I can't stress enough how much of a bad idea this is. I was stunned when a few days ago I was looking up something on Google Maps and started seeing advertised locations/suggestions.
Even though I love the product and have been a fan of Google products for the longest time, their current strategy of monetizing everything they can is very off putting. The direction Chrome is taking is also concerning.
Don't know what really is going on at Google at the higher levels, but from an outsider's perspective is seems like they are aggressively trying to grow even more. Maybe to raise stock price? But to invest in what? Maybe to compete with Apple and Amazon? I can't be the only one who thinks it all seems odd - going from "don't be evil" to shutting down a massive number of projects with a lot of potential (e.g. Inbox, Fiber)...
Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but looking at the bigger picture, it looks like Google's strategy is going through some changes and I'm not convinced this would play out well for them in the end.
Why should they offer a free maps service? They are a business with shareholder responsibilities, not a charity, and maps must cost them a ton of money to operate.
OP is not saying they cannot monetise their product as they see fit (it's their product). No one is saying that.
But when you have been offering something for free for years, people get used to that being the way of things, users are not going to respond well to the increase in advertisement.
Had Google done this from the beginning, people would have been more accepting of it. Generally speaking, if you change a service for the worse, people are generally going to view it less favourably than had it started out how it will now become.
I think that period was part of their investment and also helped them to improve the product. And like any other investment, they need to make money as well. I can imagine Maps is an expensive product to operate. I also hate ads and I hope they find a different way to make it reasonably profitable.
What changed over the last 10 years, and why wasn’t it monetized earlier? Maybe because then they wanted to make a useful service and get some data for their search ads, and now they just want more money.
Maps has been awful and getting worse for a long time.
If it's not routing me 25+ miles further to save "1 minute" (really a multi-minute slowdown in the 90th percentile) then its failing to give comprehensible directions in order to interpose business names.
Maybe the monetization is finally makes competing with it attractive enough.
Do you mean rerouting? Google Maps is tuned differently than Waze, which caters to drivers looking to shave off minutes or even seconds. It tries to keep directions simple and easier to follow (e.g. not making a large number of turns), even if that means a slightly slower route. That was a deliberate product decision, at least until a few years ago.
What kind of incomprehensible directions and business names are you referring to?
You already have other mapping options like Garmin. And you don't have to pay much for them either. They are 100-300 bucks. They work pretty well... and could really use a boost in what seemed like a dying market.
Except Garmin - having been decimated by Google and Apple maps - is getting pretty bad too. I've been using them for >15 years with multiple devices and every update lately seems to make their routing worse AND for some unfathomable reason makes the GPS reception less reliable (if I were a sceptic I'd suggest they are trying to force you to go for a new model via slowly crippling the device with every update).
Google is really leaving the door open here for Apple to step in and offer a services bundle with a monthly fee that doesn’t involve stuffing advertising into every nook and cranny of the user experience.
I generally prefer Google’s services to Apple’s but there might be a tipping point soon where I’m willing to sacrifice some features in exchange for a generally less creepy product.
Apple maps still has a ways to go. I say this as someone who tries to use it frequently because I much prefer its UI, especially with Carplay. But it still has much worse traffic data, still sometimes sends me on weird routes through neighborhoods that don't save any time nor distance, and lately has a fun glitch where it sometimes instructs me turn left instead of right or vice/versa because it apparently thinks my vehicle is facing 180° from what it actually is. The turn glitch has now happened to me several times across two different devices. I thought I imagined it the first time.
Apple maps is inferior to Google in almost every respect in Asia. I open it now and again just to see if it’s improved and always switch back immediately to Gmaps. With hardware sales slowing Apple has a lot more incentive to improve it than they did when the iPhone gravy train seemed unstoppable though.
Apple has been very slow to expand their service offerings beyond Apple devices. Insane hardware revenues have made them complacent up until now. Their recent moves to start offering their video content on non-Apple platforms indicates that they finally understand that cross platform services are the key to their future growth IMO.
