pppingme

That just brings it closer to the price that they are willing to negotiate anyway if you simply contact them. Its still on the high side and you can still get a better deal if you contact them.

How I know the info isn't really relevant, but there are several ways of deriving the info even if I didn't know an exact number. For example, a quick look at your profile shows you are indeed a premium member, but that's only one of about eight other ways. Not a productive way of counting PM's. I could even derive a good estimate from google, without ever touching the gc site (which currently gives a count of just over 100k, so yeah, its a few k short).

In order to get more than 3 caches worth of information you have to be a premium member. c:geo would rather scrape the site to get the premium benefits rather than tell their users their free app requires they need to buy a premium membership. Why do you continue to show hate toward an app and situation you obviously don't understand. He listed a state of other things that would change by going to the API, but the ground issue is and still remains that Groundspeak won't issue a key for an open source program.

That isn't quite how it happened here, though. What happened is that the manufacturer of the only decent CD players jacked their price up enormously. Ford decided that rather than passing this increased cost along to the consumer, they'd subsitute a more affordable solution and keep the overall cost the same. And their solution was an 8-track player, how are you seeing it as anything different? It is a clear step backwards from maps that just simply worked, to maps that don't load, when they do they are very slow, missing tiles, and numerous other problems. There are two realities that come out of this. First and foremost, Ford was too stupid to negotiate with the cd player distributor, they didn't even try. Maybe they didn't even know they could negotiate, but if that's the case, that's clearly someone that has no clue how to run a business of any type. Second, if Ford can't even figure out the true cost per customer (in this case, 50 cents a year distributed across premium members), then they don't even have a basis for considering a change, it was a change of panic, if it wasn't panic, then it was a change of absolute greed.

Here's the scoop. With early versions, there was an issue with how it retrieved data. This is no longer an issue and Groundspeak no longer speaks against this app. To the "haters" that keep saying prove it, you have the source code, go look, it is an open source application (meaning anyone can look at and use the source code). The fact that Groundspeak used to have a very strong anti-c:geo attitude (even zapping messages in the forums that dare mention it) and they no longer do should speak volumes to their feeling on this issue. Many people have asked why doesn't c:geo just use the API. The truth to that answer is that Groundspeak is anti-open source. To use the API would require that c:geo would no longer be open source. Here's the issue with the API, Groundspeak says that the key itself can not be given away, and if its in a program it has to be obscured (something that would be the case with most compiled programs anyway). The theory being, that if the API key "got out" it would just be a matter of time before everyone is giving it to each other. I'm not sure why they view this as an issue, since user credentials are still required to use the key. If a key were to "go rogue", the assumption is that Groundspeak would disable that key, which would disable any app that uses that key. I have proposed many times that Groundspeak shift from an application based api key to a user based api key, this would resolve the whole key distribution issue that Groundspeak is against, and also offers additional security to their api keys, I've never seen a response from Groundspeak on this suggestion. It seems pretty obvious that issuing "user" keys would eliminate this whole issue. If a key goes rogue, only one user is affected, not every user of a particular app. As far as protecting the keys, it really wouldn't be that hard to extract a key from a working app, and I'm really surprised it hasn't happened yet (and I would bet that it probably has). What will be interesting is when any extracted keys start getting used in other applications, what will Groundspeak's reaction be? What if the rogue key is from their very own app? Would they disable it or try to keep it quiet?

"IF" you have all caches within 115 miles, the gsak filter is easy, on the first page, choose the "between" option next to distance. The tricky part will be getting all the .gpx's into gsak, gs doesn't give an easy way to make a PQ with these options.

If you're going to make stuff up, at least make it believable. Go and get a quote from google, and no, don't copy/paste that low usage page that everyone keeps quoting. Tell me whats not believable AFTER you get the quote.

You have two caches that you've logged twice (or maybe one that you've logged three times).

