An Interesting Thought

[+Beta Test]

Ok I just had an interesting thought. Lots of us have "bought" stuff from the GC.com store. But are we really buying products? Wouldn't it count more as investing than buying? The money just comes back to you through GC.com service, and you get your stuff!

Edited September 20, 2004 by Beta Test

[+briansnat]

Good thought. I'll see if I can get my accountant to write off my travel bugs and hats.

[kayaker22589]

I guess if you put it that way.

[+rusty_tlc]

I thought the $30 a year I paid was for that, plus all the cheapskates who freeload on us paying members. Just kidding I could care less how many penny pinching bogarts use the site we pay for.

[Pantalaimon]

I thought the $30 a year I paid was for that, plus all the cheapskates who freeload on us paying members.  Just kidding I could care less how many penny pinching bogarts use the site we pay for.

Yeah, because that's the only reason people aren't paying members.

 

Edit: I took out the word troll before I typed it.

Edited September 20, 2004 by Pantalaimon

[+Robespierre]

how many penny pinching bogarts use the site we pay for.

I think I know that's humor.

Yea, on the OP. good thought.

We make Jeremy successful and he gives back - and he started first.

[+clearpath]

Ok I just had an interesting thought.  Lots of us have "bought" stuff from the GC.com store.  But are we really buying products?  Wouldn't it count more as investing than buying?  The money just comes back to you through GC.com service, and you get your stuff!

To some drgree, yes. At some point, however, the services will level out and the profit taking will take over.

[+rusty_tlc]

I thought the $30 a year I paid was for that, plus all the cheapskates who freeload on us paying members.  Just kidding I could care less how many penny pinching bogarts use the site we pay for.

Yeah, because that's the only reason people aren't paying members.

 

Edit: I took out the word troll before I typed it.

But you put it back in before you posted.

 

BTW yes my comment was intended as humor.

[+rusty_tlc]

Ok I just had an interesting thought.  Lots of us have "bought" stuff from the GC.com store.  But are we really buying products?  Wouldn't it count more as investing than buying?  The money just comes back to you through GC.com service, and you get your stuff!

To some drgree, yes. At some point, however, the services will level out and the profit taking will take over.

'Tis the American way. And more power to GC.COM if they are a success in these troubled times.

[+NoLemon]

Ok I just had an interesting thought.  Lots of us have "bought" stuff from the GC.com store.  But are we really buying products?  Wouldn't it count more as investing than buying?  The money just comes back to you through GC.com service, and you get your stuff!

To some drgree, yes. At some point, however, the services will level out and the profit taking will take over.

'Tis the American way. And more power to GC.COM if they are a success in these troubled times.

Sheesh - what it the world coming to - this is like the 5th time I've agreed with Rusty today.

 

I just don't get why some people have a problem with GC.com being a successful business. Can someone, anyone, please explain this to me? Explain why it is wrong for Jeremy, et. al. to be rewarded for what they put into this site?

[ju66l3r]

It is very simple.

 

His profitting comes at the expense of market width. Innovation is stifled as a result because competiting products do not gain the necessary foothold of data in order to proceed in a way that meets consumer demands not matched by his operation. A "Catch-22" is forced on any competitor because they can't build a good "hook" to draw potential customers because they can't get the necessary data from those customers such that they can't build a good "hook". Even with non-profitting sites such as Buxley's this vicious circle can be observed now that he has been shut off from the well. As a result, we are all that much poorer and reliant on Jeremy to provide these services. Services which are not part of the "traditional geocaching game" and require more resources from the already taxed giant means they become premium features. Of course, with each new premium feature comes the potential to need a price hike to justify the new resources. On top of that, the reliance is for him to *want* to develop the next great part of the site as opposed to competition forcing him to adapt or be out-maneuvered. We don't have stats because Jeremy doesn't want stats. If a competitor had the same amount of data and provided stats, you'd see Jeremy create stats or lose market share.

