4 ms·

Google Maps ToS can be summarised as: Don't use it

68 points by gieksosz 5y ago

otagekki 5y ago
Well, is that really a surprise? TOS of free services nowadays are designed to be bulletproof and whoever dares to challenge it is in for a financially draining lawsuit...
- 02020202 5y ago
- b112 5y ago
  Speaking of free services, while looking the tweet a logon prompt popped up after a scroll or two. Naturally I closed the tab, and now have even less of a reason to go to Twitter, but wth.
  - nicce 5y ago
    That prompt has started to pop up much more in these days. Even just by opening the link. Well, I guess Twitter people are about to start growing in their own bubble.
    - Grollicus 5y ago
      For now you could use a nitter instance - for example replace twitter.com with nitter.net, so this submission becomes https://nitter.net/pmzakrzewski/status/1494967388428804103 https://nitter.net/pmzakrzewski/status/1494967388428804103
- somehowadev 5y ago
  This isn’t the free service though? It’s for the Google Maps API which does have a cost? I remember trying to find some sort of point of interest API and having to quickly rule out Google after reading their terms. Stuff like “no caching” is somewhat painful. Other platforms allow caching from a few weeks to a few months, they don’t have the reach of Google but at least have fairer terms (I’m not trying to build a competing Maps product here!).
vander_elst 5y ago
The tweet mentions "Do not use outside of Google applications, for instance on a non-google app" is this a citation from the TOS or an interpretation of what is saying? I could not find the paragraph where this is mentioned.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  I think it's misinterpreting >(e) No Use With Non-Google Maps.
  - gieksosz 5y ago
    it is indeed that.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      How could it be used with non-Google maps? Are they saying don't overlay another map on it, somehow?
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        Here is the rest of the section. >To avoid quality issues and/or brand confusion, Customer will not use the Google Maps Core Services with or near a non-Google Map in a Customer Application. For example, Customer will not (i) display or use Places content on a non-Google map, (ii) display Street View imagery and non-Google maps on the same screen, or (iii) link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map.
    - gieksosz 5y ago
      They have a public api via which you can extract a lot of data, geopoints with annotations about what is there exactly. I wanted to compare OpenStreetMaps tag amenities=restaurants to what google has. If I do that I will breach two points of the TOS: visualizing their data outside of their maps, benchmarking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
timmythe 5y ago
I haved lived in a major 3rd world megacity for over a decade. I know the public transportation system quite well but still rely on google maps for time calculation, routes to new places, and using their yellow pages listings. That being said i noticed recently what i would consider unethical behavior in the app and a major breach in the public trust. When you ask for routing options in public transport it gives you the option in-app to add a scheduled pickup by 99 Taxis or Uber to the final leg of your journey. No problem there. The problem is for those who prefer walkinag that last leg. the public transport options suggested to us cheapskates can be as much as 40 minutes longer than those with in-app purchases bundled. I could not find a way to select the better option in the app.
- gieksosz 5y ago
  optimizing last mile travel is pretty difficult and this kind kf results are more likely a side effect of focusing on car modalities and not deliberately. Neglect of use case.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jsnell 5y ago
Literally everything in the tweet is incorrect. - The caching policy is defined per-API [0]. The generic TOS just says that the default state if the per-API TOS says nothing is "no caching". Most of them allow caching for 30 days. - The "no derivative works" clause that the author thinks would be illegal explicitly says that it's forbidden to the extent that the law allows it to be forbidden, just like all TOS do. (It's also talking just about the source code, which I certainly wasn't expecting from the tweet.) - The "don't use in a non-Google app" bit appears to be a complete fabrication. There is nothing like it in the TOS. The only thing even remotely close to it is that it's saying you must use the APIs, not scrape data from a Google app to use outside of the app. - Benchmarking isn't forbbiden. What's forbidden is public disclosure of the benchmark results, unless there is enough information for somebody to replicate the tests. [0] https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/terms/maps-service-terms https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/terms/maps-service-te...
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  > Benchmarking isn't forbbiden. What's forbidden is public disclosure of the benchmark results, unless there is enough information for somebody to replicate the tests. All good then. You're totally allowed to taste the food I cooked to see if it's poisoned. You're just forbidden to tell anyone or show symptoms. What the actual fuck is wrong with people actively defending these blatantly anti-user behaviours? Google won't pay you for it, you don't need to shine their boots.
  - SecurityLagoon 5y ago
    It's to stop people claiming poor benchmarks without providing any way for people to replicate and confirm. It's the way that basically all benchmarks are done to be taken seriously.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    I find it strange that between posting stuff that was just blatantly untrue vs. fact-checking the claims, you find the fact-checking to be the offensive part. If the author would just have told the truth, there would have been nothing to reply to. Unfortunately telling the truth would have generated a lot less outrage, and thus a lot less engagament for tweets and the HN submission, since the reality was so much more reasonable than what they claimed. For example for the case of benchmarking, what's in this TOS is actually a lot more permissive than e.g. the benchmarking clause of the AWS TOS which nobody has problems with. It's just a blatant lie to equate that to "no benchmarking". This shit took space on the HN frontpage that could have gone to something cool instead. It also has zero chance of affecting any change because it was all untrue. Like, the entire reason to complain about things like this is to use the court of public opinion to get it fixed. But in this case there is no fix to be applied, because the terms are substantially different from what the author described.
wepple 5y ago
There are plenty of websites by actual lawyers who summarize ToS for regular folks. This collection of tweets appears to be written by someone severely under qualified to comment, who wants to be angry on the internet. https://tosdr.org https://tosdr.org for example
- wepple 5y ago
  I’ll add: the fact that this of all things makes it to the front page of HN, is worrying.