Since adding maps would have a net cost of about 50 cents per premium member per year, that in no way justifies any type of rate increase, especially one that takes it from $30/year to $120/year. People, this isn't about money, its about pinching pennies in a business model that already has a high profit ratio.

Nope, not at all. They have a reputation for doing things on the cheap, and then turning around and trying to squeeze money out of others (Garmin chirp for one). The only discussions they had were how they could find another free map service without any consideration to how much of a sudden load they would impose on them. They won't consider paying for maps until they see a significant loss of customers, and by then it may be too late. All attitudes that someone who thinks they are a monopoly have.

Absolutely NOT. Some cache owners like to keep those.

Sure there are, but no where near what you are being charged. This is a high profit business model.

Its NOT, why does everyone insist on quoting this number.

Its always been a fact here that the premium members are carrying the free members. If it weren't for the paying members, not only would there not be maps, there wouldn't be anything. So don't for a second assume that the premium members didn't pay for the site, its development, and so on.

The flawed thought here is that there is no product, they are a listing service, they don't produce a thing, they LIST stuff that me and you produce. Ah, the list *IS* the product. Which has ZERO acquisition costs. Again, products start from materials (if you made cakes you buy flour, if you make bouncy balls, you buy rubber), and those materials naturally have an acquisition cost, listing services don't have the same costs.

It was if they signed up early on google was offering a lifetime unlimited pass for $10k/year, they most likely missed that boat but could possibly still get it if they are good at negotiating. By the way, at $10k/year, that comes out to less than 10 cents per premium member per year (125,000 premium members currently). If GS cant handle such a minute change in their costs, something is seriously wrong with their business model. One thing google has shown, is that they are HIGHLY negotiable if asked. There is no indication that GS has even asked.

Because we pay you for the service not google. duh. You do? I didn't know that the google maps were a premium member only perk. They were available to all users whether you paid or not. GS's decision to give away a service that I pay for shouldn't later be held against me.

The flawed thought here is that there is no product, they are a listing service, they don't produce a thing, they LIST stuff that me and you produce. Ah, the list *IS* the product. Which has ZERO acquisition cost. People like you provide the listings free of charge, in fact, you even continue to pay them, there's not even any kind of credit for generating a listing.

Yes, the comments about a charger being an important decision are very true. Chargers essentially fall into two categories. Timer based - these are the worst kind or chargers out there, yet they are the most popular. The way they work is they charge the batteries at a rate of xxx mAh for x hours. The big problem with these is if the batteries are not completely discharged, they end up overcharging the battery. They also typically make assumptions about the size of the battery, and will overcharge a battery that is slightly smaller than what it was designed for. Charge based - these are the best kind to own, but cost more. They monitor the charge rate and voltage of the battery and only charge for as long as needed. These don't have a timer (well, to be technically correct, most have a safety timer in case you have a bad battery so it doesn't sit there and charge it for days on end and eventually overheat it). Different chargers take different approaches to determining how the battery is charged, but regardless of which method is used, its always better than a timer based charger. So called "FAST" chargers are also bad. Heat is the enemy of batteries, and the fast chargers heat them up significantly. Even the better chargers typically have several rates that you can charge batteries at, and the slower the better. Here are two chargers that I really like (amazon links): LaCrosse BC1000 for $59 I own the previous version of this model and love it. LaCrosse BC-700 for $40 Essentially the same charger but doesn't come with some of the accessories and the top/fastest charging rates (which I never use) aren't on it.

The flawed thought here is that there is no product, they are a listing service, they don't produce a thing, they LIST stuff that me and you produce.