 

Do you think it's in Jeremy's best interest to provide access to Buxley's now that he's also closed off the GC.com mapping loopholes for non-premium members? Anyone who wants to cruise a decent map looking for new caches has to sign up for premium services. This is the result of having only one company profitting from their hard work in a specific field. They determine the face and direction of the entire field.

 

The only people who might have a legitimate problem with GC.com being a successful business are those that helped create the game in the first place and only if they were forced out by Jeremy as opposed to deciding not to pursue an active role in the site. Anyone else who says they have a problem with it is simply misguided in their anger. They're really at odds with the situation his profitting puts us in and not the profitting itself.

 

Realize that some of this scenario hasn't come into being...but some of it has.

 

EDIT: clarity

Edited September 20, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+rusty_tlc]

I've heard the monopoly argument before. It just doesn't hold water when viewed through your basic economics 101 glasses.

 

If the demand were there somebody would create the supply.

 

Don't you think a creative individual could hook a few venture capitalist into backing them if the market were there? The answer lies in the business plan. The current market will not support a competing site or it would exist.

 

This is all speculation on my part, but it matches the speculation put forth by others.

 

Anybody want to pay for some hard market research?

[ju66l3r]

I've heard the monopoly argument before. It just doesn't hold water when viewed through your basic economics 101 glasses.

 

If the demand were there somebody would create the supply.

Many *have* attempted to "create the supply" as you put it. None of them have generated the massive data shift that is required to sustain anything big enough to compete.

 

Much like the OS monopoly people are more familiar with, too many users are unwilling to leave Microsoft to make a very competitive and attractive alternative, like Linux, perform much better in the market. The same can be seen for the comparative difference between GC and Navicache. The big difference between OSes and this hobby is that Linux can easily sustain itself for those that do choose to use it. Navicache doesn't have the data to be self-sufficient for anyone who wants to do a lot of geocaching in their area.

 

The users have the data here and they (on the whole) are not willing to transfer or even copy that data to another location. Ask anyone who has hidden a cache and wants Buxley's updated whether they would be willing to maintain duplicitous cache pages in order to keep Buxley's going the way it has and they will tell you no. I even asked in a previous thread if an EQUAL site (also including GC.com premium features offered for free there and maybe even a new feature like stats or route mapping as well) to GC.com were to spring up but need all of the data by having you manually enter it, would you do so...and the majority said no, because of the hassle of maintaining 2 pages independently and the history of finds/logs that would not be transferable.

 

This site holds a monopoly as clear as day and as defined by any good reference on the topic. Because of the reliance on the type of data we're talking about with this site, no competitive site stands a chance.

[+rusty_tlc]

How do sucesfull companies gain market share against entrenched competitors?

 

They offer incentives, signing bonus', premiums, better features whatever.

This takes funding.

To date the prospective competitors have been lacking funds.

How do you get funds?

Venture capitalist or other investors.

On the whole these guys want some assurance that they are investing in a sustainable market or expanding market.

 

Again all speculation, no hard data. Without hard data the discussion is pointless.

Goodbye.

[+Robespierre]

His profitting comes at the expense of market width. Innovation is stifled as a result because competiting products do not gain the necessary foothold of data in order to proceed in a way that meets consumer demands not matched by his operation. A "Catch-22" is forced on any competitor because they can't build a good "hook" to draw potential customers because they can't get the necessary data from those customers such that they can't build a good "hook". Even with non-profitting sites such as Buxley's this vicious circle can be observed now that he has been shut off from the well. As a result, we are all that much poorer and reliant on Jeremy to provide these services.

The way of business...however things level out...just not is 5 years. Why does Genie have 45% of the door opener business? They were there first and have the best product. (A few of the original Genies, which were pre-microchip) still run, but you can't buy the old relays to fix them any longer). I hope Jeremy is doing very well. And, so far, I would say that being reliant on Jeremy is not such a bad position - which is why no "competitor" can replace him.(BTW, Genie has been such a good investment, that I can't even remember how many times they've been bought by another company...the last I knew, it was either Overhead or the Japanese.)

