Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 16
memepasmal

Good bye c:geo

Recommended Posts

I recently heard that the non-official application c:geo has stopped. The developper consider than Groundspeak is not open enough and do everything to block him : http://post.carnero.cc/cgeo

 

I'm really sad, because (sorry GC developpers) this application was the best. I know it was not official, I know it doesn't use the GC API, but it was just a way like another to access this fabulous database. I really love geocaching and I will continue this great activity, but as a sign of protest I will not renew my premium membership.

 

I dream and hope for a more open geocaching.com.

 

Regards.

 

(sorry, my english is bad I know)

Share this post


Link to post

I just read that and it does not sound like Groundspeak has "done everything they can to stop him". They knew it existed and probably could have had it shut down but for the most part it seemed they just ignored it.

 

I don't feel bad that he's leaving the game and give his Geocide a 7.5 and I give your PMcide a 1

 

I think Geocaching.com has a lot of great free stuff and the $30 is a great value just using the PQ's (not including all the other stuff). I do not feel my $30 should go to support the development of smart phone aps and do not understand why people complain about another $10 fee (which is on par with a lot of other apps).

Edited by IkeHurley13

Share this post


Link to post

I'm personnaly a developper and all my programs are free and open source, but I understand that the people of Groundspeak have to maintain their big database, and it costs a lot of money.

 

Today I'm just sad and I wanted to say. There is a lot of features in c:geo, and they are missing in the official application. I buy it a long time ago, two times (!), once on my iPhone, once on my HTC Android.

 

Thank you for your response IkeHurley.

Share this post


Link to post

I just read the news today also, I have paid for a premium membership (GLADLY) also paid for the mobil App. (GLADLY) but I only used the c:geo app. I can only hope and pray that GS will develop a app. that is as easy to use as cgeo R.I.P. cgeo you will be missed :sad:

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the OP. I use C:geo along side with my handheld GPSr. It was a top notch app and simple to use. It was free so its not like the guy was making money off of Groundspeaks product. I guess they didn't like that one guy could produce a better app than what they had on the market. A free app, better than the $10 app. I also disagree with the previous poster. $10 is on the high end for a smart phone app. If your charging that much, it better be top quality. And although $30 a year for premium membership isn't alot, PQs and user routes don't really justify it either. Geocaching.com says that there are four million users world wide. There is no public info on how many of those are premium paying members that i'm aware of. But do the math, even if only one-fourth of them are paying members then thats still alot of money going to Groundspeak. One million paying users times $30, every year. Thats alot of money to go into a top quality product, which should include development of a great app.

 

This is all just my opinion and none of those figures are facts ofcourse. Just my best educated judgement. Groundspeak isnt a publically traded company, so none of us can tell them how to spend and develop their earnings. This is just my feedback as a paying customer. I do feel that Groundspeak and geocaching.com do a great job, theres just always room for improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
I recently heard that the non-official application c:geo has stopped. The developer consider than Groundspeak is not open enough and do everything to block him : http://post.carnero.cc/cgeo

 

I'm really sad, because (sorry GC developpers) this application was the best. I know it was not official, I know it doesn't use the GC API, but it was just a way like another to access this fabulous database.

 

As someone who refused to use c:geo specifically because it violated the Groundspeak TOS, I'm not sad to see it go.

 

To those who will need to get a new app for geocaching when c:geo breaks again after the next site update: get GeoHunter (free and okay with Groundspeak), run some PQs, tweak them in GSAK if you want, load them on your phone, and enjoy. Your battery will last longer anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Site Scraping places a large burden on the resources. Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook, they will get a stable API out when they can reasonably support it within their small company.

 

Weak Geocide - but strong on entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll miss c:geo. I paid for the Groundspeak app but found c:geo a much better tool. Even though I rarely use my phone for geocaching, I hope Groundspeak puts more effort into enhancing their app.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook

Yet neither one of them charge me $30/year. Your argument is self defeating.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook

Yet neither one of them charge me $30/year. Your argument is self defeating.

I'd pay 30 per year to use Google (Although I'd expect better search results).

I wouldn't pay 30 per year for FB.

 

I don't get near as much out of FB as I do GS.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook

Yet neither one of them charge me $30/year. Your argument is self defeating.

Wow - since they charge money, you think they can do the same things that multi-billion dollar corporations with tens of thousands of employees can do?? At the same speed? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook

Yet neither one of them charge me $30/year. Your argument is self defeating.

