3 ms·

Google Maps – the $10k gotcha

24 points by timf 17y ago

hopeless 17y ago
I was actually surprised by this and I'm sure there are plenty of intranet or small scale subscription services using Google Maps without paying. Does Microsoft or Yahoo offer more startup friendly terms?
ianbishop 17y ago
Couldn't you just make the map publicly available for both users and non-users? Your fee/subscription-base isn't for the map itself. The map simply serves as a manner to visualize data. I have a feeling that the many, many real estate companies whom use Google maps aren't all paying for the API, despite it being a commercial venture.
- DannoHung 17y ago
  Yeah, but they offer the mapping aspect for free (far as I know). If the mapping is behind a paywall, I think that's where the pricing starts.
  - redorb 17y ago
    how about free but obscure ... META-robots="noindex" , then have the crazy url that might even change - but updated for your clients when they log in ... also have the url always on call - incase you need to supply it. the real solution is if your map is generating 10k +$1 a year in income pay the man :)
  - ianbishop 17y ago
    That's why I was saying you should make it available to both users AND non-users. That way if Google inquires (which I truly doubt they ever would), there is no way they can say the map is restricted to subscription/fee.
vaksel 17y ago
Google isn't omniscient. You probably won't get noticed by them until you are large enough to pay their fee. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Google never enforces this $10K rule, and that it's there just in case. And if you do get noticed, and they decide to enforce the rule, nothing is stopping you from making that one feature free.
- dca 17y ago
  They're not omniscient, but I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't be all that hard to collect a unique list of URL's and have an intern go through a bunch of them per day. The list could probably be augmented pretty easily with some analysis of the page content to detect fee related text, and they certainly have the technology to make that happen. They can narrow it down pretty quickly too based on what key your using to access the API. The terms are pretty clear. Better to pay it if your using it and charging for it up front rather than try to get clever and get caught later and potentially have legal fees to pay on top of it IMHO.
  - vaksel 17y ago
    if Google did this before, I'm sure people would have heard about it by now. Right now it seems like they are choosing to ignore this. Noone really reads terms of service, so I'm pretty sure the $10K fee wouldn't stick. What would probably happen when you'd get caught, is you'd get an email from Google telling you that you've broken their ToS and that if you want to continue using their service you'd need to either a) start paying $10K/mo or b) make the service public
eli 17y ago
shrug Seems pretty fair to me. Not especially friendly to startups, but definitely fair.
- diego 17y ago
  It's not about fairness. The question from the point of view of Google is whether their pricing is optimal. Are they missing out on a significant market who would pay less for a cheaper option but not $10k for the Premier service? Only they know that.
noelchurchill 17y ago
What about iphone apps? Say you make an iphone app that uses the google map tiles and api, but you want to charge $.99 for this app, are you supposed to pay the $10k license fee??
- qeorge 17y ago
  Great question. IANAL, but my reading of it would say yes.
- bcl 17y ago
  I think that would only apply if the map is not freely accessible from the web.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  iPhone apps do not interact with the Google Maps API directly, they go through Apple, who presumably has a deal hammered out with Google. In any case, if Apple didn't have such a deal with Google I doubt they'd have added the GMaps widget to the UI toolkit this time around.
wayne 17y ago
If you want business-friendly maps, Microsoft's MapPoint terms were very startup-friendly last time I checked. You just pay as you go. The downside is you need to talk to a salesguy: http://www.microsoft.com/maps/ http://www.microsoft.com/maps/
wmeredith 17y ago
Something clearly spelled out in the terms of use of the API can hardly be called a gotcha.
- dpcan 17y ago
  Agreed. There's no surprise to me here that Google would want a piece of the action if you are making money with their freely available services.
staunch 17y ago
The problem is that it's such a huge jump from $0 to $10k. That's the part that feels like a "gotcha". It's also just a huge number, even for a company with funding.
- adharmad 17y ago
  Google has the same issue with the Google Apps for your domain. The basic version is free (except for domain name registration fees) for 50 users with similar storage/features as gmail. But the business version is $50/user/year. The costs can very easily escalate into thousands.
  - costan 17y ago
    I would argue that if your company has 50 people, you should already be budgeting for infrastructure, and the sudden jump in costs shouldn't take you by surprise. And $50/user/yr is still a hard-to-beat price if you're making good use of the package.
  - pbz 17y ago
    I agree... there is no middle ground.
  - sahaj 17y ago
    what are the alternatives to google apps? i think a microsoft solution would cost more.
esonica 17y ago
This very issue stopped me dead in my tracks when quoting for a recent project. I was put in touch with an Australian sales manager, from a 3rd party acting on behalf of google (this made me wary) All communications mentioned 10k starting cost, with a final cost given when I provided detailed project objectives. This was not an option, as the project was confidential. Suffice to say, I walked away from the project as I could not provide a cost to the client without allowing detailed project info to be passed on to a 3rd party. Also it seemed they were going to assess the project to see how much they could get away with charging me. They put me in touch with : http://dmsbt.com/ http://dmsbt.com/

24 points by timf 17y ago

I was actually surprised by this and I'm sure there are plenty of intranet or small scale subscription services using Google Maps without paying. Does Microsoft or Yahoo offer more startup friendly terms?

ianbishop 17y ago

Couldn't you just make the map publicly available for both users and non-users? Your fee/subscription-base isn't for the map itself. The map simply serves as a manner to visualize data. I have a feeling that the many, many real estate companies whom use Google maps aren't all paying for the API, despite it being a commercial venture.