[+CompuCash]

huh?!?

 

This is the result of having only one company profitting from their hard work in a specific field.

 

well now - are you going to tell us that if you went out and did all that 'hard work' that you would not expect to 'profit' from it?

 

do you expect us to believe that your 'one company' after all the 'hard work' is going to give it away?

 

there sure seems to be a hole in that logic some where -

[ju66l3r]

How do sucesfull companies gain market share against entrenched competitors?

 

They offer incentives, signing bonus', premiums, better features whatever.

This takes funding.

To date the prospective competitors have been lacking funds.

How do you get funds?

Venture capitalist or other investors.

On the whole these guys want some assurance that they are investing in a sustainable market or expanding market.

 

Again all speculation, no hard data. Without hard data the discussion is pointless.

Goodbye.

That's great if you're talking about Joe Blow's Soda Shop trying to muscle in on 7-11's territory in a refreshing beverage strapped area.

 

Your wildly generic comments don't have any application here. The limiting factor in competition is how many caches and logs are listed. Not venture capital. At least speculate with some thought given towards applicability.

[+Kai Team]

It is very simple. His profitting comes at the expense of market width.  Innovation is stifled as a result because competiting products do not gain the necessary foothold of data...

His "profiting" results from charging for things, right? So you're saying that charging for things limits competition?

 

Charging for things limits Jeremy's market (to those who are willing to pay his price), and creates opportunity for a competitor who charges less or offers different/better products for a competitive price (see, for example: Sissy-n-CR

 

In fact, Jeremy is not charging for most of the features of gc.com - which is why his market is as broad as it is and one reason that his competitors have had a hard time gaining a foothold with basic gc services. If Jeremy charged for everything, or raised his prices too high, it would create more opportunities for competitors.

 

It seems that you're really arguing that "Innovation is stifled...because competiting products do not gain the necessary foothold of data... " which is a good point, but the same thing would be true if everything related to gc.com was free and Jeremy, et al were making no money at all! "The early bird gets the worm", comes to mind.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with Jeremy making a profit by providing a good service at a reasonable price. That's why he does it. Does anyone earn their living by working for free (independently wealthy philanthropists aside)?

[ju66l3r]

well now - are you going to tell us that if you went out and did all that 'hard work' that you would not expect to 'profit' from it?

do you expect us to believe that your 'one company' after all the 'hard work' is going to give it away?

there sure seems to be a hole in that logic some where -

The hole is that you assume I'd follow the same business plan to the profit.

 

The data can be given away. It's the features/interface/etc. that you can profit from. I'd even leave my features/interface software open-sourced so that people could develop their own features/interface if it suited them. We'd all benefit from the developments, because part of the licensing requires them to leave their source open too, so those features could be added to my interface at the same time. In the meantime, the product halo provides the profit.

 

Many software companies produce a sustainable and scalable revenue stream.

 

In the meantime, check here for good OSI information and you can also look for MySQL, Red Hat, and Novell for more profitable Open Source software companies. My hard work would be paid in full and yet there wouldn't be a monopoly on the data let alone the interface.

[+rusty_tlc]

How do sucesfull companies gain market share against entrenched competitors?

 

They offer incentives, signing bonus', premiums, better features whatever.

This takes funding.

To date the prospective competitors have been lacking funds.

How do you get funds?

Venture capitalist or other investors.

On the whole these guys want some assurance that they are investing in a sustainable market or expanding market.

 

Again all speculation, no hard data. Without hard data the discussion is pointless.

Goodbye.

That's great if you're talking about Joe Blow's Soda Shop trying to muscle in on 7-11's territory in a refreshing beverage strapped area.

 

Your wildly generic comments don't have any application here. The limiting factor in competition is how many caches and logs are listed. Not venture capital. At least speculate with some thought given towards applicability.

