10 ms·

One of the criticisms of when Google Maps API was basically a free for all was that it was suppressing the ability of startups to exist by devaluing products; i

by sct202 7y ago

One of the criticisms of when Google Maps API was basically a free for all was that it was suppressing the ability of startups to exist by devaluing products; it seems like with these pricing changes Google is giving the competition an opportunity to swoop in.

criley2 7y ago
Google Maps has a multi-layered business moat that makes competition really difficult * Massive staff and fleet of vehicles on the ground with multiple sensors mapping the entire planet. Capital costs here are enormous * Massive network and bandwidth with caches in just about every major IX to deliver ultra high performance maps * Major established contracts with satellite mapping vendors to get the best data as early as possible * Major brand recognition with many users using the app and knowing it to be the best of the best I would never want to compete here, but a major institutional player could
- lallysingh 7y ago
  The moat's draining because more of this data is becoming commodity. OpenStreetmap data is quite good. I can run a local instance with all the data and the tile server and a web server in a docker image in maybe ~10 min. Source: did this a few years ago during a particularly boring meeting.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    What do you mean when you say "all the data"? The full planet takes "a while", even on a huge computer: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osm2pgsql/benchmarks https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osm2pgsql/benchmarks
    - lallysingh 7y ago
      I recall something like an 8gb download that uncompressed to a postgresql db.
      - maxerickson 7y ago
        The thing benchmarked in my other comment loads an OSM dump into PostGIS (in 1 particular format, translating the OSM data from an editing/versioning friendly format to something more useful for map making as it goes). The current full planet dump is 84 GB: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ 8 GB gets you a large region still, depending on how much mapping has been done: http://download.geofabrik.de/ http://download.geofabrik.de/
- amundsentb 7y ago
  You wouldn't compete on the things that Google does well, but rather on the things they don't. Not saying it is easy. Price and user interaction is something I believe could be improved upon. Also maybe crowd sourcing info.
  - asdff 7y ago
    Other pain points include bike routing and unreliable (but still more reliable than any other app I've tried) transit times.
- Reason077 7y ago
  > ”Google Maps has a multi-layered business moat that makes competition really difficult” OpenStreetMap is going from strength to strength. Maps startups no longer need to duplicate Google's on-the-ground mapping efforts. Now, they can make use of open data. Mapbox is perhaps the most well-known, but there are many commercial services based on OSM data: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_and_Services https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_...
  - criley2 7y ago
    When Pokemon Go switched from Gmaps to OSM, the quality drop was dramatic and noticeable. I want OSM to be a real competitor, but I think it represents a perfect example of how difficult it is to compete with Google Maps. It counts as "Good Enough", but man, it's disappointing to see how inferior Pokemon Go maps are these days. Roads that don't exist, buildings in random places with roads going through them, and map data that seems manipulated for game advantage (by players contributing to OSM for gameplay reasons, not for accuracy reason) ... and this is in the midtown area of a top 10 US city.
    - Reason077 7y ago
      > "Roads that don't exist, buildings in random places with roads going through them" This is unfortunate and surprising. In my experience (mostly UK/Europe) the quality of street data in OSM matches, and in some cases exceeds that of Google Maps. (Points-of-interest data does not, however). If you do notice errors and omissions, fixes can be made in seconds by getting an OSM account and clicking the "edit" button on OpenStreetMap.org. In recent years the development of the "ID" editor has significantly lowered the barriers to entry of editing OSM. > "map data that seems manipulated for game advantage" Perhaps OSM needs some sort of Wikipedia-style spam detection/prevention if this is happening on a wide scale.
      - reaperducer 7y ago
        If you do notice errors and omissions, fixes can be made in seconds by getting an OSM account and clicking the "edit" button on OpenStreetMap.org. In recent years the development of the "ID" editor has significantly lowered the barriers to entry of editing OSM. This is the same argument that keeps every year from being the year of Linux on the desktop. "My computer crashed!" "Oh, just become a Linux kernel developer and fix it yourself."
- pja 7y ago
  It’s kind of ironic that Google Maps is so bad at some things then. Walking & Cycling directions are especially bad - I get much better directions from OSM than I do from Google Maps. For driving directions GMaps is much better. I presume that’s where the majority of their userbase is.
  - brewdad 7y ago
