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

Google Decides to Monetize Maps

adage.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 374 posts

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#141

Post by 121789 »

puzzle wrote: post #52
flukus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading a pop-sci article many years ago about a study that found women were better at navigating by landmark and men were better at more abstract directions like maps and compass directions, with gay men being good at both. So while this is annoying for me it could be great for the other 50% of the population, would be nice if it was optional.

I found in my own amateur UX studies that there are drivers who hear "in a quarter mile, turn right" and don't know how far that is, even after having heard that prompt thousands of times. You'd think that after a while they'd build a mental model of the distance. Instead, they seem to just tune out the "in a quarter mile". This is one of the classes of users for which products need to be designed. (I have similar pr…

I'm pretty good with navigation and directions, but those directions become useless for me once the app tells me anything in feet/meters. Once I hear "In 300 feet..." I stop listening and glance at the spatial layout of the roads.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#142

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

tzfld wrote: post #56
jfoster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSM has impressive geographical data now, but in the meantime Google Maps has gone well beyond "we can help you find that street address." Their places data, reviews, photos, navigation, and street view are all adding a massive amount of value. They have shifted the goal posts.

>Their places data, reviews, photos, navigation, and street view are all adding a massive amount of value. This is where OSM should move.

OSM's success has largely come from being efficient and focused. Adding photos and Street View would move into areas where the project has no expertise.

For navigation, on the other hand, it's already streets ahead (pun unintentional) of Google et al... for those of us who travel on foot or bike, that is!

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#143

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

tssva wrote: post #50
brianpgordon wrote: post #39

> Before the changes, Owczarek’s startup got 750,000 free map views a month and then was charged 50 cents for every 1,000 views on top of that. Then Google started charging after 30,000 views and the cost was $7 per 1,000 views. His costs jumped from nothing to $5,000 a month. Ouch . How could that possibly be worth it? Are they just trying to squeeze money out of businesses that are already locked into the Maps API?…

Although I appreciate the effort that has gone into and continues to go into OpenStreetMap the reality is that their data set is still pretty poor in comparison to Google Maps. I would not want to create a delivery business that depended upon it for success. Just last month I found myself in need of a source of map data for a personal use application and thought of OpenStreetMap which led me to looking up my home add…

Guessing you're American? OSM is very often better than Google in Europe and other parts of the world. It's spottier in the US.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#144

Post by [deleted] »

hedora wrote: post #101
johnchristopher wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not free and installed by default on every android devices ? You mean, I can buy a subscription and not rent the service with my search history ? Where's the sign-up button ?

There are tons of viable competitors to google maps, even on Android, last time I checked. They all have different monetization strategies, and all provide good enough turn by turn directions. I regularly use Here WeGo for its offline support. Sygic is probably still fine. I think Sygic moved to a freemium model, and I get the impression Here is subsidized by luxury car manufacturers. Yelp crushes google maps on sear…

[deleted]

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#145

Post by jjeaff »

dontbenebby wrote: post #85
technotony wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they offer a free maps service? They are a business with shareholder responsibilities, not a charity, and maps must cost them a ton of money to operate.

>Why should they offer a free maps service? Have you heard of a "loss leader"[1]? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader Users are unlikely to use Google for maps and say, Bing for their searches. Maps drives traffic to search. Conversely, making maps overly commercial will drive traffic away from search.

>Users are unlikely to use Google for maps and say, Bing for their searches.

I don't know, I see very little tying the two together. I currently use DDG exclusively for search except for localized searching and maps, for which I use Google. There isn't really much friction to switch between the two. Especially since most of my map usage is on mobile, where it is a separate app.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#146

Post by JohnFen »

manigandham wrote: post #133
JohnFen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the issue is monetization. I think the issue is the method of monetization. Doing something like offering paid enhancements, or even an option to pay in exchange for being omitted from the ad network, would be more acceptable.

Have you tried Google Contributor: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

It's hard to tell for certain from that site, but it looks like that doesn't do what I want. What I want is to stop the data collection that is used for advertising. Does Contributer do that?

Also, this looks like it's about web sites that carry Google ads (and only those sites that have decided to participate -- none of which look to be sites I use anyway), not Google's own services.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#147

Post by cpeterso »

mythz wrote: post #140
bhhaskin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ran all of their competition out of business.

Google Maps was a revolutionary product that popularized the category, they had no competition when it was released, at least now there's Apple Maps, Open Street Map, Bing Maps, Tencent Maps. I was developing with ESRI ArcGIS at the time, ESRI was a multi-billion dollar GEO company who had no product that even came close to the instant utility Google Maps launched with. The only other product that had a similar "Wow"…

I just finished reading "Never Lost Again: The Google Mapping Revolution That Sparked New Industries and Augmented Our Reality" (https://amzn.com/0062673041) about the evolution of Google Earth, Maps, and Street View. Written by one of the founders of Keyhole (the company that built what became Google Earth), the book is mostly about the founding of Keyhole and its mapping technology, but it has some insider info about the political maneuverings between Google's Search and Geo teams over owning the map ads because everyone knew it would be a big deal. The book is pretty interesting, but light on the technical details.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#148

Post by wool_gather »

mythz wrote: post #140
bhhaskin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ran all of their competition out of business.

Google Maps was a revolutionary product that popularized the category, they had no competition when it was released, at least now there's Apple Maps, Open Street Map, Bing Maps, Tencent Maps. I was developing with ESRI ArcGIS at the time, ESRI was a multi-billion dollar GEO company who had no product that even came close to the instant utility Google Maps launched with. The only other product that had a similar "Wow"…

While I agree about the utility, MapQuest pre-dated Google Maps by a fair bit.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#149

Post by coldtea »

manigandham wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should they offer a free maps service? The shouldn't. They should be forced to close, and Maps and Search should be provided by a non-profit, internationally controlled (UN etc), organization, not a for-profit company. That's my opinion of what would be best. Some services (like "indexing the world's knowledge") are too important to be left to private interests and be monetized via ads...

Forced to close? Why? That's a terrible authoritarian idea. The only solution is more competition, not less. Trying to limit who can do what has only ever led to worse outcomes. There's nothing stopping a non-profit group from creating maps today if they wanted to.

>Forced to close? Why? That's a terrible authoritarian idea.

I don't believe "authoritarian" applies to companies. If anything corporatism is authoritarian.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#150

Post by coldtea »

rayiner wrote: post #86
coldtea wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should they offer a free maps service? The shouldn't. They should be forced to close, and Maps and Search should be provided by a non-profit, internationally controlled (UN etc), organization, not a for-profit company. That's my opinion of what would be best. Some services (like "indexing the world's knowledge") are too important to be left to private interests and be monetized via ads...

Some things are too important to be left to completely ineffective quasi-governmental organizations.

Well, they only took us to the moon, deliver our mail, handle invasions, wars, and other emergency situations, and so on. Oh, and they also gave us this internet thing.

In fact, before the web era, they also made the best maps (e.g. the British military maps).

Post reply on HN