I'd pay 30 per year to use Google (Although I'd expect better search results).

I wouldn't pay 30 per year for FB.

 

I don't get near as much out of FB as I do GS.

Would you feel the same way if there was bonus features on google/facebook for the extra pricetag? E.G. PQ's?

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook

Yet neither one of them charge me $30/year. Your argument is self defeating.

I'd pay 30 per year to use Google (Although I'd expect better search results).

I wouldn't pay 30 per year for FB.

 

I don't get near as much out of FB as I do GS.

Would you feel the same way if there was bonus features on google/facebook for the extra pricetag? E.G. PQ's?

Umm, PQ's on FB just sound like the seach function, or stalking.

Share this post


Link to post

I just read that and it does not sound like Groundspeak has "done everything they can to stop him". They knew it existed and probably could have had it shut down but for the most part it seemed they just ignored it.

 

Unlikely. An "app" like that appears just like a web browsers to the servers. Nothing really that they could have done.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm personnaly a developper and all my programs are free and open source, but I understand that the people of Groundspeak have to maintain their big database, and it costs a lot of money.

 

Today I'm just sad and I wanted to say. There is a lot of features in c:geo, and they are missing in the official application. I buy it a long time ago, two times (!), once on my iPhone, once on my HTC Android.

 

Thank you for your response IkeHurley.

 

Yes, a database of user generated content, moderated by unpaid volunteers. As far as the Groundspeak Android application, I waited for a few months after it came out to see what the user reviews were like. They weren't looking pretty. And $10 for an Android application is towards the high end of Android applications. Plus, there was NO consideration given to Premium members, such as a discount on the application, or, heck, even getting it free. The subject was brought up, and Groundspeak's final word was that there would be no benefit to their revenue generating Premium members. And lastly, they should of at least offered a "lite" version of their application for trial, as a lot of people are very wary of plunking down $10 for an application that has a 15 minute trial period.

 

I personally feel very upset about c:geo development stopping, but I can understand that the author can only take so much before he'll get tired of the hoops and quit. It's a shame that Groundspeak feels that they have to push their application down everyone's throat and stifle the competition. I expected more from a company that values their user base as much as they...well... at least used to apparently do.

Edited by dcigary

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like most of those in support of c:geo have actually used it and found it significantly better than the official app.

 

I think it is a shame. GS keeps talking about an API, but there's been no progress. Obviously I don't know the details of this, but if someone can develop a geocaching app that's better than the official one, and give it away for free, I feel that Groundspeak should try harder.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like most of those in support of c:geo have actually used it and found it significantly better than the official app.

They may have found c:geo to be "free", rather than "better". Somehow major flaws get overlooked when something's "free", and it becomes the best thing since sliced hamster. The icons are microscopic, the compass is tiny, too. It's a maze of menus and interfaces, kind of a mess. Even ignoring the fact that there could be repercussions if I use it, it was my least favorite app. And the untimely Geocides and PMcides around here are just plain weird. It's not like any Apps have been turned off today.

 

Okay, the official, unnamed "Geocaching App" is my second-least-favorite. But at least I can choose my compass.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

I've paid for a premium membership and I paid for the Groundspeak mobile phone app.

I fully support Groundspeak and will continue to do so.

 

But the c:geo app was superior. The Groundspeak phone app really needs to get the same maps as c:geo had.

I would buy their app to keep them going.

I do wish they would do something besides scraping that would be better for Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like my summer project just became learning java so that I can keep this app up to date for myself.

Share this post


Link to post

okay, so gs's app isn't as good as it could be. doesn't change the fact that c:geo was pissing off gs by the way it was scraping data from the database. the developer specifically mentions that he was intentionally flirting with the TOS. do that, and eventually the people you're exploiting will stop you.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm really sad, because (sorry GC developpers) this application was the best. I know it was not official, I know it doesn't use the GC API, but it was just a way like another to access this fabulous database.

 

No, it wasn't "just another way like any other." It violated the Groundspeak TOS you agreed to when you became a member of geocaching.com.

 

Groundspeak has a developer program for people who are interested in producing TOS-compliant apps; the c:geo developer apparently didn't think playing by the rules was worth the effort.

 

That's what is sad.

Share this post


Link to post

Has it been shown that Groundspeak threw intentional hurdles at that particular app, or is the author suffering from the same problem that every geocaching app developer faces, every time the web site goes through an update.