    GMaps driving directions failed HARD for me last night. I had to make a trip during rush hour. I was already going to be cutting it close on timing as this is a 12 minute drive that can take 15-20 minutes at rush hour. I plugged in my destination and GMaps routed me a way I would rarely take but didn't seem too odd. One block past my last alternate route, I saw the lights ahead. There was a 4 car crash with at least 5 emergency vehicles on scene about 1/2 mile ahead. GMaps had no clue and I had no choice but to inch through about 10 light cycles to reach the turn Gmaps wanted me to take. The 15 minute trip took me 35 minutes. Thanks for nothing.
    - viraptor 7y ago
      You mean, there was an edge case where Google didn't have real-life data for a specific accident available for you? This is an extreme case that we wouldn't even expect to exist a few years ago, (and then got annoyed by passive surveillance) but now gmaps is failing for missing it? Is this the new norm? Did you mark the accident yourself when you saw it?
      - CamperBob2 7y ago
        He shouldn't need to mark it. Maps can tell that its users are spending 20 minutes to get through a single intersection.
        viraptor 7y ago
        If you have enough users with gmaps on that segment, it will happen. Can we guarantee there was enough in that situation?
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  You're talking about competing as a consumer map/gps, which is not what the blog post is talking about (or the parent comment, I assume). Rather, GMaps used to be the default choice if you wanted to build an app on top of a map (in this case, looking at the effects of nuclear bomb detonations). The blog post explains why GMaps is no longer a reasonable choice, which (as the parent notes) opens up room for competitors.
- buboard 7y ago
  all of these services sound like things a bunch of different startups would compete to provide. doesn't google outsource stuff?
- mackrevinack 7y ago
  "mapping the entire planet" that's not true though. I know from doing HOTOSM that there are quite a lot places where there is only a road or two going through it only google maps but there is actually a city/town there. there are some counties where Google Street view cars have never even visited.
Hendrikto 7y ago
I think that's not a great argument… If the free Google Maps API put your company out of business, it didn't have a great product in the first place. If these companies did not provided added value, what was the justification for their existence in the first place?
- laumars 7y ago
  Providing an embeddable map solution with developer friendly API used to be a great product. The fact Google disrupted the market with a free solution doesn't mean the product wasn't great up until that point, it just means someone also saw that product idea and undercut them on price. Source: I was using mapping tools before Google Maps came to market.
- rstupek 7y ago
  Most people will take free and good enough over a superior product any day. Google basically killed the market for mapping products and now have started charging everyone for theirs when used commercially.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  What is your business that can survive arbitrary increases in costs?
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  That maps api was used by all kinds of hobbyist websites. Once they pulled the plug on free, all those sites bad to scramble to find alternatives.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  If the free Google Maps API put your company out of business, it didn't have a great product in the first place. So when a book store giving away books for free puts another book store out of business, that second book store didn't have a great product?
  - chii 7y ago
zelly 7y ago
A business model based on data hoarding will never last long-term. As soon as one open source player steps up that's 60% as good, it's over. Like Encarta or Britannica vs. Wikipedia. Lasting value comes from the software in between the database and the view. In the case of encyclopedias or maps, the software is the most trivial part. I really think Google Maps will die. It's just unlikely that for the rest of history, no one will improve OpenStreetMaps to the point that it is competitive. You need a massive amount of capital to create a redundant data set that has a death clock, doing nothing good for the world but extracting some small rent created by antitrust laws. No thanks.
- traderjane 7y ago
  Apple Maps is way more than 60% there in terms of quality but I still don’t find it very compelling for the same reason I won’t switch to DuckDuckGo - a palpable difference in quality gets me paranoid and makes me double check a lot of stuff. That instinct to double check makes me go “Oh well let’s just use Google.”
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Fortunately, the quality of Google searches has been declining at such a rate that you will soon be double-checking on DDG, instead.
    - andai 7y ago
      Don't they get their results from Google, though?
      - Ndymium 7y ago
        No, I think it's Bing and their own index.
        jakear 7y ago
        It’s pretty much just Bing. Saw posted a bit ago that if you DDG “what is my user agent”, the website preview text will show that it’s Bing. Which means DDG is just whitelabling Bing’s index. I use bing exclusively. Sometimes I don’t find what I want, and switching to google is as simple as swapping out the authority. The query syntax is the same.
blfr 7y ago
People said the same thing when Google Apps (now G Suite) dropped the free trier. I didn't notice anything happening.

