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

How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

blog.cityflo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#81

Post by soinus »

DeathArrow wrote: post #44

Like in all of Google's "free" apps, the consumer is the product. They gather your data through Waze and Google maps and sell it for nice money to paying customers. Maybe they can expand on the model a bit and let the paying customers query the API to find out what you were talking while driving. I'm sure that they can find a justification for it. I was trained to think that companies like Google was all about doing…

I usually try to stay away, but I'll bite this time. I have no affiliation with Google, don't own their stock nor ever have, but these kind of responses bug me.

Working in data science I keep thinking about how I would solve a particular problem. Regarding real-time traffic: how would you solve something like this? Clearly one has to have a lot of anonymized data one can trust. Now the question is how to get these data. Google is building it's business on providing a useful service, like gmaps, for free and on using the data from the users of this service in aggregate to sell useful information to businesses that require these data for whatever they are working on, like the company in the article. Google is very transparent about how they use your data when you use their service and they seem to try to do their best to anonymize these data, e.g. you hardly ever get the access to even anonymous data outside of Google, but rather to the information computed from these data. So I see no objective reason for being so angry. What am I missing here? In the end, if you ever want a service like "ETA at destination" someone will need to acquire the data anyway, right?

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#82

Post by srean »

DeathArrow wrote: post #35
kijin wrote: post #6

Since they have actual vehicles on the ground, they could collect data on actual travel times under various traffic conditions and apply a bit of ML to predict how long it's going to take under current conditions. No need for any Google API there. But now that their Google bill is only ~$50/day, it might not be worth building their own prediction system.

If ML could predict everything with accuracy, they would be better by predicting lottery, stock prices or Forex pairs. I used an app which predicts public transportation arrival time based on historic data and it mistakes most often than not, sometimes by a lot.

To me your comment sounds unnecessarily rude.

I guess you are reacting to private smug conversations with people who eulogize ML but are clueless about what they are talking about. Usually the amount of conviction they add to their comments and advice is inversely proportional to their knowledge. I am tired of those too, to the point of being allergic in spite of being an ML practitioner myself.

The parent comment could have been worded better but I think you will agree that there is scope for using ML or statistical modeling of some kind to optimize the use case both in API cost and accuracy. Making some minimal number of API calls would very likely be part of such a system.

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#83

Post by chowes »

einpoklum wrote: post #78

As others suggest, switching to OpenStreetMap is something to consider. However - it is also important to _contribute_ funds to OpenStreetMaps - for cityflo and for us. Donations: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Donate Individual membership: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership For organizations: https://welcome.openstreetmap.org/how-to-give-back/ The OSM Foundation in general: https://wiki.osmfoundatio…

They mention this in the article

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#85

Post by prepend »

austurist wrote: post #9

It is a proof of that Google API is overpriced. Google apparently sells something, that can be computed as well.

I wonder how Google prices this api? The actual cost must be difficult to determine because if the source data.

Perhaps they have some margin formula for “buying” data from their internal sources.

It seems to me that they are value pricing and since they are close to a monopoly on this service they are testing the price elasticity.

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#86

Post by lrem »

boojing wrote: post #27
lrem wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Placement of the cache definitely matters, even more so if you can take advantage of the more specific data freshness requirements. Disclaimer: I work in Google. But I also worked a bit on effects of cache placement in my PhD.

Why is the fact that you work at Google and have researched caching for your PhD a disclaimer? I fail to see how it denies your previous statement

Actually dataflow is right, I should have written "disclosure". Which I am contractually obliged to in all discussions relating to Google.

Then, I might be perceived as biased due to that employment. I might even be actually biased. Better disclose that up front.

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#87

Post by DeathArrow »

izacus wrote: post #67
DeathArrow wrote: post #44

Like in all of Google's "free" apps, the consumer is the product. They gather your data through Waze and Google maps and sell it for nice money to paying customers. Maybe they can expand on the model a bit and let the paying customers query the API to find out what you were talking while driving. I'm sure that they can find a justification for it. I was trained to think that companies like Google was all about doing…

> Like in all of Google's "free" apps, the consumer is the product. They gather your data through Waze and Google maps and sell it for nice money to paying customers. Huh? This article is talking about a Google PAID product and how to avoid paying for such product. Why are you complaining over Google here? Shouldn't you be complaining about the company who's looking for workarounds on how not to pay for a product and…

It looks to me that Google hindered the competition by providing the data for free while they did lose money at it. Once they were sure nobody can afford to compete with them, they started charging money.

Have there been competition between traffic data providers, small companies would have choices.

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#88

Post by graynk »

rkda wrote: post #25

Author mentioned OSM but they could also use Mapbox's navigation APIs if they don't want to host things themselves. https://www.mapbox.com/navigation/

We found Mapbox incredibly helpful and easy to use, these guys are great.

I still can't believe Google does not have a GUI to both style a map AND add markers to it, but they have GUI for those things separately.

Re: How We reduced our Google Maps API cost

#89

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

cma wrote: post #20
bartkappenburg wrote: post #18

We also had an increased Maps bill after the new pricing model for each map load on a detail page for a specific real estate object. Our map is now disabled by default and can be loaded with a “show map” button on a static cached map image.

Seems like the more frugally people use it, the more they can up the price.

Only if the goal is to stop getting people to use it. If the pricing of the API was meant to be reflective of the cost of running and to encourage customers to use it more efficiently, then increasing the price beyond what they have done is maybe not a good idea.
Post reply on HN