Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Maps To Charge For API Usage

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the 25k-oughtta-be-enough-for-the-likes-of-you dept.

Google 141

RdeCourtney writes "The BBC is reporting that from 1 January 2012, Google will charge for the Google Maps API service when more than the limit of 25,000 map "hits" are made in a day. Google is rumoured to be charging $4 per 1,000 views in excess of the limit. Google maintains the high limit of 25,000 free hits before charging 'will only affect 0.35% of users.'"

cancel ×

141 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907336)

you don't need a map to find my post!

Re:frist (-1, Offtopic)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907464)

You could have at least taken the extra 1500 mS to spell "first" correctly.

Re:frist (-1, Offtopic)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907488)

But then he might not have been frist!

Re:frist (0)

Saintwolf (1224524) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909148)

It's not that bad being sceond :P

openstreetmap.org (1)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907372)

Does openstreetmap.org have any limits on map access?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/ [openstreetmap.org]

Re:openstreetmap.org (2)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907492)

It does, but mostly to protect server load. Once you hit that, you're advised to grab the whole planet source data and serve it yourself.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909240)

as an added benefit, you get all source data, in vectors. render your own style, route... whatever you wish. yay :)

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907518)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API_usage_policy [openstreetmap.org]

Not as cut-and-dried as Google's; and they don't have a pay tier(though you can just run your own mirror and pay for that directly); but they also don't approve of use heavy enough to be problematic given their hosting resources. Not a huge surprise, really.

Re:openstreetmap.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37909310)

unfortunately, it's not clear what heavy usage is

browsing the maps all day for research?
downloading detailed maps of big cities once every couple of months (2000-20000 tiles)?
downloading maps every day?
heavy human usage?
heavy automated download for a single person?

how does an end-user know if they are a heavy user?

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

nroets (1463881) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907612)

OpenStreetMap has an acceptable use policy, as opposed to limits. The sysadmins implement limits on an ad hoc basis to ensure that the servers are not overload.

The number of services from osm.org is however quite limited. For example no routing.

If you are serious about reducing fuel consumption and other forms of waste, it really makes sense to pay for the best service, be it Google Maps, OSM, NT or TA. Computing the best route between two points 20 kilometers apart is a fraction of a cent, even with the worst possible algorithm. The savings can however be many dollars.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908472)

And if you're smart about it, you can cache that routing data in your own database. How often does a route change between two points?

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

bgat (123664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908512)

Frequently, if the route goes through a metro area with sporadic traffic congestion issues.

Re:openstreetmap.org (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907904)

The main limit is that its maps are dogshit and usually rip offs of Google Maps' wrong maps.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908698)

The main limit is that its maps are dogshit and usually rip offs of Google Maps' wrong maps.

I guess it depends on your needs and your region. OSM has some areas with phenomenal coverage - but also some areas that are almost completely bare.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908700)

The OSM maps for my home city, at the least, are massively better than Google's, especially in terms of pedestrian/bike routes.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907972)

With OpenStreetMap, you can clone the maps (get dumps [openstreetmap.org] and install the software) and use them on your own servers. If you're serious about using maps on web sites, you either give Google a few bucks (with the special API for those who wants to pay [google.com] ) or you use your own servers. On the browser, you can install special libraries like leaflet [cloudmade.com] to have pretty maps like Google.

Re:openstreetmap.org (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908284)

I disagree. If you're serious about using maps you will probably go with Bing because they have superior APIs. It's one of the few things Microsoft has gotten (relatively) right.

Re:openstreetmap.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37909188)

What is this 'Bing' you speak of?

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909678)

I hate to plug Microsoft, but I can think of another thing MS probably got right that Google definitely didn't: it didn't take them well over a year to show Louisville [google.com] as a city [searchengineland.com] .

I wonder how Bing maps is about dealing with user-reported errors or suggestions? I gave up on reporting anything to Google Maps long ago because they never actually fixed anything. They'd email me back weeks later saying the problem was fixed, except that nothing had changed.

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37910152)

I have sent 3 reports to Google Maps. All three were fixed quickly, and on all 3 occasions google emailed me to ask if it now looked correct. Perfect.

Re:openstreetmap.org (4, Funny)

kingturkey (930819) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909786)

Yeah, Bing is awesome [bing.com] . Did anybody else know that Lima, one of the world's largest cities [wikipedia.org] has approximately 3 streets?