by sct202 7y ago

criley2 7y ago

Google Maps has a multi-layered business moat that makes competition really difficult * Massive staff and fleet of vehicles on the ground with multiple sensors mapping the entire planet. Capital costs here are enormous * Massive network and bandwidth with caches in just about every major IX to deliver ultra high performance maps * Major established contracts with satellite mapping vendors to get the best data as early as possible * Major brand recognition with many users using the app and knowing it to be the best of the best I would never want to compete here, but a major institutional player could

lallysingh 7y ago
The moat's draining because more of this data is becoming commodity. OpenStreetmap data is quite good. I can run a local instance with all the data and the tile server and a web server in a docker image in maybe ~10 min. Source: did this a few years ago during a particularly boring meeting.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  What do you mean when you say "all the data"? The full planet takes "a while", even on a huge computer: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osm2pgsql/benchmarks https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osm2pgsql/benchmarks
  - lallysingh 7y ago
    I recall something like an 8gb download that uncompressed to a postgresql db.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      The thing benchmarked in my other comment loads an OSM dump into PostGIS (in 1 particular format, translating the OSM data from an editing/versioning friendly format to something more useful for map making as it goes). The current full planet dump is 84 GB: https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ 8 GB gets you a large region still, depending on how much mapping has been done: http://download.geofabrik.de/ http://download.geofabrik.de/
amundsentb 7y ago
You wouldn't compete on the things that Google does well, but rather on the things they don't. Not saying it is easy. Price and user interaction is something I believe could be improved upon. Also maybe crowd sourcing info.
- asdff 7y ago
  Other pain points include bike routing and unreliable (but still more reliable than any other app I've tried) transit times.
Reason077 7y ago
> ”Google Maps has a multi-layered business moat that makes competition really difficult” OpenStreetMap is going from strength to strength. Maps startups no longer need to duplicate Google's on-the-ground mapping efforts. Now, they can make use of open data. Mapbox is perhaps the most well-known, but there are many commercial services based on OSM data: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_and_Services https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Commercial_OSM_Software_...
- criley2 7y ago
  When Pokemon Go switched from Gmaps to OSM, the quality drop was dramatic and noticeable. I want OSM to be a real competitor, but I think it represents a perfect example of how difficult it is to compete with Google Maps. It counts as "Good Enough", but man, it's disappointing to see how inferior Pokemon Go maps are these days. Roads that don't exist, buildings in random places with roads going through them, and map data that seems manipulated for game advantage (by players contributing to OSM for gameplay reasons, not for accuracy reason) ... and this is in the midtown area of a top 10 US city.
  - Reason077 7y ago
    > "Roads that don't exist, buildings in random places with roads going through them" This is unfortunate and surprising. In my experience (mostly UK/Europe) the quality of street data in OSM matches, and in some cases exceeds that of Google Maps. (Points-of-interest data does not, however). If you do notice errors and omissions, fixes can be made in seconds by getting an OSM account and clicking the "edit" button on OpenStreetMap.org. In recent years the development of the "ID" editor has significantly lowered the barriers to entry of editing OSM. > "map data that seems manipulated for game advantage" Perhaps OSM needs some sort of Wikipedia-style spam detection/prevention if this is happening on a wide scale.
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      If you do notice errors and omissions, fixes can be made in seconds by getting an OSM account and clicking the "edit" button on OpenStreetMap.org. In recent years the development of the "ID" editor has significantly lowered the barriers to entry of editing OSM. This is the same argument that keeps every year from being the year of Linux on the desktop. "My computer crashed!" "Oh, just become a Linux kernel developer and fix it yourself."
pja 7y ago
It’s kind of ironic that Google Maps is so bad at some things then. Walking & Cycling directions are especially bad - I get much better directions from OSM than I do from Google Maps. For driving directions GMaps is much better. I presume that’s where the majority of their userbase is.
- brewdad 7y ago
  GMaps driving directions failed HARD for me last night. I had to make a trip during rush hour. I was already going to be cutting it close on timing as this is a 12 minute drive that can take 15-20 minutes at rush hour. I plugged in my destination and GMaps routed me a way I would rarely take but didn't seem too odd. One block past my last alternate route, I saw the lights ahead. There was a 4 car crash with at least 5 emergency vehicles on scene about 1/2 mile ahead. GMaps had no clue and I had no choice but to inch through about 10 light cycles to reach the turn Gmaps wanted me to take. The 15 minute trip took me 35 minutes. Thanks for nothing.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    You mean, there was an edge case where Google didn't have real-life data for a specific accident available for you? This is an extreme case that we wouldn't even expect to exist a few years ago, (and then got annoyed by passive surveillance) but now gmaps is failing for missing it? Is this the new norm? Did you mark the accident yourself when you saw it?
    - CamperBob2 7y ago
      He shouldn't need to mark it. Maps can tell that its users are spending 20 minutes to get through a single intersection.
      - viraptor 7y ago
        If you have enough users with gmaps on that segment, it will happen. Can we guarantee there was enough in that situation?
CrazyStat 7y ago
You're talking about competing as a consumer map/gps, which is not what the blog post is talking about (or the parent comment, I assume). Rather, GMaps used to be the default choice if you wanted to build an app on top of a map (in this case, looking at the effects of nuclear bomb detonations). The blog post explains why GMaps is no longer a reasonable choice, which (as the parent notes) opens up room for competitors.
buboard 7y ago
all of these services sound like things a bunch of different startups would compete to provide. doesn't google outsource stuff?
mackrevinack 7y ago
"mapping the entire planet" that's not true though. I know from doing HOTOSM that there are quite a lot places where there is only a road or two going through it only google maps but there is actually a city/town there. there are some counties where Google Street view cars have never even visited.