 

Face it, every update forces most of the Greasemonky scripts to be modified, as well as most GSAK macros, GSAK itself as well as most of the stat programs. Heck, my version of Mapsource won't even load a LOC file from GC.com. Since c:geo is scraping web pages, any small change is likely to break the program. Is it possible that the author simply couldn't keep up?

Edited by Don_J

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like most of those in support of c:geo have actually used it and found it significantly better than the official app.

 

I think it is a shame. GS keeps talking about an API, but there's been no progress. Obviously I don't know the details of this, but if someone can develop a geocaching app that's better than the official one, and give it away for free, I feel that Groundspeak should try harder.

 

To be honest, I've always wondered why they bothered developing an app at all. Why not focus on the the database and website stuff, figure out an acceptable way to work with app developers, and then let those talented individuals create the apps? I really wonder if the $10 Groundspeak charges really covers the cost of time and resources that they've spent developing the apps.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like most of those in support of c:geo have actually used it and found it significantly better than the official app.

 

I think it is a shame. GS keeps talking about an API, but there's been no progress. Obviously I don't know the details of this, but if someone can develop a geocaching app that's better than the official one, and give it away for free, I feel that Groundspeak should try harder.

 

To be honest, I've always wondered why they bothered developing an app at all. Why not focus on the the database and website stuff, figure out an acceptable way to work with app developers, and then let those talented individuals create the apps? I really wonder if the $10 Groundspeak charges really covers the cost of time and resources that they've spent developing the apps.

 

that's a good question. maybe that's one of their goals of developing an API. once the API really gets going, cease development of their own app and require a licensing fee for developers to use their API. it would still provide them a revenue stream (quite possibly a larger one) without the challenges (and costs) of supporting multiple app platforms

Share this post


Link to post
It's a shame that Groundspeak feels that they have to push their application down everyone's throat and stifle the competition.
No one is forced to use Groundspeak's Geocaching app. There are Android apps that comply with the TOU and are still perfectly usable (for example, GeoBeagle or GeoHunter).

Share this post


Link to post

I've been using the Groundspeak iphone app, and it works great. The satellite view makes many urban caches easy to find, as well as many others (and makes up for the lousy accuracy). I just load nearest caches, and use the GPS only occasionally. Don't need to run any PQs, as I can just get the coords off of the app if I need them. I've been logging the finds at GZ, and loading a pic is easy. I just started using a high def app for the pictures. If the battery goes low, I shut it off and just use it for getting the coords and memorizing the sat view.

 

Having a completely free app is just a bad idea in my opinion. The easier and more free you make them to find, the more likely someone will steal them. Promoting an app in which the designer scrapes the site, and slows down everyone else's usage while thumbing their nose at Groundspeaks TOS is just nasty. And you want Groundspeak to embrace it? I know there are people that want everything for free, and I don't think it's a real good idea to make it easy for them to find caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I just read that and it does not sound like Groundspeak has "done everything they can to stop him". They knew it existed and probably could have had it shut down but for the most part it seemed they just ignored it.

 

Unlikely. An "app" like that appears just like a web browsers to the servers. Nothing really that they could have done.

 

From what I read awhile back, that was one of the issues that caused GS to consider it non-compliant. I'd read that the app intentionally made it look as is it was running as a web browser, and when GS asked them to change the behavior so that it could be identified as an app, the author of c:geo refused to do so. I've written apps myself that construct an http request to a server. Basically it builds an http request header and one of the header strings that can be set is the "User-Agent". The User-Agent typically identifies that type and version of browser making the request. The server can use that information to construct a response that will work for that browser. For example, the server could produce different html markup when it appeared that the browser was running on a mobile device. If the c:geo app is setting it's User-Agent string to something that indicates that it's coming from a browser rather than a http client program it's basically lying to the server so that it can get away with something that the server might not allow (like screen scraping).

Share this post


Link to post
I'm really sad, because (sorry GC developpers) this application was the best. I know it was not official, I know it doesn't use the GC API, but it was just a way like another to access this fabulous database.

 

No, it wasn't "just another way like any other." It violated the Groundspeak TOS you agreed to when you became a member of geocaching.com.

 

Groundspeak has a developer program for people who are interested in producing TOS-compliant apps; the c:geo developer apparently didn't think playing by the rules was worth the effort.

 

That's what is sad.

 

yup

Share this post


Link to post

I am moving this thread from the Geocaching Topics forum to the GPS and Technology forum.

