways that they couldn't monetize. Which, is why double-speeak of trying to protect the integrity of what it was originally designed for (aka Google Search).

      Of course, it is their API and nobody was charged anything to use it, so Google is free to do as they wish with it.

    5. Re:The moral of the story... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Except Google didn't offer it to the public. It is an unpublished API that is and was unsupported for external use.

      Is this the same API that Safari, Chrome, Firefox, etc. use for autocompleting search queries in their search boxes? If so, and if they disable it, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people, and by a lot, I mean literally every human being who uses a web browser.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:The moral of the story... by chill · · Score: 1

      Google is blocking 3rd-party developer use of this API -- not use by Google products. When using Google APIs you embed a Client ID that identifies you as a developer / licensee. Google can simply restrict access to this API to approved, internal Client IDs.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    7. Re:The moral of the story... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Lol, let the butthurt flow through you, my friend. :)

      It invigorates me and it reaffirms my belief that people like you are too tightly wound to ever enjoy your shallow little life.

      Now you get good and rested so you can get up tomorrow and go to that little job in order to earn money to pay for your cell phone addiction. lol

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  6. Re:Manufactured rage by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    Boycott Google!

  7. Re:Manufactured rage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Typical sexist reaction.
    Girlcottt Google!
    There, all balanced up again.

  8. ^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

    A real example: PICASA. Before Google bought it, there was a healthy market for local Image|Media Management Software. Picasa was free (and decent) there were better ones though ---- or at least software that had actual options --- All of them died and are gone, except for a couple majors.

    Or Email clients. There was Opera's M2 - dead. And I found "PostBox" last year, but well f' them. It's based on Firefox with "free updates between major versions". Bought in September 2014 - and not a single update was released.... until PostBox 4 - June 2015... with new icons and bugfixes. Pay Again. No Thanks.

    1. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Thunderbird, for email, is actually pretty good now. It is a lot like Outlook Express was and, honestly, OE was a fantastic application. Sadly it was slaughtered by Microsoft. I would love a Linux port of OE. It would be awesome. I should look into seeing if it can be run in Wine but I doubt it - it had a lot of dependencies.

      I do not do a lot of image management (and little to no image manipulation beyond cutting and resizing). I do not have a Linux recommendation. On Windows systems I have been a very happy XnView user for a lot of years. Maybe that is of interest? It has a handy image browser and lets you do all sorts of things. There are plugins but I honestly have not used any of them. I use it to browse images, maybe move them around when I am motivated to categorize them, and make screen shots. It can do much more than that and is really a pretty decent application I suppose. I do not use even 1/100 of the features I suspect and I haven't a clue how robust the plugin community is but they have been around for a very long time and I use their application as needed.

      I am not affiliated and the URL for XnView is:
      http://www.xnview.com/

      Give it a shot (either of you) if you want. It is surprisingly feature-rich and not at all bloated feeling. It is, however, bloated beyond what it was when I first poked at it. It just does not feel bloated in use. I dare say that they have done a good job with it.

      Thunderbird is, obviously, easy to find and everyone knows where to download that. I really think it has improved a great deal over what it once was. I used Opera Mail for a long time but, honestly, that is not so very good and there does not seem to be much interest in improving it. XnView is not open source.

      Finally, and more specific, what image management tools would you recommend for Linux? I have not found one that I am comfortable using. Obviously a GUI is required. It would be illogical (to me) to use an command line utility for image management. I am certain someone has and reasonably certain that someone here would profess to like such a tool.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by Geeky · · Score: 1

      Er. Me. I use ImageMagick - a command line image manipulation tool - for batch resizing and conversion. It works under Windows, Linux and OS X, so I've been using the same scripts for years, even though I use Photoshop now for the heavy duty editing. Although Photoshop has batch conversion options, I've never felt the need to investigate them. The scripts I built around ImageMagick commands years ago still do the job perfectly.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    3. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Heh... I knew there would be at lest one of you. ;) I can see it being valuable for other folks but I do not do that much management or manipulation. I also do not organize stuff well so automating with scripts or customizing scripts would not help me much. However, I was reasonably sure there was at least one of you out there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Picasa was free (and decent) there were better ones though ---- or at least software that had actual options --- All of them died and are gone, except for a couple majors.

