Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps API Becomes 'More Difficult and Expensive' (govtech.com)
Government Technology reports:
On July 16, Google Maps is going to make it more difficult and expensive to use its API, which could make custom maps that rely on the service less sustainable or even unfeasible for the people who made them... First, Google Maps is requiring all projects to have an official API key in order to work. If a user doesn't have a key, the quality of the map will likely be reduced, or it could simply stop working. Second, API keys will only work if they are attached to somebody's credit card. Google will charge that card if users exceed a certain number of API requests, which is different for different services. Google will provide users a free $200 credit toward those costs each month...
There are a couple places where the changes might have more of an impact. One is in the civic hacking space, where people often work with government data to create niche projects that aim for low costs, or are free so that as many people as possible can use them... "I think that's what scares people a little bit, it certainly scares me, this thought of having this API out there and not knowing how many people are going to use it," said Derek Eder, founder of the civic tech company DataMade. "I don't want to suddenly get a bill for $1,000."
There's at least three Open Source alternatives, and Geoawesomeness.com lists nine more.
Slashdot reader Jiri_Komarek also points out that Google's move was good news for its competitor, MapTiler. "Since Google announced the pricing change the number of our users increased by 200%," said Petr Pridal, head of the MapTiler team. "We expect more people to come as they get their first bill from Google."
There are a couple places where the changes might have more of an impact. One is in the civic hacking space, where people often work with government data to create niche projects that aim for low costs, or are free so that as many people as possible can use them... "I think that's what scares people a little bit, it certainly scares me, this thought of having this API out there and not knowing how many people are going to use it," said Derek Eder, founder of the civic tech company DataMade. "I don't want to suddenly get a bill for $1,000."
There's at least three Open Source alternatives, and Geoawesomeness.com lists nine more.
Slashdot reader Jiri_Komarek also points out that Google's move was good news for its competitor, MapTiler. "Since Google announced the pricing change the number of our users increased by 200%," said Petr Pridal, head of the MapTiler team. "We expect more people to come as they get their first bill from Google."
I salute Google's desire to migrate their users to open-source mapping alternatives. They're not just paying lip service to the idea, they're putting their money where their mouth is.
Or foot, anyway...
Once you kill off all the map competitors, its only natural you would then raise prices.
Is anyone really surprised?
Provide the service, either free or inexpensively for many years until everyone is depending on it, then start billing.
The same thing has happened with Twitter and its API, which is becoming a fuckton more expensive in a month or so. It's important to remember, whenever you use a resource, no matter what it is, that is provided for free or way below what its market value would be, that eventually that will change, and to be ready for that.
The only positive thing about this is that this may push more people towards Openstreetmap.
After years of faithful map overlay on the local public University's weather map had to be replaced because of this shift by Google. https://atmos.washington.edu/w...
I recently started getting pop-ups from YouTube, requesting me to sign-up for an "Ad-free YouTube experience." You guessed it right; yes, they wanted a credit card while signing up.
Then I later learnt that to get an enhanced YouTube, (one in which video remains visible even as I scroll through comments), I needed to provide a credit card.
Google are becoming greedy, and I don not like it very much.
yeah, these fucking corporates, bothering me with ads while I am using their service for free...
And where are you now?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
If you're relying on a service someone is providing you for free, and your project is complex, you should have at least two layers or modules in your project. Whatever the big chunks are, business logic , UI, data - whatever your big chunk of work is, separate that from the vendor. Maybe use a maps library that connects your data and logic to Google maps. Then you can switch to any other mapping system by only updating the library.
If you're using a ridiculously expensive solution from a vendor like Oracle, you should have at least two layers or modules in your project. Whatever the big chunks are, business logic , UI, data - whatever your big chunk of work is, separate that from the vendor. Maybe use a database layer that connects your data and logic to Oracle database. Then you can switch to any other database, including a much cheaper one, by only updating the database layer.
No matter how much you're paying, or not paying, it's a mistake to intertwine a lot of your work with any external project. Even if you control both projects, close coupling is normally a bad idea. One project will eventually become "legacy" and you'll want to use the X code with some new Y. So they should interact only through well-defined interfaces, and preferably that interface should be implemented as a distinct interface layer which can be replaced or rewritten.
A case in point is two products we develop at work. The same company runs both. I work on the internal engine, a different team does the UI. It was decided the UI should call upon not only out engine, but other things too. The interface is being changed from SOAP to REST*. Fortunately, we put all of our SOAP stuff in a dedicated SOAP module, so we can switch and not touch 99% of our code. We just replace the SOAP module with a REST module and we're done.
* Not actual REST, as in RESTful. Really we're just putting the parameters in the query string and calling it REST. People who actually understand REST architecture would laugh at us.
for things that aren't inherently profitable (e.g. the "civic hacking" space) you need to have the government run it. Just like we do with the Post Office. A universal map system seems useful enough to me that we'd do that, but hey, what do I know?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You don't have to worry about an unexpected bill if you set your account quota to not exceed the free service. It's annoying that isn't configured that way by default or more obvious to do, but it's not that hard and I've already done it.
This space intentionally left blank
They haven't killed competitors.
I can actually understand why they did something like this, although I would have suggested a rate limit on a 'free' tier instead.
An example is, I heard a complaint from a city public transport agency. They had a phone app using this, and were railing against the new charges.
Turns out their app, which people have open for planning routes, and sitting waiting for busses/trains/etc, is written insanely and was re-requesting EVERYTHING
every 5 seconds while the app was running, so they were generating millions of API calls, to service a few thousand users...
They were trying to make a big public fuss about this, claiming google was evil. Perhaps they should just fix their damn app.
Of course the new solution isnt great either, a rate controlled free tier would be sensible, plus clear ways to limit your total exposure.
But I suspect there are a hell of a lot of maps API 'apps' that are just as retarded, and that the traffic/cost has become huge enough that they decided to do something.