Live data from Hacker News

Google Decides to Monetize Maps

adage.com

251–260 of 374 posts

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#251
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What killed GMaps for me was the dogged insistence that the correct route through the city involves making left turns onto busy multilane roads at rush hour from a side street with a stop sign, just to avoid a half-block of stopped traffic waiting for a left turn signal.

Interestingly I started using GMaps instead of Waze exactly for this. Waze loves sightseeing and meeting new people on cozy little streets.

Waze will take you on the shortest route - every time - even if that means cutting through a suburb taking the least amount of time to get to the destination. GMaps sticks to main roads as much as possible.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#252
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this assuming you have GPS on all the time or are you saying they're actively tracking everyone's locations using other means as well?

Google does not rely solely (or even primarily) on GPS for its location tracking. It also uses methods like triangulating based on what WiFi APs your device can see.

source please?

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#253
post #204

The problem I have with Maps is not the eventual monetization (By ads?), but how much Google sucks at doing that in a non disruptive way; not to mention I'm constantly arguing with the app as what is the best path, but I digress. If they are to monetize it, they should take a hint from Waze (That, funnily enough, was bought by Google few tears ago) as to how do in map advertizing right. They also have a lot of missed…

Waze has the dumbest ads. Like I'm not going to stop at a KFC or grocery store in the middle of a roadtrip. Why would I buy groceries now and how in the world would I eat fried chicken and drive?

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#254
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google tried this with YouTube Red. It doesn't work. I'm a Red/Premium subscriber, I love downloading my videos to my phone and, of course, no ads. What makes you say that it doesn't work?

The subscriber counts.

It may be a niche product but it works. Who pays gets the benefit of no ads plus others such as downloading videos to watch offline. I wonder if this product will end up in the google graveyard just because it has 1M paying users.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#255
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recall that Mapquest required CD based installation on Windows and it was not cheap . Google was simple browser based app and free.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't you contribute to OpenStreetMap?

It has been years since I gave them a try. Their interface was horrible, but this is a good reason to try them again.

Almost all free and open-source alternative have terrible UIs and crappy UX. And some have shitty content too.

However, that content is done by volunteers just like you, and if you refuse to contribute because something puts you off, then the project dies. Imagine people with the same mindset as you: Oh, I don't bother contributing my design skills because the content sucks. And you don't contribute because design sucks. In the end, no one contributes and the project, as a whole, suffers.

But if the project suffers, you and everyone else, lose to corporate offerings like Google. And that is fine, if you like that. But don't expect them to respect you. I hate to say this, but change has to come from within, not from laws, market forces or anything else.

So, if you want LIBRE maps, and you really care about that, just go on and do it. Gather people, make noise and work hard. There's thousands of highly successful projects to get inspired by.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#257
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an avid user of mapquest back in the day, the user experience that google provided (tiled maps that could be panned/zoomed seamlessly) was absolutely revolutionary and the clincher for me.

Mapquest back then had the clunky “click the big arrow” to move the map and reload the page navigation...

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#258
One of my absolute favorite things about switching to iOS is how minimalist Apple Maps is. No more nagging "suggested businesses" (ads), no more promoted locations, no more prompts to rate or tag things. Just a map, a search field, and sometimes a subtle prompt for directions to a location I actually go to on a regular basis. I love apps that aren't constantly trying to sell me things. Unfortunately they feel almost alien in today's world.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#259
Oh, what a surprise, not.

It is pretty hard not to see this coming with Google's falling margins on search advertising. Let's review how things have gone for Google over the last 10 years.

2009 the big mortgage recession hits and Google, like everyone else, sees businesses suddenly cut back on what they are willing to spend on internet advertising. As Google's CPC metric begins to free fall after years of growing or holding steady, Google sees the core metric of the only business they have that makes money at the margins they need to exist, well its dying.

