Google Maps API Becomes 'More Difficult and Expensive' (govtech.com) 121
Government Technology reports:
On July 16, Google Maps is going to make it more difficult and expensive to use its API, which could make custom maps that rely on the service less sustainable or even unfeasible for the people who made them... First, Google Maps is requiring all projects to have an official API key in order to work. If a user doesn't have a key, the quality of the map will likely be reduced, or it could simply stop working. Second, API keys will only work if they are attached to somebody's credit card. Google will charge that card if users exceed a certain number of API requests, which is different for different services. Google will provide users a free $200 credit toward those costs each month...
There are a couple places where the changes might have more of an impact. One is in the civic hacking space, where people often work with government data to create niche projects that aim for low costs, or are free so that as many people as possible can use them... "I think that's what scares people a little bit, it certainly scares me, this thought of having this API out there and not knowing how many people are going to use it," said Derek Eder, founder of the civic tech company DataMade. "I don't want to suddenly get a bill for $1,000."
There's at least three Open Source alternatives, and Geoawesomeness.com lists nine more.
Slashdot reader Jiri_Komarek also points out that Google's move was good news for its competitor, MapTiler. "Since Google announced the pricing change the number of our users increased by 200%," said Petr Pridal, head of the MapTiler team. "We expect more people to come as they get their first bill from Google."
There are a couple places where the changes might have more of an impact. One is in the civic hacking space, where people often work with government data to create niche projects that aim for low costs, or are free so that as many people as possible can use them... "I think that's what scares people a little bit, it certainly scares me, this thought of having this API out there and not knowing how many people are going to use it," said Derek Eder, founder of the civic tech company DataMade. "I don't want to suddenly get a bill for $1,000."
There's at least three Open Source alternatives, and Geoawesomeness.com lists nine more.
Slashdot reader Jiri_Komarek also points out that Google's move was good news for its competitor, MapTiler. "Since Google announced the pricing change the number of our users increased by 200%," said Petr Pridal, head of the MapTiler team. "We expect more people to come as they get their first bill from Google."
Good on Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
I salute Google's desire to migrate their users to open-source mapping alternatives. They're not just paying lip service to the idea, they're putting their money where their mouth is.
Or foot, anyway...
Re: (Score:1)
I just started migrating away from maps because it still lacks what I would consider basic features like the ability to route manually. You can create manual routes with My Maps, but they just show up in Maps, they don't function and Maps ignores them completely, which makes me wonder why they even offer it. All it does is show you on Maps where the route is, but completely ignores it.
I'm now using osmand, which has a ton of the features that Google was too lazy to implement. Although it isn't perfect.
Re: (Score:1)
Supply and demand (Score:5, Informative)
Once you kill off all the map competitors, its only natural you would then raise prices.
Stupid users.. (Score:5, Interesting)
They haven't killed competitors.
I can actually understand why they did something like this, although I would have suggested a rate limit on a 'free' tier instead.
An example is, I heard a complaint from a city public transport agency. They had a phone app using this, and were railing against the new charges.
Turns out their app, which people have open for planning routes, and sitting waiting for busses/trains/etc, is written insanely and was re-requesting EVERYTHING
every 5 seconds while the app was running, so they were generating millions of API calls, to service a few thousand users...
They were trying to make a big public fuss about this, claiming google was evil. Perhaps they should just fix their damn app.
Of course the new solution isnt great either, a rate controlled free tier would be sensible, plus clear ways to limit your total exposure.
But I suspect there are a hell of a lot of maps API 'apps' that are just as retarded, and that the traffic/cost has become huge enough that they decided to do something.
Re:Stupid users.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Turns out their app, which people have open for planning routes, and sitting waiting for busses/trains/etc, is written insanely and was re-requesting EVERYTHING every 5 seconds while the app was running, so they were generating millions of API calls
This. Google step is to prevent incompetently written apps to make their servers crawl.
corychristison (Score:1)
Indeed. Caching is not a new concept.
I have a locator system I built for a client. They have many companies they work with (around 4000 just in the US) to provide sales and service for their products.
As locations are added or modified it uses the Google Maps API to verify the address and get latitude & longitude points and store them in a database.
When a user on the public website looks for locations around them, they type in their address/city/zip code and it then plots the locations on a map and provi
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Caching is not a new concept.
Different scenarios have different cachability. A map with near-real-time traffic can be cached for a few minutes at most; a map of congressional district boundaries can be cached for months.
Re: (Score:3)
This. Google step is to prevent incompetently written apps to make their servers crawl.
This is bad news for the open/free alternatives, as those app devs will surely migrate to those.
If it is already hard and difficult for Google to scale up their servers to keep up demand for requests from badly written apps, how will OSM ever survive?
Re: (Score:2)
I would have suggested a rate limit on a 'free' tier instead.