Re:openstreetmap.org (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908164)

If you access the maps through their servers directly then they have an acceptable use policy. They don't specify explicit numeric limits though.

If you download the dumps and run your own servers you can access them as much as you like.

Not a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907376)

Real quick way for them to get dropped like a bad habit, people on the Internet aren't going to pay for such things.

Re:Not a good move (2)

Kazuma-san (775820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907438)

They will be dropped by 0.35 % of their users, at most. It appears to me, they want to charge those who use google maps commercially. And as a private citizen, I am fine with companies charging each other

Re:Not a good move (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907544)

as a private citizen, I am fine with companies charging each other

How naive of you. In the end, you will be one who's paying for it.

Re:Not a good move (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907606)

Better that I pay for it than it go away entirely.

Re:Not a good move (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908064)

at $4 per thousand hits, that would imply the company will tack on an extra 4 hundredths of a cent to your bill.

Re:Not a good move (1)

TheBig1 (966884) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908404)

Plus a $10 administration fee.

Re:Not a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907572)

That depends on whether or not they make me give them any credit information prior to using it. The details matter. The article is full of rumors and innuendo so it is not clear.

Re:Not a good move (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908674)

And that 0.35% can probably figure out how to make requests straight off their map tile servers and skip the API altogether.

Re:Not a good move (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908882)

And google can probably figure out if people are abusing their services, and block them.

Re:Not a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37909356)

Of course, it is the user's browser that will request map pieces from Google servers... And then POST them back to the original server, if needed - all in JavaScript.

Re:Not a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907458)

Sure they are, provided it's cheap. We've come to rely on it more than you think. Then there's the wonderful world of intrusive adverts that help foot the bill for the company that sells that app you just "have" to have... etc.

Re:Not a good move (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907592)

Do you think that the loss of the lucrative market of "people who want to serve more than 25,000 embeds of your mapping data per day, for free" will necessarily strike Google as a bad thing(or any of their competitors as somebody worth attracting)?

Re:Not a good move (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909754)

There are companies charging money out of using Google Maps. Why should they get a free ride on Google's servers? I have written API's for my use and I certainly won't go above the limit, just the same way I won't go above the mailbox limit they set for my free Gmail account.

If you need more, you pay more, the question is where is going to stop, you may ask the ISP/carriers/airlines/etc...

Re:Not a good move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37910096)

It's ok. Based on the protests that I have been watching, as long as you only target 1% of people, everything is peachy.

Avalanche in 3, 2, 1..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907404)

Queue incoming stream of slashdotters who will be outraged at their Google's failure to provide a quality service for free, followed by waves of tinfoil hats shouting "you are the product!"

I can't blame them (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907664)

They were basically running a charity by allowing people to download maps to their GPS devices with no ad revenue in return, and all that data can't be cheap to store and deliver.

Re:I can't blame them (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908340)

Google has destroyed the market for GPS devices for everyone in my circle of friends and family. There's a couple of hiking/fishing style GPS devices, but none of the "driving" directions style. I dunno what it costs them to run that "map" charity, but I can tell you that it goes along way for marketing/mindshare every time I use the Navigation app to get somewhere.

Re:I can't blame them (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908410)

Funny, I need the hiking/fishing type GPS far more often than street maps.

Re:I can't blame them (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908494)

For an organization that runs 100K+ servers and has hundreds of GBps of private fiber running around, not to mention sweet peering and transit deals due to their data transfer volume, I wouldn't worry too much about what they're paying to move all that data around. Its *very* cheap for them.

Not too surprising (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907444)

You can pay for extra space in gmail, too, but we don't hear to many complaints about that (I'm rapidly approaching my limit). They are, admittedly, providing a service for which you would otherwise have to pay. If it's big deal, link your map to the plain Google site. Oh, you don't want to un-brand your map and keep people captured on your site? Excuse my while I shed a tear.

Re:Not too surprising (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908658)

They just moved from free to pay API for Google Translate. The cost? $20 per MILLION characters (or about 5 cents/page). How do people bitch so much about something that provides so much value so cheap?