Your wildly generic comments don't have any application here.

The only kind of comments that apply are generic, nobody has specific supporting data for either argument.

 

The limiting factor in competition is how many caches and logs are listed.  Not venture capital.

Let me state it another way, if the market is there you can buy into it. If it were worth the investment somebody would do it. Perhaps you would understand an example. If I offered you a free gps for signing and a 50 Cal Ammo can for every cache you listed in the first six months I could build my data base. The idea is that the initial investment pays off by capturing first time customers, and part of the existing customer base that wants to change. Think like a cell phone company.

 

At least speculate with some thought given toward applicability.

I think the above arguments establish the applicability of my speculations. I'm sorry I didn't explain more fully initially, I assumed the implications of my statements were obvious.

[ju66l3r]

A free GPSr and ammo can doesn't transfer logs or provide enough incentive to warrant maintaing dual pages in perpetuity. For the finder it doesn't justify hand-sorting the duplicity from their searches across multiple data sets. The smartest and most common sense approach to our hobby is a single database with multiple data streams. That is where the hold-up in development of the market is.

 

Fractured data sets hasn't worked and won't work because the cost to the average hider to maintain their contributions to multiple data sets is too high and the cost to the average finder to access multiple data sets and determine the duplicity is too high.

 

You can't apply these simple promotion/cost analyses to our situation because of the specialized nature of the commodity (user-contributed data). Since the dataset is currently forced to be at stake with the company and the dataset is user-driven, your customers are your product. If you can't shift a large enough set of the consumer base, then you won't survive...and since a shift of that nature requires a fairly large upheaval of the current data, it's far too cost prohibitive to be balanced by promotion or any other benefit. With our specific situation, you not only have to convince people to switch (as you're searching for a solution for) you have to counter-balance their need to uproot their history in the hobby too (which is a far harder sell than monetary/promotional compensation because of the work involved). The easier path would be to create a "log extraction" tool that would be capable of being run by a novice user and would pull all or the majority of their finds off of GC.com to be pasted in the new database...but that would assume that the caches were there and ready for them at the same time...which means making automated cache transition necessary too. The whole thing is spaghetti network and unless you can grab enough strands of it to come over (all while staying within GC.com's TOS/TOU)...you won't be able to establish a competitive site.

 

In fact, the only way I think you could shift the consumer base here would be to wait for GC.com to become a "sinking ship" or convince them it is. Of course, since the average user doesn't enter the forums, I doubt the latter will ever occur.

[+rusty_tlc]

A lot of words, big ones to.

 

Translation:

Jeremy should open the GC.com data bases up to competitors "for the good of the whole".

In addition you seem to be saying that every cacher wants access to every cache through a single provider. What makes this true?

 

My experience is, the simpler the model the more useful it is. Once you start extrapolating beyond the available data you begin making erroneous conclusions.

 

The fundamental question: "Would the market support multiple service providers?".

You seem to contend that it would, what supports this belief?

 

I contend that it would not, and support this by pointing to the lack of other providers. My simple promotion/cost analyses is valid. Here is why, the specialized nature of the commodity makes its market limited. If there was a market share not being exploited there would be competitors, capitilism works that way.

 

 

Another question:"How big do you want the sport to be?"

Do you want competition as an alternative to GC.com, or to grow the sport?

(Okay 2 questions. )

[+as77]

I think that ideally, there should be a publicly available, central cache database. Currently the cache database is in Jeremy's hands and he only allows limited access to it. The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

Ideally, a nonprofit organization of geocachers would maintain a central, publicly accessible cache database. There would be protocols to access and update the database and maintain synchronized local copies of it. Then anyone could start up a website that would rely on these public services and would offer extra features. That would be real competition.

[+clearpath]

The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal.

[+rusty_tlc]

The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal.

I agree.

[ju66l3r]

Translation:

Jeremy should open the GC.com data bases up to competitors "for the good of the whole".