Hendrikto 7y ago

I think that's not a great argument… If the free Google Maps API put your company out of business, it didn't have a great product in the first place. If these companies did not provided added value, what was the justification for their existence in the first place?

laumars 7y ago
Providing an embeddable map solution with developer friendly API used to be a great product. The fact Google disrupted the market with a free solution doesn't mean the product wasn't great up until that point, it just means someone also saw that product idea and undercut them on price. Source: I was using mapping tools before Google Maps came to market.
rstupek 7y ago
Most people will take free and good enough over a superior product any day. Google basically killed the market for mapping products and now have started charging everyone for theirs when used commercially.
lonelappde 7y ago
What is your business that can survive arbitrary increases in costs?
spookthesunset 7y ago
That maps api was used by all kinds of hobbyist websites. Once they pulled the plug on free, all those sites bad to scramble to find alternatives.
reaperducer 7y ago
If the free Google Maps API put your company out of business, it didn't have a great product in the first place. So when a book store giving away books for free puts another book store out of business, that second book store didn't have a great product?
- chii 7y ago

zelly 7y ago

A business model based on data hoarding will never last long-term. As soon as one open source player steps up that's 60% as good, it's over. Like Encarta or Britannica vs. Wikipedia. Lasting value comes from the software in between the database and the view. In the case of encyclopedias or maps, the software is the most trivial part. I really think Google Maps will die. It's just unlikely that for the rest of history, no one will improve OpenStreetMaps to the point that it is competitive. You need a massive amount of capital to create a redundant data set that has a death clock, doing nothing good for the world but extracting some small rent created by antitrust laws. No thanks.

traderjane 7y ago
Apple Maps is way more than 60% there in terms of quality but I still don’t find it very compelling for the same reason I won’t switch to DuckDuckGo - a palpable difference in quality gets me paranoid and makes me double check a lot of stuff. That instinct to double check makes me go “Oh well let’s just use Google.”
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Fortunately, the quality of Google searches has been declining at such a rate that you will soon be double-checking on DDG, instead.
  - andai 7y ago
    Don't they get their results from Google, though?
    - Ndymium 7y ago
      No, I think it's Bing and their own index.
      - jakear 7y ago
        It’s pretty much just Bing. Saw posted a bit ago that if you DDG “what is my user agent”, the website preview text will show that it’s Bing. Which means DDG is just whitelabling Bing’s index. I use bing exclusively. Sometimes I don’t find what I want, and switching to google is as simple as swapping out the authority. The query syntax is the same.

blfr 7y ago

People said the same thing when Google Apps (now G Suite) dropped the free trier. I didn't notice anything happening.