I hope they invest it (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907446)

I have no problem with Google charging for the API. Please remember that this only cover high use sites which wish to offer a service on the back of the considerable work and expense Google has put into maps. My only real concern is that as a Google 'customer' I have always found that support is something they do poorly, and this can be forgiven when you're not paying for the service. If Google uses the money to improve the service, assist customers then I have no issue with them making a profit off of the back of that.

Currently Google's business model is to sell advertising based on intensive profiling of us users. Anything they can do to diversify is welcome.

Re:I hope they invest it (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908272)

Since you aren't paying them, you still won't be a customer, so why do you expect support? Customer support is expensive. For many businesses it is the main profit center. Redhat for example.

Re:I hope they invest it (1)

TamCaP (900777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908386)

I have paid for Google services. Not a lot (under $1K a year), but I have. The one time I asked for support... it was disappointing.
Sorry, this is impossible, feel free to e-mail in a suggestion, goodbye.
There are ways of saying no that don't feel like the rep just slapped you on the face :-/

This is aimed at Apple... (0)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907466)

...because of Siri no doubt.

Re:This is aimed at Apple... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907532)

How is it aimed at Apple, precisely? The Google integration in IOS is an official collaboration with Google, I hardly think Apple is subject to the public limits of usage.

Re:This is aimed at Apple... (1)

patniemeyer (444913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907724)

Apple obviously already has some kind of deal in place with Google for maps... They've used Google maps since day one. And Google has always charged for high volume use of its other APIs... e.g. geo-tagging. This is a non-story.

Re:This is aimed at Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37909234)

That makes no sense at all.

iOS Maps app (1)

ossuary (1532467) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907468)

So would this affect corporate users such as with Apple's Maps app on iOS? If so, I guess that could be another reason for their recent maps company acquisition.

Re:iOS Maps app (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907670)

I would guess that *Android* is a major reason for Apples mapping acquisitions - this has been going on for a while. I highly doubt when Google and Apple matched up for their collaboration, Google merely said "sure, sign up for a mapping API key and knock yourself out"...

Rumored? (2)

aberrati0n (1516199) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907504)

I don't think announcing the prices [google.com] counts as being rumored.

What's next? (0)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907520)

Do I have to start paying $1 for every 100 searches I do over 1000 a month?
Not to mention with that horribly awful instant search BS they keep pushing, I can only imagine how much crap like that would hit people's wallets.

Re:What's next? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907576)

Could you imagine a world where you had to pay for things you use?

THIS IS BLASPHEMY!

Re:What's next? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908186)

Yeah, I could imagine a world where Google has to pay me a percentage of the profit they make on the data they collect about me. It's my data, I had to do the things in order for them to track.

Maybe I Google should also pay for the percentage of my bandwidth they use to serve ads to me. I see ads everywhere, so this should be a non-trivial amount.

Re:What's next? (5, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907614)

What's next? Will I need to do this completely ridiculous thing that's in no way follows logically from the thing they've announced? I can only imagine how this implausible occurrence would affect this other thing I have a pet peeve against!

Wow. Just... wow.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908730)

I can only imagine how this implausible occurrence would affect this other thing I have a pet peeve against!

Women?

Re:What's next? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907704)

Do I have to start paying $1 for every 100 searches I do over 1000 a month?

How about $1 per 1000 searches over 25,000? (less bandwidth-heavy than Maps) I think that would be great. It would let people with ancillary business ideas leverage Google's search data. Right now, there's a hard limit and then you're cut off. That precludes many business models, and many potential Google incubators (companies Google might want to buy).

Price rationing is a superior business model for all involved.

Re:What's next? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908138)

Do I have to start paying $1 for every 100 searches I do over 1000 a month? Not to mention with that horribly awful instant search BS they keep pushing, I can only imagine how much crap like that would hit people's wallets.

You get three choices with online services:

1 Funding through taxes, private grants or donations.

2 Supported by advertising.

This works only when adds are visible and clearly reaching their target audience.

3 Rental, subscriptions, or sales.

There are only so many people that want another tee shirt or coffee mug, Merchandising is not always the answer,

Re:What's next? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908434)

You are aware you do not need to use Google's services if you don't like them, right?

