6 ms·

FWIW, Google doesn't particularly like it when people use APIs outside the terms, either. Having to take down an app is never fun or enjoyable for anyone involv

by dewitt 13y ago

FWIW, Google doesn't particularly like it when people use APIs outside the terms, either. Having to take down an app is never fun or enjoyable for anyone involved. And the cases in which the terms aren't programmatically enforced right away isn't necessarily a choice; often it is difficult to differentiate at scale between legitimate usage and disallowed usage. And while I don't know how every other company writes their developer Terms of Services, I do know that in Google's case we measure each word carefully and try hard to strike the right balance between offering as much as feasibly possible, while trying to create something long-term sustainable (so even if the usage grows far beyond our initial goals, we're still in a position to keep them available). We're hardly perfect at it yet, but we're certainly getting a lot better over time. Also worth noting, often times these terms are designed to honor upstream data contracts, so if for no other reason, it's worth trying to respect them because it's the right thing to do for the other relatively small parties, too.

Mithaldu 13y ago
I would have some sympathy with this if you made it easy for single people to pay you to be able to use your data in a manner outside of the ToS of the free APIs. However, for the Elevation API there are two choices: * free and heavily restricted * business api, which looks extremely sketchy † and is blocked to most people The gaming world has learned this with Steam and friends already. People will pirate the hell out of digital offerings that are not available in a reasonable manner. Steam recognized this and made games available in the most convenient manner humanly possible and are making money hand-over-fist. Sure, there are still pirates in gaming, but those are the people who are either paranoid about Steam or those who truly couldn't afford it anyhow. You're still in this pre-realization phase and have only one single entity to blame if people "misuse" your APIs: Yourself. Make the APIs available for normal people in a reasonable manner and you will find adherence to your ToS becoming the norm, not the exception. † By sketchy i mean the facts that there is zero pricing information, it's a buzzword-slaughterhouse, and the only way to get at it is to fill out a form with a lot of information, an indication of what one might want to do and which offers no further information or even actual flesh-and-blood human contact.
- joshma 13y ago
  I don't understand this feeling of self-entitlement - who are we to judge whether or not an API has been offered "in a reasonable manner?" I'm guessing it's very resource-consuming to collect, process, and maintain the data necessary for geolocation APIs (especially given the upstream providers). It'd be one thing for Google to be deceptive about it, offer a free service, and try to upsell you every point along the way. It's quite another thing for Google to dedicate an entire section in the API intro page [1] about Usage Limits. Saying that "Google has nobody to blame but itself" is interesting when the blame is usually from developers to Google, not the other way around. [1] https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/ https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I agree in part with your point, but I think Google has pulled a bit of a bait and switch here. For many years, they were conspicuously open and friendly, as you would expect from a company run by engineers. That got them a lot of geek love, and a big boost to their early adoption efforts. I also think it had the effect of stunting the growth of alternatives. (E.g., Google Reader.) Now they are running things more in standard large-business style. There's a natural rebound from that as people adjust. I agree the pragmatic thing is to drop the high expectations; I don't think Google is going back. But I can see why people are going to get all Kubler-Ross on Google while they adjust.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      By open and friendly you must be talking about small pet projects released by single or small groups of engineers that didn't take much effort to produce. If you are expecting unlimited free access to some thing like maps which employs many people and probably millions of dollars to produce, without expecting any type of return to sustain further growth...well it's time to rethink your strategy if you plan on staying in business. Why does HN believe companies that spend millions of dollars to provide services, many times for free, and for pay with restriction are somehow "evil" (since we're talking about google this feels like an appropriate time to use this irrelevant phrase again).
mathattack 13y ago
I thought that was the original point that was missed too. Don't do it because the provider is telling you not to. At least in this cited case, it was a throwaway project that won't be around, but folks who copy the code may be in for a shock.

by dewitt 13y ago

Mithaldu 13y ago

I would have some sympathy with this if you made it easy for single people to pay you to be able to use your data in a manner outside of the ToS of the free APIs. However, for the Elevation API there are two choices: * free and heavily restricted * business api, which looks extremely sketchy † and is blocked to most people The gaming world has learned this with Steam and friends already. People will pirate the hell out of digital offerings that are not available in a reasonable manner. Steam recognized this and made games available in the most convenient manner humanly possible and are making money hand-over-fist. Sure, there are still pirates in gaming, but those are the people who are either paranoid about Steam or those who truly couldn't afford it anyhow. You're still in this pre-realization phase and have only one single entity to blame if people "misuse" your APIs: Yourself. Make the APIs available for normal people in a reasonable manner and you will find adherence to your ToS becoming the norm, not the exception. † By sketchy i mean the facts that there is zero pricing information, it's a buzzword-slaughterhouse, and the only way to get at it is to fill out a form with a lot of information, an indication of what one might want to do and which offers no further information or even actual flesh-and-blood human contact.

joshma 13y ago
I don't understand this feeling of self-entitlement - who are we to judge whether or not an API has been offered "in a reasonable manner?" I'm guessing it's very resource-consuming to collect, process, and maintain the data necessary for geolocation APIs (especially given the upstream providers). It'd be one thing for Google to be deceptive about it, offer a free service, and try to upsell you every point along the way. It's quite another thing for Google to dedicate an entire section in the API intro page [1] about Usage Limits. Saying that "Google has nobody to blame but itself" is interesting when the blame is usually from developers to Google, not the other way around. [1] https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/ https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/elevation/
- wpietri 13y ago
  I agree in part with your point, but I think Google has pulled a bit of a bait and switch here. For many years, they were conspicuously open and friendly, as you would expect from a company run by engineers. That got them a lot of geek love, and a big boost to their early adoption efforts. I also think it had the effect of stunting the growth of alternatives. (E.g., Google Reader.) Now they are running things more in standard large-business style. There's a natural rebound from that as people adjust. I agree the pragmatic thing is to drop the high expectations; I don't think Google is going back. But I can see why people are going to get all Kubler-Ross on Google while they adjust.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    By open and friendly you must be talking about small pet projects released by single or small groups of engineers that didn't take much effort to produce. If you are expecting unlimited free access to some thing like maps which employs many people and probably millions of dollars to produce, without expecting any type of return to sustain further growth...well it's time to rethink your strategy if you plan on staying in business. Why does HN believe companies that spend millions of dollars to provide services, many times for free, and for pay with restriction are somehow "evil" (since we're talking about google this feels like an appropriate time to use this irrelevant phrase again).

mathattack 13y ago

I thought that was the original point that was missed too. Don't do it because the provider is telling you not to. At least in this cited case, it was a throwaway project that won't be around, but folks who copy the code may be in for a shock.