> Before the changes, Owczarek’s startup got 750,000 free map views a month and then was charged 50 cents for every 1,000 views on top of that. Then Google started charging after 30,000 views and the cost was $7 per 1,000 views. His costs jumped from nothing to $5,000 a month.
Ouch. How could that possibly be worth it? Are they just trying to squeeze money out of businesses that are already locked into the Maps API? It seems hard to believe that your average startup that needs a map widget (like, for food or pharmacy delivery) would go with Maps instead of OpenStreetMap at that price level.
A few months ago, I noticed navigaton saying thing like "take the next right, after Key Bank". Clearly an ad, as there is nothing ambiguous about the turn. Haven't seen it mentioned by anyone else, am I the only one?
It's not an ad¹. A lot of humans navigate that way, for many reasons. Google has done research on that through the years. Landmarks might be easier to spot and are an useful confirmation that you got the turn right. Do you never ask yourself if you just made a mistake? Perhaps you got distracted by a passenger, another vehicle or a pedestrian.
The street name you are turning onto might be not as visible because the sign is small, covered by a large truck or not well lit at night. Key Bank is probably harder to miss.
Or there might be no street name at all, which is often the case in places like India, where Google has been testing this for many years. In that case you have no choice but to use landmarks.
¹Or, at least, one that you can purchase now. It might happen in the future, but of course they'd have to be careful when rolling this out. Imagine if they used a business that is not very distinguishable and thus not a real landmark. That would diminish Maps' utility.
It has been happening to me for about a year now, with specifically Jack-in-the-Box. Seems like a win-win situation, street names are harder to detect while moving at higher speeds than a huge sign for a fast food place, and businesses get advertised. That's how I give directions to people as well, using landmarks.
I find most of the things you list add no value to me. Photos and reviews are of no interest to me in a navigation aid. In my home town at least (London), I frequently find their places data wrong with marked locations being several streets away from where they actually are. Finally, Street view, which previously I've found super useful, is being ruined in London, as the contractors who are providing the latest updates are phoning it in by submitting reams of data with the pictures taken at night, so you can't see anything in them (flash cameras being a super bad idea for mounting to a car).
Not OSM, but I have been using HERE[0] with success for a while (if only to diversify off of Google products). Curious to know if anyone has done more research/has an opinion on their platform.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice usability for something more important. AMP is a good example. Users love it. It's more usable, but HN thinks it's evil.
Think about those who wish to start new business? Why? Because of money! Google is doing the same thing, growing Growing, utilizing every small space that Google occupies, earning money from it. Why Not!
Great. I stopped using Google Maps the moment I bought my IPhone. Unfortunately, it seems I'm in the minority when I say I get a better experience with Apple Maps. Apple Maps with carplay for the past year have been miles ahead of Google maps with Android Auto on all accounts for my trips. I was skeptical at first but I was never rerouted on weird residential neighborhoods / state highways or switch 3 freeways to shave off a minute of my trip, very accurate estimating traffic and transit time, etc... Keep in mind, I was also a huge fan of the Zune.
Evil webdesign patterns on this site: After I opted out of all but "required" cookies, the popup kept me waiting for several minutes with "processing preferences", inviting users to cancel the opt-out. Shenanigans like this one has become my main use case for read-it-later-apps like wallabag/pocket these days.
Even though I love the product and have been a fan of Google products for the longest time, their current strategy of monetizing everything they can is very off putting. The direction Chrome is taking is also concerning.
Don't know what really is going on at Google at the higher levels, but from an outsider's perspective is seems like they are aggressively trying to grow even more. Maybe to raise stock price? But to invest in what? Maybe to compete with Apple and Amazon? I can't be the only one who thinks it all seems odd - going from "don't be evil" to shutting down a massive number of projects with a lot of potential (e.g. Inbox, Fiber)...
Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but looking at the bigger picture, it looks like Google's strategy is going through some changes and I'm not convinced this would play out well for them in the end.
reply