4 ms·
But OSM is "good enough" for most purposes. It's a real shame that Google have decided they no longer want to be the universal, free solution for maps. They we
by TillE 15y ago
But OSM is "good enough" for most purposes.
It's a real shame that Google have decided they no longer want to be the universal, free solution for maps. They were the standard for so long. I don't understand what they're doing, especially with the ridiculous pricing.
- zmmmmm 15y agoWell, they were sued for providing maps for free: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/02/02/french_judge_says_free_google_maps_are_anticompetitive_and_illegal http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2012/02/02/french_... I don't quite understand why they are charging as much as they are (pretty much unaffordable for a low margin, high traffic business), but it does seem like the free ride had to end.
- robryan 15y agoThey could easily monetize it and still keep these customers. The scheme they have chosen seems all about making money in the short term. One thing they could do is open up local ads to 3rd party maps use in return for keeping them free. Also just charging a rate that sites can afford would be good, google has more than enough data to decide what the average site with high traffic can afford.
- Steko 15y agoIs their pricing really that bad? I'd assume it's just what's required to break even.
- redstar504 15y agoMy startup utilizes maps and we were thinking of using Google until they quoted us $18,000 USD/year