Rechargeable batteries in the AA format (probably what you're gps uses) come in 3 variants. NiMH - what you mentioned, probably the leading type at the moment. This batteries main disadvantage is it has a high self-discharge rate compared to other types. In other words, if you charge your batteries, and let them sit for a while before use, you will find that they are partially run down. If you charge your batteries right before use (the day before) then you'll probably never see this issue. Typical size is 2600mAh, starting to see 3000mAh batteries recently. Hybrids - This is essentially a NiMH with a little different chemistry, not as susceptible to the self-discharge issue that plagues NiMH, but at a cost of 10 to 20% capacity. Typical size is 2000 to 2200 mAh. NiCad - Popular before NiMH, capacity is usually less than 1/2 of NiMH, usually only about 1/3 and very susceptible to memory issues. These are increasingly hard to find, none of the big box type stores carry them anymore. Typical size is 600 to 1200mAh. mAh=milli-amp-hours, a rating of how long a battery will last. For example if you have a load of 200mA (probably a little less than a typical gps) a 2000mAh battery will last about 10 hours, if you have a load of 400mA (probably a little more than most gps's use) that same battery will last about 5 hours. So for a 200mA load, a 2600mAh battery will last about 13 hours.

I still think you are being wildly optimistic about the cost, but even if you are not... OK, let's assume your $200K is the actual number... For a company the size of GS to simply eat that $200k and not pass it along? Again, this gets back to what I said earlier, that people have this perception that Jeremy is just rolling around in a hot tub filled with 100's, that is, when he isn't out driving his BMW 9 series. Quite the contrary, $200K is a staggering amount of money for a company the size of GS. There are tens of thousands of companies that are 10 to 100 times larger than GS that operate less than $200k above or below breakeven, and even for them, a delta of $200,000 would be a complete game changer. This is what the posting of the Louis CK video was all about. GS gives the vast majority of its users the vast majority of their services for free, and when they need to make all their salaries and pay all their bills from the tiny sliver that is left to make any money from, they are villainized. $200k isn't optimistic, its more like the idiot price for someone that walks into a new car dealership and pays whats on the sticker (and if you do a little research, you will find that this is the top price for 2 million daily hits). $50k is what they will get if they have more than 10 minutes of negotiating experience. But, lets play with $200k, for a company that has revenues of approximately $4 million (and yes, this is gs's approximate revenue, for some quick math, 125k users, figure 1/2 pay annually at $30, and 1/2 pay quarterly at $40), its a 5% hit. For a company that has no significant expense in the product that they sell (they aren't out placing the caches, they don't own the caches, they very simply have a listing site, nothing more), there is definitely room in the budget for a 5% variance. This comes to less than $2 annually for each premium member and still giving it to free members. More realistic, they would pay less than $50k, which would only be a 1.25% hit to the budget. ANY company that operates that tight won't be in business for long. This comes to less than 50 cents annually for each premium member.

What are there, like 10 people that use the Waymarking site? It would most likely have a different API key anyway, and its own limits.

Except that the maps wouldn't cost anywhere near that. Numbers could vary until they actually enter a contract, but the reality is, the WORST CASE pricing would be in the $200k/year range (based on the two million hits a day that nate quoted, I have doubts that its really that high, most likely he quoted some peak number, not an average number), since there are over 100,000 premium members, even to distribute the cost over those would be LESS THAN $2/year, a cost that in all reality they should have no need to pass along as an extra cost.

Because Groundspeak has made no effort to actually negotiate a contract with google, intead only quoting some $4/per 1000 hits that they found on a page that was geared toward low volume users and crying about the millions it would cost them because they have no idea what the real cost would be. Do we know for a fact that Groundspeak has made no effort to negotiate with Google? I don't recall seeing any lackey saying they blew off Google and went with the maps they have now. Perhaps you could cite that post? Even if they were able to negotiate a contract for half the price it would still be substantial. Seems they have a handle on how many map views a day they generate. You could only expect it to go up, and you can probably expect Google to raise the fees when they see real money. Because the minimum contract google will enter into starts at 100k hits/day, everything that any "lackey" has stated included the 25k plus $4 per 1000 extra hits, a rate the ONLY applies to low volume customers who occastionally bump the 25k limit and don't want to enter into any kind of contract.