There is a free tier, it's whatever you get out of the free $200 monthly credits.
The pricing has gone insane though. The old pricing gave 150K Places lookups per day and with the new pricing that will cost over $2,000
Re: (Score:2)
Do it once and cache the result yourself on your own server. That will lower the amount by an order of magnitude. It will also keep the API key on your own server, which is important now that you're being charged.
Re: (Score:2)
developer.here.com (Score:1)
Killed the competition? Nah.
I noticed that one of the sites, Vice? Engadget?... listed Google alternatives and couldn't offer anything for maps but 'OpenStreetMaps'. He didn't even list "Here" Maps, despite having the best navigation and best offline apps.
Maps.here.com is my goto for mapping, and it has an API:
https://developer.here.com/
It's owned by German car makers and was the former Nokia maps. It is readable, so you can actually see the streets on the map on a screen instead of everything being white
Re: developer.here.com (Score:1)
I used Here maps a lot but switched to google maps. Basically here is good only for offline routing, every other aspect sucks. Their mobile app gets less user friendly with every version. Favorites are cumbersome to use. There are very few businesses listed.
I donâ(TM)t understand the uproar here: most Americans are likely Google shareholders through their retirement funds.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not how it works. Bonuses now, bonuses this quarter, fuck next quarter. Once you have crippled your competitors and dominate the market, then you raise prices and fuck over your customers. Always, always, then grab as much bonus et al as possible, before it all collapses with pissed off customers, not a problem of course, golden parachute at the ready. Google evil is as evil does.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you kill off all the map competitors, its only natural you would then raise prices.
What killing? There are now more map competitors than there ever were.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And the other boot drops. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone really surprised?
Provide the service, either free or inexpensively for many years until everyone is depending on it, then start billing.
The same thing has happened with Twitter and its API, which is becoming a fuckton more expensive in a month or so. It's important to remember, whenever you use a resource, no matter what it is, that is provided for free or way below what its market value would be, that eventually that will change, and to be ready for that.
The only positive thing about this is that this may push more people towards Openstreetmap.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also if ridiculously expensive, avoid vendor lock- (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're relying on a service someone is providing you for free, and your project is complex, you should have at least two layers or modules in your project. Whatever the big chunks are, business logic , UI, data - whatever your big chunk of work is, separate that from the vendor. Maybe use a maps library that connects your data and logic to Google maps. Then you can switch to any other mapping system by only updating the library.
If you're using a ridiculously expensive solution from a vendor like Oracle, you should have at least two layers or modules in your project. Whatever the big chunks are, business logic , UI, data - whatever your big chunk of work is, separate that from the vendor. Maybe use a database layer that connects your data and logic to Oracle database. Then you can switch to any other database, including a much cheaper one, by only updating the database layer.
No matter how much you're paying, or not paying, it's a mistake to intertwine a lot of your work with any external project. Even if you control both projects, close coupling is normally a bad idea. One project will eventually become "legacy" and you'll want to use the X code with some new Y. So they should interact only through well-defined interfaces, and preferably that interface should be implemented as a distinct interface layer which can be replaced or rewritten.
A case in point is two products we develop at work. The same company runs both. I work on the internal engine, a different team does the UI. It was decided the UI should call upon not only out engine, but other things too. The interface is being changed from SOAP to REST*. Fortunately, we put all of our SOAP stuff in a dedicated SOAP module, so we can switch and not touch 99% of our code. We just replace the SOAP module with a REST module and we're done.
* Not actual REST, as in RESTful. Really we're just putting the parameters in the query string and calling it REST. People who actually understand REST architecture would laugh at us.
Re: Also if ridiculously expensive, avoid vendor l (Score:3)
That's nice, but there's a specific problem with trying "too hard" to decouple the database (EVEN IF you're using DAOs) when using Oracle or MySQL: both databases effectively force you to use strategies for optimal (or even merely ACCEPTABLE) performance that tend to be mutually-exclusive. Just about the hardest thing you can DO is take an application that works well with Oracle & port it to MySQL... or vice-versa. It's a literal *nightmare*.
Fifteen years ago, I worked for a startup that had an app almo
Don't hardcode SQL queries in your application (Score:2)
Would you hardcode user interface code into your database, things like "radio button color=orange" or "textfield length=16", in your database procedures? Of course not. So why in the world would you hardcode SQL code into your application? That's actually just as crazy, though more common.
For most any moderate to large application, it's a good idea to have at least these layers, which communicate through well-defined interfaces:
UI - Design this as though it will be replaced by a web UI, or an app, or some
PS another is application logic vs domain logic (Score:2)
Ps for a larger application or system, it's likely some logic / rules apply to the subject of the application (roughly, the data) while others are application-specific. If there is a chance other applications may someday operate on the same items, it can make sense to split domain logic from application logic.