Share this post


Link to post

It is kind of amazing that forum users whose posts are generally well informed and thought out are somehow misguided into believing C:Geo violated the TOU or anyone who used it would also be in violation. Had it been, GS would have moved against it as well as Columbus, which works in a similar manner, in ways far more damaging than letting users "believe" it was out of bounds.

 

Aside from C:Geo working within the ToU, we now have no app with a Live Map function. The official app is rock solid, however mostly useless without being able to cache on the fly with the live map, a bg draw for many users.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd pay 30 per year to use Google (Although I'd expect better search results).

How could Google's search results possibly get better? I've found things I've never expected to find with Google. Although I think that's got less to do with their search results and more to do with how Google parses the text you enter to search for and match those to relevant results.

 

The icons are microscopic...

Maybe your fingers are just too big.

 

...when GS asked them to change the behavior so that it could be identified as an app, the author of c:geo refused to do so.

If disguising the app as a browser was the only thing that made it work, wouldn't doing that cause the app to stop working? It would be the same as just asking him to stop developing it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
It is kind of amazing that forum users whose posts are generally well informed and thought out are somehow misguided into believing C:Geo violated the TOU or anyone who used it would also be in violation. Had it been, GS would have moved against it as well as Columbus, which works in a similar manner, in ways far more damaging than letting users "believe" it was out of bounds.

 

Hey, kids! Let's play "name the fallacy" here.

 

This is a great example of "petitio principii," or "begging the question." It goes like this:

 

I assume if A then B

Not B

Therefore I have proved not A

 

Where the first piece ("geocaching.com would have moved against c:geo if it had violated the TOU") is just asserted with no evidence.

 

There is anoother impied fallacy here, called "denying the antecedent." It goes as follows:

 

If A then B

Not A

Therefore not B

 

Here's the analysis:

Groundspeak could have proceeded against c:geo, if c:geo violated the TOU

Groundspeak did not proceed against c:geo

Therefore c:geo did not violate the TOU

 

Any way you look at it, the reasoning is fallacious. I am pretty confident that c:geo did indeed violate the TOU and that Groundspeak did not consider it cost-effective to pursue the matter further. But the fact that Groundspeak did not pursue the matter is not evidence that c:geo did not violate the TOU.

Share this post


Link to post

It is kind of amazing that forum users whose posts are generally well informed and thought out are somehow misguided into believing C:Geo violated the TOU or anyone who used it would also be in violation. Had it been, GS would have moved against it as well as Columbus, which works in a similar manner, in ways far more damaging than letting users "believe" it was out of bounds.

 

Last year, Elias stated;

 

Using an application like c:geo which accesses the geocaching.com website in the manner that it does violates our Terms of Use Agreement and Groundspeak does not authorize such activity.

 

It is true that c:geo uses the HTTP protocol on port 80, but that's as close to a web browser as it gets. c:geo queries the site in a manner very differently from a person sitting behind a web browser. It's also telling that the author of c:geo chose to add an option: "identify c:geo as a standard browser" so as to hide its identity from our servers.

 

Groundspeak provides a number of features and services to both basic and premium members for the purpose of Geocaching. Access to the Geocaching.com website via c:geo is not one of them

 

Although Groundspeak has been working with developers to make an API available, I have not seen anything to indicate that Groundspeak changed their minds about c:geo and the TOU.

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like most of those in support of c:geo have actually used it and found it significantly better than the official app.

They may have found c:geo to be "free", rather than "better". Somehow major flaws get overlooked when something's "free", and it becomes the best thing since sliced hamster. The icons are microscopic, the compass is tiny, too. It's a maze of menus and interfaces, kind of a mess. Even ignoring the fact that there could be repercussions if I use it, it was my least favorite app. And the untimely Geocides and PMcides around here are just plain weird. It's not like any Apps have been turned off today.

 

Okay, the official, unnamed "Geocaching App" is my second-least-favorite. But at least I can choose my compass.

 

Nope. It's a fine app, and quite easy to use. The icons are fine, the compass fills most of my screen, and I particularly like the ability to store caches ahead of time that I don't have coverage for in the field.

 

I used c:geo today and it worked fine. Guess time will tell what happens to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak has a developer program for people who are interested in producing TOS-compliant apps; the c:geo developer apparently didn't think playing by the rules was worth the effort.

Do you know this for a fact, or is it conjecture or hearsay?

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak has a developer program for people who are interested in producing TOS-compliant apps; the c:geo developer apparently didn't think playing by the rules was worth the effort.
Do you know this for a fact, or is it conjecture or hearsay?