68 points by gieksosz 5y ago

Well, is that really a surprise? TOS of free services nowadays are designed to be bulletproof and whoever dares to challenge it is in for a financially draining lawsuit...

02020202 5y ago
b112 5y ago
Speaking of free services, while looking the tweet a logon prompt popped up after a scroll or two. Naturally I closed the tab, and now have even less of a reason to go to Twitter, but wth.
- nicce 5y ago
  That prompt has started to pop up much more in these days. Even just by opening the link. Well, I guess Twitter people are about to start growing in their own bubble.
  - Grollicus 5y ago
    For now you could use a nitter instance - for example replace twitter.com with nitter.net, so this submission becomes https://nitter.net/pmzakrzewski/status/1494967388428804103 https://nitter.net/pmzakrzewski/status/1494967388428804103
somehowadev 5y ago
This isn’t the free service though? It’s for the Google Maps API which does have a cost? I remember trying to find some sort of point of interest API and having to quickly rule out Google after reading their terms. Stuff like “no caching” is somewhat painful. Other platforms allow caching from a few weeks to a few months, they don’t have the reach of Google but at least have fairer terms (I’m not trying to build a competing Maps product here!).

vander_elst 5y ago

The tweet mentions "Do not use outside of Google applications, for instance on a non-google app" is this a citation from the TOS or an interpretation of what is saying? I could not find the paragraph where this is mentioned.

charcircuit 5y ago
I think it's misinterpreting >(e) No Use With Non-Google Maps.
- gieksosz 5y ago
  it is indeed that.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    How could it be used with non-Google maps? Are they saying don't overlay another map on it, somehow?
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      Here is the rest of the section. >To avoid quality issues and/or brand confusion, Customer will not use the Google Maps Core Services with or near a non-Google Map in a Customer Application. For example, Customer will not (i) display or use Places content on a non-Google map, (ii) display Street View imagery and non-Google maps on the same screen, or (iii) link a Google Map to non-Google Maps content or a non-Google map.
  - gieksosz 5y ago
    They have a public api via which you can extract a lot of data, geopoints with annotations about what is there exactly. I wanted to compare OpenStreetMaps tag amenities=restaurants to what google has. If I do that I will breach two points of the TOS: visualizing their data outside of their maps, benchmarking.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

timmythe 5y ago

I haved lived in a major 3rd world megacity for over a decade. I know the public transportation system quite well but still rely on google maps for time calculation, routes to new places, and using their yellow pages listings. That being said i noticed recently what i would consider unethical behavior in the app and a major breach in the public trust. When you ask for routing options in public transport it gives you the option in-app to add a scheduled pickup by 99 Taxis or Uber to the final leg of your journey. No problem there. The problem is for those who prefer walkinag that last leg. the public transport options suggested to us cheapskates can be as much as 40 minutes longer than those with in-app purchases bundled. I could not find a way to select the better option in the app.

gieksosz 5y ago
optimizing last mile travel is pretty difficult and this kind kf results are more likely a side effect of focusing on car modalities and not deliberately. Neglect of use case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jsnell 5y ago

Literally everything in the tweet is incorrect. - The caching policy is defined per-API [0]. The generic TOS just says that the default state if the per-API TOS says nothing is "no caching". Most of them allow caching for 30 days. - The "no derivative works" clause that the author thinks would be illegal explicitly says that it's forbidden to the extent that the law allows it to be forbidden, just like all TOS do. (It's also talking just about the source code, which I certainly wasn't expecting from the tweet.) - The "don't use in a non-Google app" bit appears to be a complete fabrication. There is nothing like it in the TOS. The only thing even remotely close to it is that it's saying you must use the APIs, not scrape data from a Google app to use outside of the app. - Benchmarking isn't forbbiden. What's forbidden is public disclosure of the benchmark results, unless there is enough information for somebody to replicate the tests. [0] https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/terms/maps-service-terms https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/terms/maps-service-te...

ohgodplsno 5y ago
> Benchmarking isn't forbbiden. What's forbidden is public disclosure of the benchmark results, unless there is enough information for somebody to replicate the tests. All good then. You're totally allowed to taste the food I cooked to see if it's poisoned. You're just forbidden to tell anyone or show symptoms. What the actual fuck is wrong with people actively defending these blatantly anti-user behaviours? Google won't pay you for it, you don't need to shine their boots.
- SecurityLagoon 5y ago
  It's to stop people claiming poor benchmarks without providing any way for people to replicate and confirm. It's the way that basically all benchmarks are done to be taken seriously.
- jsnell 5y ago
  I find it strange that between posting stuff that was just blatantly untrue vs. fact-checking the claims, you find the fact-checking to be the offensive part. If the author would just have told the truth, there would have been nothing to reply to. Unfortunately telling the truth would have generated a lot less outrage, and thus a lot less engagament for tweets and the HN submission, since the reality was so much more reasonable than what they claimed. For example for the case of benchmarking, what's in this TOS is actually a lot more permissive than e.g. the benchmarking clause of the AWS TOS which nobody has problems with. It's just a blatant lie to equate that to "no benchmarking". This shit took space on the HN frontpage that could have gone to something cool instead. It also has zero chance of affecting any change because it was all untrue. Like, the entire reason to complain about things like this is to use the court of public opinion to get it fixed. But in this case there is no fix to be applied, because the terms are substantially different from what the author described.

wepple 5y ago

There are plenty of websites by actual lawyers who summarize ToS for regular folks. This collection of tweets appears to be written by someone severely under qualified to comment, who wants to be angry on the internet. https://tosdr.org https://tosdr.org for example

wepple 5y ago
I’ll add: the fact that this of all things makes it to the front page of HN, is worrying.