Google Fined $660,000 For Making Google Maps Free

[COLGeek]

No good deed goes unpunished.....

 

[Guest]

Google maps is not free, it is free at the point of use. Google would not run the service if it did not pay, anybody who buys a product from a company that advertises with google is paying for maps. A tiny portion of what you pay will end up with google via the companies advertising budget. Google does not give stuff away for free, they just have a non traditional funding source.
France, who has given the world some amazing minds (and wine) should hang it's head in shame. I'm no huge google fan but his just sucks. If they want to sell their mapping products, make them better or change your funding model. I have access to google maps yet I paid 10bucks for a 3rd party mapping app, because it was better and could cache huge amounts of maps for use offline and had a wider variety of maps. That is how you make money, if you have to whine in court your product is junk.

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]cambiondaystar[/nom]You all miss the point. The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.[/citation]
lol where are the ads?

 

[__-_-_-__]

lol $660K that's peanuts.
also google could charge like $0.01 per license and make it legal. lol.

 

[timboid]

It's France's way of getting the money to reduce its national debt.

 

[theranish]

[citation][nom]cambiondaystar[/nom]You all miss the point. The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.[/citation]
Your half right. they are taking data from the maps being used and selling it to the advertisers. that is NOT anti-cometative

 

[robisinho]

apparently toms has sent my comment to /dev/null, so Im reposting...

this is not a fair title. they were fined for making google maps free only to later charge more for it.

it's almost more appropriate to say google was fined in france for making google maps not free.

 

[back_by_demand]

Those crazy Frenchies, so hard up for cash after the Euro collapse they need to dole out silly fines to get cash in

 

[leakingpaint]

the world has gone mad

 

[wardler]

[citation][nom]cambiondaystar[/nom]You all miss the point. The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.[/citation]

That is called "good marketing". Making money from advertisements in order to bring consumers low prices on great services. A lawsuit against Google Maps for being free should be a crime!

 

[mortsmi7]

[citation][nom]cambiondaystar[/nom]You all miss the point. The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.[/citation]
LOL! I'm pretty sure that's how most free online services work.

 

[tolham]

[citation][nom]cambiondaystar[/nom]You all miss the point. The point is not that Google is giving its maps service away for free. It is that they are using an other part of the company (the advertising part) to pay for the mapping part.And THAT is anti-competative behaviour.[/citation]
uh, no it isn't that doesn't make any sense.

 

[dietcreamsoda]

I'm against monopolies as anyone, but Google Maps is a very solid product and it's free. If I bought a phone and HAD to pay for a nav/map service, I would still go with Google over the carrier's crappy third party product. I don't think free products should qualify as legally anticompetitive. I thought the case years ago against MS with IE being free years was bogus, and so is this. You've always had other options with browsers and maps. I don't see how that's anticompetitive. Luckily, Google can afford the fine. I'd hate to see Maps go away or become a paid product.

 

[sliem]

This is why they say lawyers come from hell.

 

[junixophobia]

A company is being sued because their business model is different... Google will charge later but they will charge the businesses who wants to be located in google maps...

And that is not uncompetitive...

 

[ewood]

[citation][nom]nekoangel[/nom]So if somehow Google was able to make it legally binding that they will never charge for google maps it would completely nullify the current claims?[/citation]
Because the Chinese government subsidizes those products so they can be sold below cost in order to drive out competing manufacturers. No one is paying google to keep their services free

 

[slabbo]

wow, what a bullshit fine. So Google finds a way to offer a service at no cost to the consumer, because they get it through ad revenue, which we say is quite a smart way to approach a problem, and they get fined for it. Isn't this what companies are supposed to do? You innovate and try to do something better than your competition, not sue because you suck at your job.

 

[aevm]

Google's maps aren't really free, actually. They have a free demo version, with limited capabilities and legal restrictions (Maps API), and a business version (Maps API for Business) that starts at $10,000/year.

It's like Microsoft giving away demo versions of Visual Studio to students to get them hooked, and then charging thousands for the normal version when they start making money from programming. Or like drug dealers giving you free samples until you're addicted. Or like Amazon's Kindle store giving away volume 1 of a series (and if you like it you have to pay $15 each for the other 9 volumes). Or Costco giving away food samples. Typical business procedure these days. The end-users can actually benefit (OK, except in the drug dealer case.)

http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-compare.html

As a developer, you can certainly write a Web application that relies on the Maps API, and it won't cost you anything in the process. Then you sell the application. If your customer's site is very successful (gets 2500 hits a day or more), or it's internal, or makes money, then your customer has to upgrade to Maps API for Business and pay Google. So, really, I don't think the French court got it right.

 

[terrykfwong]

anti-competitive or anti-competence?

 

[gm0n3y]

I can see how Google offering maps could be considered predatory, but that really isn't Google's motive. They aren't planning on killing off the competition and then jacking up prices. Just because you can't compete doesn't mean that your competition is being unfair. IANAF(rench)L but it seems like it shouldn't have gone that way.