      Free:
      http://www.irfanview.com/
      http://windows.microsoft.com/e...
      http://www.faststone.org/FSVie...

      Paid; less than $70:
      http://www.acdsee.com/en/produ...
      http://www.aftershotpro.com/en...
      https://creative.adobe.com/pro... (admittedly subscription)
      http://www.arcsoft.com/photost...
      https://www.ashampoo.com/en/us...

      There is no shortage of local photo management and editing applications available for Windows.

      Or Email clients

      I won't spend a huge amount of time posting more links; this page is pretty comprehensive:
      http://alternativeto.net/softw...

      I'm assuming that you're trying to avoid MS Outlook for whatever reason, and "Thunderbird" by some miracle never crossed your desk. Windows Live Mail isn't bad at all (it's still even a usenet reader!) Opera Mail, Zimbra Mail, and eM client are all excellent and free.

      There is no shortage of either form of software. Alternativeto.net and Softpedia are great resources for this kind of thing.

    5. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Image and Media manipulation is not an issue. IrfanView works just fine - along with all of it's commands being available from the command line. ImageMagick's command-line is fine, we use it on the servers --- it could be a bit less convoluted though.

      My choice of "home" OS, hardly affects my choice of software. Most of the Linux stuff runs just fine - if you want to bother with no documentation and limited support. Yet I'm not going to install Java for ANY software. Period. Nor is a PHP/Perl/Python script a DAM ( Digital Asset Manager ).

    6. Re:^----- THIS, e.g. Picasa by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1
      You are posting as if I haven't tried almost all of those. AftershotPro I haven't heard of. Ashampoo? Really? Look at their offerings, it comes across as a scam company that breaks down individual "features" into separate products. ArcSoft - photoediting. The only half-decent thing in your list is ACDSEE. There certainly are a shitload of shitty products. My desktop is offline atm, but there's at least 40+ so-called-managers that I've downloaded and tested over the last 5+ years. Along with these handful on my laptop.

      PicaJetFXInstall.exe
      JetPhoto_Studio_win4.15
      advcatalog.exe
      digiKam-installer-3.4.0-win32.exe
      photomanager12_dlm.exe
      Phototheca-1.4.0.974.exe
      setup-bonaview-latest.exe
      StudioLine_PB3.msi

      The Old version of PicaJet was promising (feature-wise), but its code-base was buggy as hell.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Not Evil by aevan · · Score: 1

    Does that matter? If it isn't a default option, but required user effort... isn't that the whole "Your OS put a browser in and didn't give one-click options to use other browsers" that microsoft had? [Note: this isn't a statement against Chrome, but the EU ruling]

  11. Re:To G "haters": What has Google ever done for us by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason people hate the "new" Google is because they actually liked the OLD Google, that is pre IPO.

    The old Google was like this mad scientist company full of engineers just throwing out all these cool ideas and seeing what people liked, the "new" Google cares only about the stock price and I have zero doubt is no longer being run by engineers but by MBAs (Masters of Being Assholes) who show each other PPTs and say things like "our data shows that the crucial 19-35 demographic currently enjoys X", see how they tried to ram G+ down our throats because their data showed kids like Facebook. The old Google would have never done that, hell you used to have to fight for an INVITE to get to play with the newest Google stuff and people did, because it was nearly always cool and innovative takes on some idea, now its just another Charmin, a large corp cranking out products based on marketing data and that makes a lot of us sad pandas :-(

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  12. Kind of Google's MO by barlevg · · Score: 1

    Google has an amazing (and free, up to a pretty generous rate limit) geocoder (turns text strings into GPS coordinates). Only problem: you're not allowed to use it to do geocoding. The ONLY thing you're allowed to use it for is to build a Google Map. (For those looking for a free and high-quality alternative, I recommend OpenCage)

  13. Re:Not Evil by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

    Menu > Settings > Manage Search Engines > Click on the option you want. You can't make it much easier than that without cluttering the UI.

    --
    Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.