I know it for a fact.

Share this post


Link to post

I have both the "official" app, and C:Geo. At version 1.x, the only benefit of the official app was speed. It loaded faster and loaded cache details faster (because C:Geo uses screen scraping and the official app uses a published API). In all other respects C:Geo was superior (ease of use, features, look & feel).

 

Since the 2.x version of the official app, C:Geo wins hands down because the official app does not work at all. It freezes, force closes, takes ages to start, doesn't shut down (and drains battery).

Share this post


Link to post

Fizzy, while your logic is correct, I do not agree with your conclusion.

 

GS inaction was not my main point. Since I clouded my original post with that, I will be more clear this time;

 

C:geo and it's users have in no way violated the ToU as it is currently written.

Share this post


Link to post

Site Scraping places a large burden on the resources. Groundspeak isn't Google or Facebook, they will get a stable API out when they can reasonably support it within their small company.

 

Weak Geocide - but strong on entitlement.

 

Oh c'mon, it's 2011. Open API, anyone ever heard of that concept? :lol: How long are we going to hear this "site scraping" nonsense? I mean yeah, maybe in 2004, when some guy had a stats website that used to pull down the banners from everyone's profile, and got shut down. How long before people take a cue from Micro$oft and start typing Ground$peak? Oops. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak has a developer program for people who are interested in producing TOS-compliant apps; the c:geo developer apparently didn't think playing by the rules was worth the effort.
Do you know this for a fact, or is it conjecture or hearsay?

I know it for a fact.

Where are all those TOU-compliant apps then? (And why do I hear the name Fermi in the back of my head?)

 

C:geo and it's users have in no way violated the ToU as it is currently written.

So where did the app get the data from then, for example for the live map display?

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post

I've paid for Georg and I have paid for the official app. I paid money for the latter because I wanted fast access to live data, otherwise, I prefer Georg. The really frustrating thing is that the official app wouldn't even let me see the nearest cache at the weekend giving me some error about not being authorized. I felt very cheated at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Since the 2.x version of the official app, C:Geo wins hands down because the official app does not work at all. It freezes, force closes, takes ages to start, doesn't shut down (and drains battery).

 

Funny I heard 1.x was a battery draining monster and 2.x was supposed to have much better battery life.

 

You know what app on my Droid has crashed on me more times than all other apps combined? Google Search (the one by the phone made by the same company that made the OS).

Share this post


Link to post

Having a completely free app is just a bad idea in my opinion. The easier and more free you make them to find, the more likely someone will steal them. Promoting an app in which the designer scrapes the site, and slows down everyone else's usage while thumbing their nose at Groundspeaks TOS is just nasty. And you want Groundspeak to embrace it? I know there are people that want everything for free, and I don't think it's a real good idea to make it easy for them to find caches.

 

This logic goes against any business sense that Groundspeak could ever have. Provide a weak application to make it harder to find caches, and limiting the number of people interested in Geocaching? What kind of logic is that? It would behoove Groundspeak to allow for easier access to the information, so that people of all walks of life - not just the technically saavy ones - will want to sign up, become a premium member and start Geocaching for a hobby. From a standpoint of the way things are now, it's still very cumbersome to get information on what caches are out there to find, and get the coordinates saved to your GPS device of choice. A free application lets people try the hobby out for a while, and then if they get interested, they can sign up and become a premium member, and yes, even purchase an application that allows you to do more. Groundspeak doesn't supply this option - pay $10 for an Android application that you have 15 minutes to review? Not a lot of people would be willing to take that chance.

 

Of the people that I've introduced to Geocaching, one of the most common complaints I've heard from the non-technical people is that it's so many steps just to get coordinates stored onto your GPS. Give the technically challenged people a .GPX file who can barely figure out how to put the batteries in right? And expect them to know to re-load the .GPX file frequently to update the cache list? That's what makes a hand-held "live" app so valuable. They can just start it, bring up a map and see what caches are around them. They can go find it, and log it from the application. The general opinion is that c:geo beat the GS application hands down in doing this and ease of use. If you were a novice, would YOU want to start Geocaching when it's so difficult to get the information you need to find caches, and fight an non user-friendly application? No, and Groundspeak shouldn't want that either if they want to expand their user base.