In addition you seem to be saying that every cacher wants access to every cache through a single provider.  What makes this true?

 

That is an incorrect summation of my post. While my personal preference regarding this are fairly well-stated in previous posts, I limited my response to what would be necessary for multiple competitors in the market. My post would more aptly be summed by saying: Jeremy must open the caching data to even suggest an equal competitor scenario could arise.

 

As to the single provider comment, here's a Markwell to an informal survey which says as much.

 

The fundamental question: "Would the market support multiple service providers?".

You seem to contend that it would, what supports this belief?

 

The fact that people post here all the time with complaints against the direction and priorities that GC.com takes/makes with regards to how the hobby works. Some settle for what is available, some leave in a huff, some go out of their way to interfere here after leaving, others simply refuse to financially support the site...but if any of them had an equal and better-fitting option, they would take it. People have their own ways of wanting to play this game and if one provider isn't willing or able to provide that outlet, another provider who does would pick up their business. My contention is simply that without access to the current data, there will never be an equal and better-fitting competitor, because to be equal will require providing someone with the staggeringly large amount of data available to them here. This doesn't even broach the argument that "geocaching.com" is the de facto direction that a complete neophyte is pointed to first (adding to the data here making it that much more difficult for a new competitor to grow/survive).

 

I contend that it would not, and support this by pointing to the lack of other providers.

 

This is called "begging the question" or "circular logic". You can't prove the existence of God by pointing to the Bible...which's existence is because of God.

 

If there was a market share not being exploited there would be competitors, capitilism works that way.

 

Consider the case of Buxley. Where GC.com's maps were not up to the standard that many people wanted, people turned to Buxley's website instead. BUT when GC.com shut down Buxley's ability to keep his maps current because they re-locked down the data, he is going to disappear. The current data must be available or competitors will not survive. The current data is never going to be available because the people who own the data (the users) aren't willing to uproot from the status quo and the only licensee of that data (GC.com) isn't willing to make it available because it wouldn't be in their best interest for their current business model.

 

Another question:"How big do you want the sport to be?"

Do you want competition as an alternative to GC.com, or to grow the sport?

 

I want the sport to be as big as it is capable of sustaining. Competition would be the solution to both parts of your second question. I'm not sure if the second question was a choice or two-parted...but I don't see them as being at odds at each other, so I say "Yes, I'm certain a competiting site (on a level playing field of data) could satisfy my wants better than GC.com and Yes I'm certain that competition would help grow the sport because more people interested in factions different than what GC.com provides would be drawn to the competitor that best fits their needs/wants."

[+as77]

The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal.

That's what I meant by "killed". It would be catastrophic. Just think about it, all cache pages would have to be retyped, all the logs would be lost, etc. That is death, even though the hobby would be born again.

The point is that the hobby currently entirely depends on one person and that is not healthy, regardless of how well-meaning and reliable that person is.

[ju66l3r]

The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal.

That's what I meant by "killed". It would be catastrophic. Just think about it, all cache pages would have to be retyped, all the logs would be lost, etc. That is death, even though the hobby would be born again.

The point is that the hobby currently entirely depends on one person and that is not healthy, regardless of how well-meaning and reliable that person is.

Fortunately, there are web archives that contain most of this information.

[+nfa]

and those web-archives reside...

 

seriously though, is the gc.com data backed up at another location...if not, why not?

 

nfa

Edited September 21, 2004 by NFA

[+as77]

The entire hobby depends on him. If on a whim he decides to give up this business, the hobby is immediately killed.

 

I don't think the hobby would die if GC.com packed up the tent and went away. True the current database would possibly go away, the sport would just have to start over or evlove more drastically than normal.

That's what I meant by "killed". It would be catastrophic. Just think about it, all cache pages would have to be retyped, all the logs would be lost, etc. That is death, even though the hobby would be born again.

The point is that the hobby currently entirely depends on one person and that is not healthy, regardless of how well-meaning and reliable that person is.

