Hi Thor, will there be an option to get streetview and geocoder without the google map?
I could easily switch the main map of my application to an open source solution but I would like to continiue using googles geocoding and streetview. Thanx -s. On 31 Okt., 10:20, abanjo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thor, > So according to what you said only the 0,35% of the sites is over the > 25.000 limits. > This is a big surprise for me considering that 1 map load = 1 > transaction! > So we have 2 options: > > 1) the 99,65% of the sites don't consider the maps as an important > feature for their core business. > 2) the 99,65% of the sites have found a way to offer a great map > service without go over this limit. I'm very curios to know how! > > My site is based on maps. I'm offering a tool to calculate an > itinerary with public transportations for my city. So i can't take off > the maps. I don't believe that i'm over the limit, but sure i'm quite > near it. Before this news i hoped that my site will grow in the > future, now i hoping that it remain stable! (is not this absurd?) > I'm happy to know to have a site that is near the 1% of the "top > player" of Google maps, but i can assure you that i don't gain from > that enough to pay for the 99% of the developers. > I think that this quota is too low, and don't take in consideration > the sites that are focused on maps. I think that the heavy users of > the maps are the most important for Google. They are developers that > spend a lot of time on your API, give you a feedback, have helped to > grow this product... and now are the ones that must pay! For > example... i'm very interested in styled map, fusion tables ecc... but > now... why spend my time to integrate them if i know that these are > absolutely anti-economic? > > Do not get me wrong, i'am grateful to Google for the support in this > years with its great services... so as long as i can i will try to > continue to use your maps. If i will find a way to gain enough to pay > my costs, i will be happy to give my contribution to the community. > > Thanks > Davide > > On 31 Ott, 09:08, "Thor Mitchell (Google Employee)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 31 October 2011 01:48:26 UTC+11, John Coryat wrote: > > > > We should be given a choice of shutting the site down when the 25k limit > > > is reached or paying to keep it online. > > > You will have that choice. You can set a Maximum Billable Limit, which is > > the maximum amount you are willing to pay per day. If you exceed that limit > > on any given day, then the site will stop serving Maps for the rest of the > > day. You can set that limit to be $0 if you wish. > > > > As stated by a previous poster, the cost of keeping the site up after the > > > threshold is far greater than the ad revenue generated by the site. > > > Shutting it down would be a negative to the users but the cost is so > > > prohibitive that it's the only option as far as I can tell. > > > > Forcing us to pay without any other options is going to be painful. > > > Writing a self monitoring system will require shutting off the maps before > > > the threshold is reached to ensure a safety limit. > > > > It does seem a bit short sighted for Google to force map publishers with > > > successful sites that run AdSense to shut down or be charged an excess of > > > what AdSense can earn. Exempting AdSense users from the limit would seem > > > to > > > be a good business practice. Another option might be to charge these map > > > publishers the same rate that AdSense generates when the threshold is > > > exceeded making the sites revenue neutral for that overage and allowing > > > them to stay online instead of forcing a shutdown. > > > We looked into this, but even if we took 100% of Ad Unit revenue from > > sites, we would not generate enough revenue to cover the cost of serving > > those sites, given the average RPM of the Ad Unit. Plus it's a goal of the > > pricing not just to cover the costs of the affected sites, but also the > > costs of serving the sites that are not paying usage (ie. it's the revenue > > from the 0.35% of sites that are paying that secures the future of the > > service for the 99.65% of sites that are not). So if we were to offer a > > choice between showing the Ad Unit and paying, we would need to both > > increase the RPM of the Ad Unit somehow (eg. show more ads), and also force > > the Ad Unit on every site unless they opted to pay. I'm pretty confident > > such a policy would have generated several orders of magnitude more anger > > amongst the developer community than just asking the top 0.35% of sites (by > > map volume) to pay at the rates published. Not to mention the fact that the > > Ad Unit is not suitable for small maps, or any non-JS map (eg. > > Static, Flash, Street View Image, etc.). > > > Many thanks, > > > Thor. > > > > -John Coryat -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