An example - "students may not receive a diploma until their bill is paid". That's domain logic, it doesn't matter which application is trying to print or mail the diploma. "No more than two copies of
Re: (Score:2)
A hard problem, but a solved problem (Score:2)
It's not easy, but fortunately you wouldn't be the first to do it. Others have done it, documented the process, published tips and tricks, and even scripts for it.
MySQL can even federate to different types of RDMS, so you can migrate one table at a time.
>Just getting the data out of the old database and into the new could take hours and hours and hours.
Just like copying files to a new server, or any bulk data transfer, here's a tip to minimize downtime. Copy over the data while the old system is running.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like suggestions from someone who's never actually done a db migration and also has the world's simplest database schema and queries.
I've done some pretty significant govt databases (Score:2)
I've done some pretty significant databases, both for government agencies and private sector. You can keep hard-coding SQL right into your PHP, mixed in with your UI code, if you want to.
If you prefer your systems be able to be portable between not only different RDMSs, but even just different UI modules working on the same data, look at how Moodle does it, for example. Moodle works with many different database systems. Moodle modules (application code) calls functions like "lookup_student". They don't har
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Google is going to pull the plug and hold a decade's worth of work hostage to subscription fees, but they think I'm just a raving lunatic."
Without warning? Of course not. Google will give them several weeks warning before imposing fees -- Just enough time for them to figure out that they are stuck in a cloudy trap and that it's easier and cheaper to pay Google a tithe every month than to move to an alternative solution.
U.Washington radar page just changed from G.Maps (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Esri map looks better. Oh well Google.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG GUYS!!!! WE SLASHDOTTED IT!!!! WE DID IT!!!!!!
How many YEARS has it been since we could to this?
WE ARE SLASHDOT. WE ARE LEGION. WE RISE ONCE MORE!!!!!*
*When pointed to .edu sites with no cloudflare- or AWS-like services to mirror them.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a little university weather map even coming close to hitting the limits on the API?
Google have been "Money hungry" lately... (Score:2)
I recently started getting pop-ups from YouTube, requesting me to sign-up for an "Ad-free YouTube experience." You guessed it right; yes, they wanted a credit card while signing up.
Then I later learnt that to get an enhanced YouTube, (one in which video remains visible even as I scroll through comments), I needed to provide a credit card.
Google are becoming greedy, and I don not like it very much.
Re:Google have been "Money hungry" lately... (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently started getting pop-ups from YouTube, requesting me to sign-up for an "Ad-free YouTube experience." You guessed it right; yes, they wanted a credit card while signing up.
Then I later learnt that to get an enhanced YouTube, (one in which video remains visible even as I scroll through comments), I needed to provide a credit card.
Google are becoming greedy, and I don not like it very much.
yeah, these fucking corporates, bothering me with ads while I am using their service for free...
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't give Google your credit card. Instead, give Google your debit card. Were you expecting to be able to instead pay by paper check or money order?
Re: Google have been "Money hungry" lately... (Score:1)
Well, personaly i love youtube premium (alltho i wish thay had a cheaper option with only ad free whatching as youtube music still i limited compared to spotify), but I will not gripe to much as I donkt see ads anymore and I know the content creaters get at least somthing if they have enugh subscripers etc
BingMaps sucks man (Score:2)
I was about to learn GoogleMaps for a community project I have been thinking about. Since it won't generate revenue but will generate lots of hits on mobile and desktop users this means my plans to learn more about the GoogleMap API are out the Window.
BingMaps and MapQuest look very unprofessional but shit. Damn it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
And where are you now?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why... (Score:2)
A) You don't let things get down to a single source for your data
B) You don't let that single source get too big
If you want something like this to be usuable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Great..
Oh wait a second, you want the government to fund and give away and 'service' you find interesting/useful?
You know how efficiently governments run programs, right? ESPECIALLY anything IT based.
I can only assume you love paying an ever increasing rate of tax?
(Actually, I assume you pay little tax because you are a taker, not an earner, but hey..)
The post office is incredibly efficient (Score:2)
a. The contract isn't just handed out to somebody's brother in law. Independent watchdog groups can, well, watch for this. And it's also a problem for private businesses too, btw.
b. One of the parties (who shall go nameless) isn't actively trying to sabotage things by either underfunding or by allowing the contract holder to skip out on doing the actual work. This is what happened with the Obamacare website launches. Eventually the contractors
Re:If you want something like this to be usuable (Score:4, Informative)
Funnily enough, in the UK we have great mapping of very square meter of the country, thanks to the Ordnance Survey. You can get awesome 1:25k topo maps of literally anywhere you want for the price of a couple of pints. They also allow their data to be used non-commercially under pretty reasonable terms, although their licensing costs for large-scale commercial use are a little steep IMO. Still, they manage to turn a nice profit for the government rather than be an expense, and provide a huge public good.
