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

361–370 of 374 posts

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#361

Post by vict00ms »

notyourday wrote: post #312
frosted-flakes wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have used google Maps for navigation. It's not all that much better than my Garmin, at least not in my area. Even in downtown Manhattan the Garmin worked flawlessly. And Garmin units have had natural directions like that for four or five years. But I find it more of a hindrance than anything. I would rather hear "Turn right onto Wellington St" than "Turn right at the Starbucks", especially because the Starbucks is…

> I have used google Maps for navigation. It's not all that much better than my Garmin, at least not in my area. Even in downtown Manhattan the Garmin worked flawlessly. If flawlessly defined sending one to the closed street and putting one into a two hour long traffic jam because it has no real time data feed, then sure maybe it is flawless. But this is 2019 and not 2009.

I have a Garmin that's over five years old and it gives me real-time traffic updates reliably.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#362

Post by marssaxman »

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.

I started using Bing maps for its own sake, after Google redesigned their maps site a few years back and made it far less useful; I've never bothered to use Bing search. The two functions have not been related in my experience.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#363

Post by CamperBob2 »

nopzor wrote: post #326
hunter23 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that Youtube Premium is giving a good ROI to Google? I always thought of it as one of their experiments that they will kill off in the not so distant future.

I very much agree. I think they’ll kill yt premium. Even if google charges you what an average user is “worth” to them it’s a huge net negative to their business model. The users who will pay are worth a hell of a lot more to advertisers than the “average user”.

So charge $50/month. Frankly, I'd probably pay it. YouTube without the ads is actually pretty nice.

Unfortunately I can't argue with you and the other posters, in that it doesn't matter what they charge. If it's not seen as a positive career move to work on a given product at Google, its future is always going to be iffy. And Google is an advertising company at the end of the day, not a video streaming company.

And it's certainly true that the more someone is willing to pay to avoid ads, the more valuable to advertisers that person's attention is going to be.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#364

Post by CamperBob2 »

coldtea wrote: post #347
CamperBob2 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Authoritarian" is when you're the one pointing guns at people (and companies) in order to make them do what you say is best.

Not really. A society can democratically decide to not have companies do this or that. Except if you think e.g. forbidding them from using child labor or from not hiring women/blacks etc. are authoritarian too, then you already agree that a society can impose some laws (onto companies), and them to not be authoritarian. If you agree to the above, then now the main difference is that you think the above examples are "…

A society can democratically decide to not have companies do this or that.

The only power they (we) have to enforce such policies is to stick a gun in someone's back. It's true that some matters call for the initiation of violence to maintain a greater societal good. You've cited some worthwhile examples but this isn't one of them.

If you agree to the above, then now the main difference is that you think the above examples are "fair" and "ok", whereas the other proposal is not. But that's a matter of opinion, not some objective truth.

Our Constitution lies somewhere in the middle between opinion and objective truth. It carries more weight than the former (those guns again) and less than the latter. It arguably doesn't provide the legal tools needed to force Internet search engines and map providers to work on a nonprofit basis.

There are other countries whose founding documents don't include similar constraints. Fortunately, nobody will shoot you for trying to leave this one.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#365

Post by CamperBob2 »

Uupis wrote: post #348
CamperBob2 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can't use it on the desktop, though, it's not much good to me. Edited to answer daveidol's question due to ridiculous HN rate-limiting: Apple doesn't license Apple Maps for anything other than their own mobile platforms as far as I can tell. It can't be used as a general-purpose Google Maps replacement.

DuckDuckGo have switched to Apple Maps as their mapping solution.

I only see Bing Maps, Google Maps, HERE, and OSM...?

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#366

Post by link_108 »

jedberg wrote: post #129
frosted-flakes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what you use it for. For driving directions, there are plenty of alternatives. An excellent one is a standalone GPS device like a Garmin nüvi or a TomTom, which works entirely offline (except traffic reports, which are received over FM radio or Bluetooth). The only time I actually use Google Maps is when I'm at my PC, and Bing maps works just as well.

I think if you tried using gmaps for navigation you’d find it to be a far superior to those devices. Does your TomTom tell you “turn into the driveway after the Vitamin Shop”? Because gmaps does.

I find this comment super interesting, I assume alerting you to the vitamin shop is an ad, but its also a feature that differentiates gmaps from other mapping services. It also feels like a less creepy form of advertising as it is obvious why they are letting you know about the vitamin shop, as it is location dependent and directly relevant to your directions.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#367

Post by manigandham »

coldtea wrote: post #346
manigandham wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly does "force to close" mean and how does it work in a free-market capitalist society then? If there are valid regulations to follow then sure but that's not what the parent comment seems to be suggesting.

> What exactly does "force to close" mean and how does it work in a free-market capitalist society then? There's no "free-market capitalist society". Just a really-existing capitalist society (like "really-existing socialism" which touted one set of values, but practiced another), that sells to people the lie that markets are (and can be) free, when they aren't in most ways that matters.

This is a pedantic dead-end. The market is free enough. Regulation is not a problem, as already stated, provided the legislature is looking out for citizens and making the proper laws.

None of that has to do with Google being "forced to close" its Maps just because you don't like ads.

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#369

Post by jfoster »

ebg13 wrote: post #158
jfoster wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dodged my question, but I'm happy to answer yours. I do think that advertising has made the world better. A majority of the content on the internet is viable because of it.

> I do think that advertising has made the world better. A majority of the content on the internet is viable because of it. AKA the "harmful behavior is ok when it's profitable" theory. I don't agree.

I view it as being more like, the things that have advertising are pretty much only in existence because they can be funded by it. The fact that it exists in order to fund them is great because now we have a choice. We can visit those sites and endure the ads, or we can not visit those sites.

How would this work without advertising? Who would be paying for the websites that we enjoy?

Re: Google Decides to Monetize Maps

#370

Post by sumedh »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #353
hunter23 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that Youtube Premium is giving a good ROI to Google? I always thought of it as one of their experiments that they will kill off in the not so distant future.

My wife and I pay $15/month for a family plan Play Music + ad free YouTube. How can Google not be making money on this, assuming a reasonable number of customers. I would think that Google execs are looking at Apple’s new push for integrated services and that they will compete hard. I am a happy customer of both Apple and Google but if Apple continues to come through with quality integrated services, I can see myself…

> How can Google not be making money on this

Most Youtube users dont pay yet Google has to pay bandwidth costs for those free users.

Post reply on HN