 

In the end, until we get some type of statement from GS on this issue, we're all just shooting in the dark for explanations and reasons. We don't know Groundspeak's business strategy, and it shouldn't matter to us. However, it does start mattering to us when that business strategy starts taking the fun away from Geocaching. That's what they need to watch out for - it's very easy to make a wrong decision and alienate a whole bunch of people. I hope that GS can see the light and make decisions accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post

C:geo and it's users have in no way violated the ToU as it is currently written.

 

Then in what ways has either c:geo or the TOU changed in the past ten months - since the statement of Elias quoted above - so that it no longer is a problem? Jeremy just stated that they were working with the developer to "legitimize" the app, so I assume it was not there yet.

 

The developer complained about rumors that Groundspeak was saving a better API (2.0) for its apps and giving everyone else version 1.0. Rumors? The developer claimed he was not told his app violated the TOU. I read what Groundspeak had to say about it, and knew that they had problems with the way c:geo accessed their site. But I am willing to grant that there must have been communication issues on both sides.

 

Meanwhile users on the c:geo blog flamed Groundspeak for wanting $6 a month for their app (?) or wanting to stifle competition. I don't know. Geosphere, geobeagle, and other apps have not had this problem so perhaps it goes back to how c:geo was using the site.

 

But here is one of the things Jeremy has said about it in the past 24 hours:

 

"We're working hard on bringing a scalable API to 3rd party developers, including c:geo, who is one of our early beta partners. Nothing that I know of has changed at Groundspeak. We moved our Android and WP7 applications to the new API to make sure it works well enough to open to 3rd parties. As of last week we deployed our iOS verson to be reviewed by Apple, and if things go well we'll start rolling out partner applications.

 

It is very frustrating to read posts like this when we're making an effort to legitimize c:geo . . . ."

 

At least 20 developers have been working with Groundspeak and it does not appear that c:geo was adversely singled out. Although as the geosphere developer stated, it is taking time from his end to make sure his app is working well with the API.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail here and all of this will get worked out!

Share this post


Link to post

 

But here is one of the things Jeremy has said about it in the past 24 hours:

 

"We're working hard on bringing a scalable API to 3rd party developers, including c:geo, who is one of our early beta partners. Nothing that I know of has changed at Groundspeak. We moved our Android and WP7 applications to the new API to make sure it works well enough to open to 3rd parties. As of last week we deployed our iOS verson to be reviewed by Apple, and if things go well we'll start rolling out partner applications.

 

It is very frustrating to read posts like this when we're making an effort to legitimize c:geo . . . ."

 

At least 20 developers have been working with Groundspeak and it does not appear that c:geo was adversely singled out. Although as the geosphere developer stated, it is taking time from his end to make sure his app is working well with the API.

 

Very interesting, thanks for that info. I take back what I said in post #40. No, I don't it was fun to type Ground$peak. Just kidding. :lol: I wonder what it is that made the developer just give up and Geocide?

Share this post


Link to post

In any case, the full source code is available here: https://github.com/carnero

Whoever wants to continue its development is free to take it, fork it and do so. I believe we'll see forks popping up soon.

I didn't even know it was written in Java. That instantly lowers the opinion I had of it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

But here is one of the things Jeremy has said about it in the past 24 hours:

 

"We're working hard on bringing a scalable API to 3rd party developers, including c:geo, who is one of our early beta partners. Nothing that I know of has changed at Groundspeak. We moved our Android and WP7 applications to the new API to make sure it works well enough to open to 3rd parties. As of last week we deployed our iOS verson to be reviewed by Apple, and if things go well we'll start rolling out partner applications.

 

It is very frustrating to read posts like this when we're making an effort to legitimize c:geo . . . ."

 

At least 20 developers have been working with Groundspeak and it does not appear that c:geo was adversely singled out. Although as the geosphere developer stated, it is taking time from his end to make sure his app is working well with the API.

 

Very interesting, thanks for that info. I take back what I said in post #40. No, I don't it was fun to type Ground$peak. Just kidding. :lol: I wonder what it iss that made the developer just give up and Geocide?

New job, and every time the site updates something would break. He also made it sound like the api was extremely limited, so any app created could only be as good as the official one. C geo by far had the best support and the most features, however it also didn't play by the rules. Either way it will be missed and I hope someone continues his work (it's an open source project)

Share this post


Link to post

In any case, the full source code is available here: https://github.com/carnero

Whoever wants to continue its development is free to take it, fork it and do so. I believe we'll see forks popping up soon.

I didn't even know it was written in Java. That instantly lowers the opinion I had of it :lol:

Android apps are java based, so that would make sense....

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 16

×
×
  • Create New...