Of course you guys have the problem that some "small government" retard will say that if it loses money the government shouldn't do it because taxes will go up, and if it makes money the government shouldn't do it because it will compete with private enterprise. Shame.
Re: (Score:1)
The USGS provides maps and vast arrays of other useable gis stuff. They are also considering charging for their services. https://www.usgs.gov/center-ne... [usgs.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing that your .sig says that you make plugins for a product produced by the Mozilla Foundation but then your comment says that if something is to be free and useful the government has to produce it.
Set a quota (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to worry about an unexpected bill if you set your account quota to not exceed the free service. It's annoying that isn't configured that way by default or more obvious to do, but it's not that hard and I've already done it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy cow. (Score:3)
I'm assuming the new pricing goes into effect midnight on 7/16 California time, can anyone verify that? I'm going to be scrambling until then.
Re: (Score:2)
Keys are tied to a domain. They only work on pages served from that domain.
Google maps stinks anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Serioualy, 1 out of 5 because:
1: You can't see fuck all in daytime outside - a place where you're quite likely to be using a MAP ffs. The contrast is abysmal, everything is light pastels, what kind of utter fucking moron says yeah, that's a good idea for a map. (yes I have a bright screen, but sunshine is much brighter).
2: Google uses street codes instead of road names, people in my country don't use these codes anywhere other than on motorways and large A-roads. The streets here have the road names at the end of most roads, they do not say shit like B2673.
3: Roads without code don't show names at all without a lot of faffing about zooming in and out and panning until you (sometimes) find the name. It's a complete waste of time.
4: Google deliberately never ever remembers anywhere you ever went in any useful way, sure I expect they actually remember everywhere you went and store that forever. Stick in a postcode, close the app, open the app 10 seconds later, stick in the very same post code and Google Maps has a memory worse than a dead geriatric.
5: Searching for locations can be piss-poor slow and will happily fail. It's pretty obvious google doesn't like people using it's service for free, the more you use it, the slower it gets and fuck you if you're not using the latest version of google maps or android.
6: It crashes often. About 1 in 5 times for me.
7: A new one, shitty annoying notifications - Adverts for things you pass on the map. The last thing you want when your navigating is your phone having random notifications, I've wasted time on several occasions pulling over to make sure it's nothing important, thanks google you arseholes. I did manage to turn these off (I think).
8: Extraneous bandwidth killing unwanted map features you can't turn off, IE 3D buildings. I don't need that.
9: That's just off of the top of my head, there's no doubt more.
Re:Google maps stinks anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Maybe you should get a better phone.
2. Thank god. Street names are useless. It's the codes that are listed on the street signs.
3. Maybe roads without codes are not meaningful for navigation. If you know where you want to go, just zoom to it. If you know the name just search it.
4. This one confuses me. One of its great features is that it DOES remember where you went and where you typically go. I don't know why you're sticking that post code in again, if you click the search bar the last place you searched is literally there at one click.
5. Searching locations is awesome and involves natural language processing. So you can literally find a place even if you can't remember the exact name of it. Unlike every other service where you not only need to know the name of the place but also exactly how it is spelled.
6. Factory reset your phone, something is majorly stuffed up if Google Maps crashes ever.
7. Settings > Notifications will literally give you 8 further submenus providing you incredible control over the exact notifications you want to receive. Seriously no other app allows so much customisation and fine control over notifications.
8. 3D buildings use pretty much no bandwidth. A single quick look at the satellite image will consume more bandwidth than about a month of the 3D renderings.
9. Just of the top of my head: You won't ever be happy with a mapping app that you refuse to learn how to use. I suggest maybe looking into your complaints a bit rather than just sitting there and complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
1. You didn't read the whole line, my phone has a very bright screen, but in sunshine, maps should be high contrast, they are not.
2. I live in the UK where this is not true, maps is clearly made for your country, not mine, it's useless here WRT to road names.
3. Not at all, you're grasping at straws. doesn't work. I don't know the name of every road, often I want to know the names of roads I'm turning in to on my route, I prefer to know my route than to use navigation, navigation doesn't work well in a compl
Re: (Score:2)
1. No I did read the line. Get a better phone. The screen clearly isn't bright enough given your complaint.
2. Horseshit. I was in the UK last week navigating with Maps, if anything you are worse offenders than most countries with your referring to streets by numbers. Google Maps was literally designed to respond exactly as signs are posted. It won't tell you to turn right onto the B1234 if the upcoming sign doesn't say B1234 on it. That is pretty much universal. Travel to Australia where they don't number s
Worse than described (Score:1)
They now want a photo of your drivers license.
I don't mind the credit card because I've been using the product in a commercial service. But the drivers license is too far. I've stopped including a map with the data service.
Openstreetmap, it turns out is not "open", even more restrictive for commercial use.
Free Doesn't Fit Their Business Model (Score:2)