Penalizing the 1% for the usage by the 99%. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907530)

Another example of how the 1% are unfairly punished. Google should instead impose a 'fair' fee system where all users are charge an equal amount. If every user were charged $0.00015 per hit and no charge can accumulate that is less than $.01, than their fee would be truly democratic and fair. *

Re:Penalizing the 1% for the usage by the 99%. (1)

fotoflojoe (982885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908298)

#OccupyMountainView

Re:Penalizing the 1% for the usage by the 99%. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909178)

Shit... my Poe's Law FSM just started to cry...

Data please to prove that claim, Google (0)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907552)


Google is rumoured to be charging $4 per 1,000 views in excess of the limit. Google maintains the high limit of 25,000 free hits before charging 'will only affect 0.35% of users.'"

Provide the data behind that and people might believe it.

Re:Data please to prove that claim, Google (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907626)

If you look up a few comments, someone posted a link to google announcing the prices.

Re:Data please to prove that claim, Google (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907788)

Well, that'd be interesting/helpful/whatever, but really, what does it give you in reality? It's a service Google provides, they're saying "here are the payment terms we're going to implement", and you you decide if it's worth it to you.

Why not add sponsored results as an option? (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907656)

If they would let the developers choose to add sponsored results within the map (with a category to pick so as not to compete), maybe they can offset the price.

I wouldn't have a problem if my map showed Taco Bell or Red Box locations.

Of course, I guess the app or website could filter the sponsored results out, but I'm sure Google's smart spiders and human TOS verifiers could detect it and remove the free access. If only 0.35% of their API users are affected, it's not like they've got that much work to confirm proper TOS compliance.

Re:Why not add sponsored results as an option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908320)

I think they're pretty much counting on anyone who uses more than 25000 hits/month already using it as part of their business, and therefore already having their own advertising if they want it.

Re:Why not add sponsored results as an option? (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909280)

"I wouldn't have a problem if my map showed Taco Bell or Red Box locations."

And know you know why that first date never turns into a second date.

Re:Why not add sponsored results as an option? (1)

me at werk (836328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909852)

I already see sponsored results show up on my iPhone's Maps app, so I'm pretty sure you're gonna get those regardless of if you pay or not.

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907726)

Google makes APIs. They make software and services, but at the end of the day, they make their systems available via APIs. No other company does it quite as well as Google (except, say Amazon). It really is no surprise here: Microsoft makes software to run on actual machines. Apple makes shiny hardware. Google makes Internet-scale APIs.

Re:No surprise (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908446)

Google is absolutely HORRIBLE at making APIs. Microsoft is better at making APIs than Google and Microsoft isn't good at anything. Bing has a superior map API than Google.. When Google+ came out? One API. Ebay/Paypal has better APIs than Google (http://developer.ebay.com/common/api/ https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=developer/howto_api_reference [paypal.com] ) Go take a look at https://developers.google.com/ [google.com] it's really depressing.

Re:No surprise (1)

j-beda (85386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908802)

Google is absolutely HORRIBLE at making APIs.

I don't know from APIs, but that was one of the main points of Googler Steve Yegge's rant last month:

https://plus.google.com/112678702228711889851/posts/eVeouesvaVX [google.com]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/12/2043207/google-employee-accidentally-shares-rant-about-google [slashdot.org]

Not an issue (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907806)

They've obviously got to cover costs. Plus, it being Google, there won't be the usual wave of "OMG! Evil Corporation X dares to charge for their evil service Y! Which is inferior than FOSS project zzzzzzz anyway" zealot posts here - everyone will be mellow.

How does google know who to charge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37907882)

Who is charged for this overage? If it is the guy who uses the application or is it the "application writer"?

Reading the announcement link, it sounds like the "application writer/server" pays. But I don't get it ... If my web server serves up a html/js page that calls the google maps v3 api, which doesn't require an api key, and the end user user's web browser executes the javascript calling the metered google api, how does google identify the application writer/server?

Re:How does google know who to charge? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908954)

Who is charged for this overage? If it is the guy who uses the application or is it the "application writer"?

Reading the announcement link, it sounds like the "application writer/server" pays. But I don't get it ... If my web server serves up a html/js page that calls the google maps v3 api, which doesn't require an api key, and the end user user's web browser executes the javascript calling the metered google api, how does google identify the application writer/server?

Looks like the JS load from the server is what they are counting [google.com] but it does seem like you could cheat.