In response they start by buying more traffic. This means they start paying third parties to send traffic that includes a search to Google so that Google can put ads on it. Sometimes that means paying a browser company to send search your way, sometimes it means paying a competitor with a smart phone offering to send the search traffic it generates to Google rather than an upstart. Importantly, that upstart (Bing) is reporting increases in their CPC as more advertisers start seeing them as a credible alternative to the big G. Bing is also buying traffic from EVERYONE and kind of "psuedo" buying it by offering access to their search for free through the old Yahoo! BOSS API.

This works for a short period of time, but not for very long so the next thing Google does is to reduce what they paid "other sites" for using their Advertising engine. That let them put more of the money on their own bottom line. This was collectively experienced by millions of web sites that found their AdSense for content ads went from paying $1K a month to paying $100 a month. It was exacerbated by the falling CPC as well. Spammy ad sites proliferated at people who used to make good money with these Ads were desperate to hold onto that revenue stream.

This fix was limited though because, well you can't save yourself out of bankruptcy. You have to grow the top line to keep ahead. So Google began a campaign of adding more and more advertising (some overt, some not so much) to all of their own properties (reported as Google Sites in their earnings). More and more search results were actually ads rather than organic results. And for things that indicated a "commercial intent", ie that the data cow on the other end was looking to spend money, well those queries result in a veritable cornucopia of paid spots, with payments to be in the 'shopping windows' or payments to be on the page, or payments to be higher in the results. White or black hat SEO be damned, there just isn't room on a search result page with commercial intent for an organic result.

Meanwhile Google, now as Alphabet, was pouring cash into bet after bet, and unwilling (or unable) to find a way to nurture even modest successes began a series of project that consumed cash, never were profitable, and then were killed. And things which one might expect to be profitable like a worlds largest video service, or "Google class" cloud computation, struggled. Service after service foundered on a fundamental challenges like having a human being the paying customer could call to get answers to problems. Combining that legendary non-customer service with the propensity to yank services has put tremendous headwinds on any Google offering that asks its customer to rely on it for anything other than a peripheral capability.

Year after year, as the money from ads was harder and harder to get, they have stayed ahead of that decline by killing projects, reducing the amount of money they share with the people who create the content, and trimming back on the "perqs" they used to so freely lavish on their employees.

They can't get robots right, they haven't been able to get self driving cars right, they can't make money with services when their customer service is non-existent, they haven't been able to make money with videos, or books, or much of any other of the worlds information. There are really only two things that people consider "indispensable" and even those are becoming less so, their search engine and their maps.

One makes (to a reasonable approximation) all of the money, and one just costs money. So yeah, they are now stuck trying to squeeze money out of maps because they can't improve the core value of advertising with them. Especially not with all the new restrictions on selling the data cows data milk to third parties.

What I find most interesting is that Google has decimated Garmin's market. Garmin would make anywhere from $30 to $75 per sale on their "navigator" products, which people used for their turn by turn directions and ready maps. Google gave away their maps for free on phones that Google made little money on. That used to be okay, but now it appears that trying to get some revenue out of this product is the only way to avoid the dreaded "year of year decline" in top line revenue. That has so many ill effects from taking the stock price down to creating a competitive opening.

Apple is uniquely positioned here, they have maps and they have devices to show them. Sort of the 21st century version of Garmin where their maps are just a feature of a bigger device. If Apple invested in a privacy first search engine with organic results and limited their advertising aspirations to a modest net income for the group I think they would seriously wound Google.

Interesting times ahead.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#260
post #4

I can't stress enough how much of a bad idea this is. I was stunned when a few days ago I was looking up something on Google Maps and started seeing advertised locations/suggestions. Even though I love the product and have been a fan of Google products for the longest time, their current strategy of monetizing everything they can is very off putting. The direction Chrome is taking is also concerning. Don't know what…

There's no conspiracy, just unrestrained capitalism. This is what big business does; it's entirely unsurprising. Growth becomes an end unto itself. Google was "not being evil" while doing so served their purposes; they benefitted hugely from virtuously investing in open technologies like the web, RSS, email, and early Android. But now that they've become more powerful they don't need that stuff any more, and they stand to benefit more from building barriers and consolidating control.
Post reply on HN