DannoHung 17y ago
Yeah, but they offer the mapping aspect for free (far as I know). If the mapping is behind a paywall, I think that's where the pricing starts.
- redorb 17y ago
  how about free but obscure ... META-robots="noindex" , then have the crazy url that might even change - but updated for your clients when they log in ... also have the url always on call - incase you need to supply it. the real solution is if your map is generating 10k +$1 a year in income pay the man :)
- ianbishop 17y ago
  That's why I was saying you should make it available to both users AND non-users. That way if Google inquires (which I truly doubt they ever would), there is no way they can say the map is restricted to subscription/fee.

vaksel 17y ago

Google isn't omniscient. You probably won't get noticed by them until you are large enough to pay their fee. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Google never enforces this $10K rule, and that it's there just in case. And if you do get noticed, and they decide to enforce the rule, nothing is stopping you from making that one feature free.

dca 17y ago
They're not omniscient, but I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't be all that hard to collect a unique list of URL's and have an intern go through a bunch of them per day. The list could probably be augmented pretty easily with some analysis of the page content to detect fee related text, and they certainly have the technology to make that happen. They can narrow it down pretty quickly too based on what key your using to access the API. The terms are pretty clear. Better to pay it if your using it and charging for it up front rather than try to get clever and get caught later and potentially have legal fees to pay on top of it IMHO.
- vaksel 17y ago
  if Google did this before, I'm sure people would have heard about it by now. Right now it seems like they are choosing to ignore this. Noone really reads terms of service, so I'm pretty sure the $10K fee wouldn't stick. What would probably happen when you'd get caught, is you'd get an email from Google telling you that you've broken their ToS and that if you want to continue using their service you'd need to either a) start paying $10K/mo or b) make the service public

eli 17y ago

shrug Seems pretty fair to me. Not especially friendly to startups, but definitely fair.

diego 17y ago
It's not about fairness. The question from the point of view of Google is whether their pricing is optimal. Are they missing out on a significant market who would pay less for a cheaper option but not $10k for the Premier service? Only they know that.

noelchurchill 17y ago

What about iphone apps? Say you make an iphone app that uses the google map tiles and api, but you want to charge $.99 for this app, are you supposed to pay the $10k license fee??

qeorge 17y ago
Great question. IANAL, but my reading of it would say yes.
bcl 17y ago
I think that would only apply if the map is not freely accessible from the web.
potatolicious 17y ago
iPhone apps do not interact with the Google Maps API directly, they go through Apple, who presumably has a deal hammered out with Google. In any case, if Apple didn't have such a deal with Google I doubt they'd have added the GMaps widget to the UI toolkit this time around.

wayne 17y ago

If you want business-friendly maps, Microsoft's MapPoint terms were very startup-friendly last time I checked. You just pay as you go. The downside is you need to talk to a salesguy: http://www.microsoft.com/maps/ http://www.microsoft.com/maps/

wmeredith 17y ago

Something clearly spelled out in the terms of use of the API can hardly be called a gotcha.

dpcan 17y ago
Agreed. There's no surprise to me here that Google would want a piece of the action if you are making money with their freely available services.

staunch 17y ago

The problem is that it's such a huge jump from $0 to $10k. That's the part that feels like a "gotcha". It's also just a huge number, even for a company with funding.

adharmad 17y ago
Google has the same issue with the Google Apps for your domain. The basic version is free (except for domain name registration fees) for 50 users with similar storage/features as gmail. But the business version is $50/user/year. The costs can very easily escalate into thousands.
- costan 17y ago
  I would argue that if your company has 50 people, you should already be budgeting for infrastructure, and the sudden jump in costs shouldn't take you by surprise. And $50/user/yr is still a hard-to-beat price if you're making good use of the package.
- pbz 17y ago
  I agree... there is no middle ground.
- sahaj 17y ago
  what are the alternatives to google apps? i think a microsoft solution would cost more.

esonica 17y ago

This very issue stopped me dead in my tracks when quoting for a recent project. I was put in touch with an Australian sales manager, from a 3rd party acting on behalf of google (this made me wary) All communications mentioned 10k starting cost, with a final cost given when I provided detailed project objectives. This was not an option, as the project was confidential. Suffice to say, I walked away from the project as I could not provide a cost to the client without allowing detailed project info to be passed on to a 3rd party. Also it seemed they were going to assess the project to see how much they could get away with charging me. They put me in touch with : http://dmsbt.com/ http://dmsbt.com/