G+Maps (1)

ericcavanaugh (2498218) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907902)

I just hope they don't feel the need to ruin it like Reader and the Google Home page revamp. You have to wonder how long it'll be until you have to go to G+ to get your map data?

Google: Please - API grant program for nonprofits! (4, Interesting)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37907988)

Dear Google,

We ( http://www.plml.org/ [plml.org] ) use many of your API services for our tools. Recently, we had to switch from the Google Search API to Bing's Search API due to the new fee-for-access system. Bing works, but does not yet deliver the same quality of service that teachers and students expect. We hope they improve, but so far, have seen little action from their API team.

With respect to the Google Search API: While our sites (for instance, http://www.boolify.org/ [boolify.org] ) do utilize more than the maximum number of hits per day for the free API access ( with Search, it's just 100! ) we do not have the ability to pay the fees associated with the usage we incur.

Nonetheless, it is our mission to continue to provide free access to the educational tools we develop (there are many others like us), and struggle to continue to provide tools that schools expect to be of high quality, while balancing that ability with what we can provide within existing technological services.

The other grant programs you provide to nonprofits are essential (AdWords, Apps Enterprise, etc). We, and many others, make use of these grants daily, if not every minute, of our operation.

So, as you roll out additional fee-for-access programs, we humbly ask that you extend the grants program to cover these services as well. A little leeway on your part will go a long way toward helping us deliver on our social mission!

Many thanks,

Staff @ Public Learning Media, http://www.plml.org./ [www.plml.org]

Re:Google: Please - API grant program for nonprofi (5, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908174)

They already cover this case:

Non-profits and applications deemed in the public interest (as determined by Google at its discretion) are not subject to these usage limits. For example, a disaster relief map is not subject to the usage limits even if it has been developed and/or is hosted by a commercial entity. In addition we recommend that eligible Non-profits apply for a Maps API Premier license through the Google Earth Outreach program. This provides a number of benefits, including the right to opt-out of advertising, higher quotas for Maps API web services, and technical support.

http://code.google.com/apis/maps/faq.html#usagelimits [google.com]

Re:Google: Please - API grant program for nonprofi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908804)

apply for a free premier license and spend your time working on boolify so it actually does work. Wow that was painful

Re:Google: Please - API grant program for nonprofi (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909534)

Obviously, all members of Google's account management and support teams read Slashdot, and this is exactly the right place to ask for this...

How are they enforcing it? (1)

Charmonium (2441996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908004)

I wonder how they are going to enforce this. If it's for one website, can I have multiple secondary domains like mymap1.com, mymap2.com etc.. and then from a primary domain mymain.com, redirect to one of my secondary domains (a different one each time) without hitting the limit?

Re:How are they enforcing it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908224)

You can cheat in anything, but if they catch you, beware of the consequences.

Re:How are they enforcing it? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908884)

Also, how are they going to bill it? Any schmuck with a website and a Google account can get a maps API key. Are they going to look up info on Whois and send an invoice in the mail?

Re:How are they enforcing it? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909018)

I suspect in the first insance they would look up the info and send a message along the lines of

"We beleive you are using our service in violation of our free usage terms. If this continues we will ban you from the service. Contact xxx@google.com to arrange a paid account."

Re:How are they enforcing it? (1)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909052)

I would expect they would email you, noting the issue, and then disable access until the account is paid.

Re:How are they enforcing it? (1)

Jon_S (15368) | more than 2 years ago | (#37910288)

From the FAQ [google.com] :

If my web site or application becomes suddenly popular, will my maps stop working?

No. Your maps will continue to function. However if your application qualifies for and consistently exceeds the published Maps API usage limits, you do not have a Maps API Premier license, and you do not enroll for online purchasing of excess map loads, a warning may be shown on your map and a Maps API Premier sales manager may contact you to discuss your licensing options.

Two words (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908182)

Apple. Oh wait, that's one word.

Right-wing response (sarcasm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908222)

Raising rates will kill users' ambition and discourage them from working.
        Raising rates will punish successful people who use maps for being successful.
        Raising rates is always a terrible idea—the problem is using maps in the first place.
        Rates are a form of theft: Google has no right to take our money away.

