Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Farewell, Google Maps

inderapotheke.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 545 posts

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#121

Post by makomk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #110

> OpenStreetMap is not supposed to be directly used by commercial sites What does this mean? How did Apple Maps use it?

It means that you're not meant to use their servers to supply your map tiles (basically, image files that cover an area of map). You're supposed to either use one of the commercial tile providers or set up your own tile rendering servers. All the code and data required to produce tiles identical to the ones on openstreetmap.org is open source and freely available so in principle this isn't a big deal. This company just wanted a direct drop-in replacement for Google Maps that didn't require running more of their own servers.

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#123

Post by lucb1e »

I would just like to note that while cost is one thing, this is not the only factor based on which we should choose a map. Everyone complains about the huge and sudden increase, so not before long they will lower the prices again and everyone will be happy... and continue to put more money into this already giant player on the market, giving them even more control over it.

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#124

Post by microtherion »

martin1975 wrote: post #92

Google Maps strength is largely due in part to their surveying of roads with those funky looking vehicles I think most of us have seen. If one were to develop an app that could use anyone's GPS to do the same as what Google is paying money for... it could pose a real threat to them. A "crowdsourced" map of sorts..

Hmm… where have I heard this idea recently? https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/apple-is-rebuilding-maps-f...

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#125

Post by draw_down »

ajross wrote: post #111
tobltobs wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought the same, there are not many use cases which will be still profitable after this price increase.

Counterpoint: if these startups need a giant subsidized mapping product for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable . I mean, there's a real cry-me-a-river aspect here. No one has a Google-granted fundamental right to mapping. It's a free product Google released to drive traffic to their own offerings, and which they happen to make available for free for a lot of purposes. As it turns out, y…

Who is talking about startups, though?

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#126

Post by voxadam »

MattBlissett wrote: post #113
spapas82 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally recommend hosting your own tile-server using open street map if you have the resources . Creating your own tile-server is not as difficult as it may sound however it is really resource intensive, especially if you want to cover large areas. For a single EU country it shouldn't be that resource intensive. I have set it up on a Centos 7 server using more or less the instructions from here https://switch2osm.o…

The fastest way, if you don't have resources and don't mind being up to a few months behind, is to use OpenMapTiles vector tiles [1]. The download is an SQLite database with a standard-ish structure (MBTiles), you can either write a small server or use theirs. I needed vector tiles in other projections — WGS84 equirectangualar, an Arctic one, and an Antarctic one. Generating those took many hours on a cluster. [1] ht…

You mention being "a few months behind", what is the reason for this lag?

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#127

Post by __jal »

Google doesn't care about you or whatever you're building, unless you are building something that might threaten them.

You would be well-advised to reciprocate. To the extent that third-party services are essential to your survival, making efforts to bring it in-house, get long-term contracts, have backup providers, etc. is simply prudent.

Dependency is control. If you build your business in someone else's sandbox, it shouldn't be a surprise that they can hurt you at their whim, and absolutely will do so if they can make a buck.

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#128

Post by bflesch »

Symbiote wrote: post #120
bflesch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I was suggesting: If you are stuck in a low margin business and see that a provider such as google is screwing up your margins, you should really try to work on another idea which has higher margins. Working on a low margin business is a choice! You can always ditch it and try to find something with higher margins (= higher value created for users).

Did you miss where they wrote "a developing country"? There are places where a software developer's good salary is $10,000 a year. Google doesn't need to provide a service in that country, but it's understandable that a 20× increase is going to hit harder than in a wealthy country.

No I did not miss it. Also I'm based in a neighboring country to Poland. The salary you mentioned won't get you a software developer anywhere in the EU.

I am only pointing out that entrepreneurs need to rethink their business models if they are hit by this price increase, as this is a very strong indication they are not working on a healthy, high-margin business.

Re: Farewell, Google Maps

#129

Post by cannonedhamster »

ajross wrote: post #111
tobltobs wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought the same, there are not many use cases which will be still profitable after this price increase.

Counterpoint: if these startups need a giant subsidized mapping product for free or else they aren't profitable, they weren't ever profitable . I mean, there's a real cry-me-a-river aspect here. No one has a Google-granted fundamental right to mapping. It's a free product Google released to drive traffic to their own offerings, and which they happen to make available for free for a lot of purposes. As it turns out, y…

The article said nothing about making it free, it said that the costs, which were previously in line with competitors, increased by very, very large amounts without any perceived increase in value. Then they looked at options which were commercial offerings which cost dramatically less. They are paying for the service, it's not subsidized or free. It's like you didn't read any of the article.
Post reply on HN