Adapted from
time.http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-18/news/30171442_1_top-tax-rate-terrible-idea-middle-class

Not much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908310)

Part of why I love Google so much is because they serve high quality, account based browser utilities. Their tools are some of the most convenient ever. This is not at all a huge deal and only seems like one at a first glance. It is upsetting that Google will charge anything for any of their utilities especially because of the extreme revenue they get from their search engine but with a little more thought, $4 for ever 1000 hits over the initial limit of 2500 is an extremely minor obstruction of comfort to balk at.

Unless, of coarse, they mean they will be posting the charge for ever overall hit.

Fair enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908380)

Google paid "an undisclosed amount" but probably a lot for Keyhole, they bought exclusive online image rights from a second satellite image provider, streetview, the street maps themselves... this stuff's gotta cost a lot of money. 25,000 hits *a day* is a LOT of hits, I really don't think someone is going to get this many hits on their personal website, and Google's FAQ seems to be aware of slashdot effect (it says "If my web site or application becomes suddenly popular, will my maps stop working? No. Your maps will continue to function. However if your application qualifies for and consistently exceeds the published Maps API usage limits" blah-be-blah.) In conclusion, this stuff does cost money, and I think charging for that heavy of usage is fair.

Not for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908440)

I have an Android phone so I have free maps and navigation!

not sure that it's really enforceable (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908506)

Anyone who produces that many views most likely has multiple IPs. I can only see them limiting to 25k per IP, but then any heavy user would find a way to balance it out across all their address space. Of course, any "light" user who uses more than 25k views a day would probably find 0.4 cents per view cheaper than any extra development effort.

Grants program is understaffed (1)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908842)

I have worked with two large nonprofits that rely on Google Maps to varying degrees, in some cases for mission-critical purposes and in other cases for ancillary tasks.

From my developer's POV, Maps API is easy to use and the terms of service are more than fair, given that they're providing a tremendous service. Google Maps is one of those life-changing technologies (which Google did not invent, of course, but which they have perfected more than their competitors, IMO) and I wouldn't take it for granted.

Both applied for (and one has received) the 'Premier' grants. Both dealt with the same single Google employee, who was very helpful, but who would sometimes take months to reply to an email. My sense is (and this isn't surprising) that Google is so overwhelmed with these applications from non-profits that they just don't have the people to process them all. I'm sure they're doing something about this but it was a little surprising to see such a popular program (the Nonprofits premier grants) run by a handful of people.

I'm glad they're moving to this model, though. I'd rather build in the Maps API to a client application and start getting alerted when we're going over limits than just have it shut down or refuse a request.

Open Street Map (1)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908860)

This is the year of Open Street Map [openstreetmap.org] on... every device!!

I run into this problem when trying to use GPS on a Linux netbook. The author of OSS got cease and desist from Google for using their maps. The Open Street Map is available, but it is largely neglected in US, most likely because Google Map is available and is "free". At the same time OSM is updated and loved in Europe, they say.

So please make sure that your neighborhood [openstreetmap.org] is charted correctly, so we are prepared for when Google eventually turns evil :)

Old News (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37909206)

I set up Google maps on a site a couple of months ago, and I can tell you that this restriction is already in place. Even then their TOS said that if you had over 2,500 hits in a day, you needed a Premier account. My client contacted Google and they were told that a Premier account would cost them $10,000.

So, rather than charging more, this newer scheme looks like it actually be cheaper than before, for most of those who have to pay.

Re:Old News (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 2 years ago | (#37910396)

Yeah, back when you had to register for an API key I could have sworn they already had this requirement. And of course everyone here is blowing it out of proportion.

free alternative: openlayers and openstreetmap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37909948)

About...

OpenLayers makes it easy to put a dynamic map in any web page. It can display map tiles and markers loaded from any source. OpenLayers has been developed to further the use of geographic information of all kinds. OpenLayers is completely free, Open Source JavaScript, released under the 2-clause BSD License (also known as the FreeBSD).

http://openlayers.org/ [openlayers.org]
http://osm.org/ [osm.org]

Checking the referer? (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37910446)

This [google.com] is the Hello World of Google Maps. If you check the source code you see that there are no API keys (it's Google Maps API V3) so what happens after a page like that is loaded for the 25,001th time in a day? Are they keeping track of all the HTTP Referers and count if a given domain has generated traffic over the free quota and eventually stop serving maps for it? They don't need to do it in realtime but that's going to be a big query and/or a big queue. I'd really like to know how they implemented it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>