Fortunately, there are web archives that contain most of this information.

Yes, but... good luck recreating the cache database from the HTML page archives...

[+as77]

BTW where are those archives? www.archive.org doesn't seem to have the cache pages.

[+rusty_tlc]

Jeremy must open the caching data to even suggest an equal competitor scenario could arise.

Remains to be seen, first you must establish that the market exist.

 

As to the single provider comment, here's a <link>to an informal survey which says as much.

Didn't I hear somewhere that most cachers don't visit the forums? Shouldn't a poll represent a typical cross section of the group in question?

 

The fact that people post here all the time with complaints against the direction and priorities that GC.com takes/makes with regards to how the hobby works.

That fact that people post here complaining means that a certain portion of the members are unhappy. It does not mean there is a market large enough to support competitors.

 

This is called "begging the question" or "circular logic"...

Perhaps, or perhaps the lack of competitors is truly indicative of a lack of market, answer the market question to resolve the circular reference.

 

Consider the case of Buxley.

When did Buxley start listing geocaches? GC.com provides maps as a added feature, not the main attraction.

 

I want the sport to be as big as it is capable of sustaining. ...."Yes, I'm certain a competiting site (on a level playing field of data)

Sorry but the field is level, don't expect the first guy in line to share his place with a competitor, this ain't the feel good public school system.

 

Edit:fixed quotes.

Edit: Still trying

Edited September 21, 2004 by rusty_tlc

[ju66l3r]

BTW where are those archives? www.archive.org doesn't seem to have the cache pages.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040921122931/...e8-a867d8ebf045

 

That's a nearby cache in the wayback machine. You just have to know the right URL to use. Any "searches" through the wayback will lead back to the active site.

 

As for recreating the database from the HTML pages, most of the information can be grabbed out by parsing the html file easily enough.

[+Theseus]

My thoughts on the matter from a topic I posted to earlier in the summer:

 

A bit off topic but... I've never really understood why people get riled up over Jeremy/Groundspeak making money off of geocaching. As far as I'm concerned they bend over backwards to ensure that the bulk of the functionality is available for free. You can opt in to be a premium member but you don't have to.

 

Frankly, I hope Jeremy gets rich beyond his wildest dreams as a result of his hard work on geocaching.com (that may not happen but any money he makes is more than fine by me). Why shouldn't he? It's a business that offers more for free than most businesses do. I'm a paying premium member not for the extra features but because I want to support the site for all that I get out of it. Whatever that value amounts to it's a lot higher than $30/year.

 

Hmm, apologies for being more than a bit off topic and being a bit ranty but I'm always amazed at the making-money-off-of-gc.com is bad talk.. Thanks for making it happen and I hope the dough keeps rolling in.

 

(John Galt would be proud)

[+Robespierre]

transfer logs

Without reproducing a ton of text from above:

 

Your complaint seems to be that Jeremy won't volunteer to have his efforts (which he has earned from the beginning by providing what cachers want, and "feeding the frenzy")...to have his efforts dismantled or parseled-out (and apparently you would qualify to be the dismantler)....because...why?....you think that would make it better (by your definition). Gotta disagree with that.

Just because you buy a phone does not make you a stockholder. Putting a few bucks into caches does not either. You plant caches because that's one of the most fun parts of the game. If it's NOT fun, don't do it. It's not an investment. No credit given. No dividends paid.

[+as77]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

[ju66l3r]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

A little too simple. The cache data is not owned by Jeremy. He has full license to use the data any way he wants. Getting all (or even a sizable portion) of that cache data into a new repository from the content owners (cache hiders) is highly improbable. That is not good.

 

As this is the case, the market is forced to be concerned with both data AND interface/features. Therefore no competitor stands a chance (because of the data).

 

Imagine if Microsoft built Internet Explorer to view the internet...AND it was the only company with an organization of the "IP <-> website name" scheme for the internet.

 

Sure, your website could be named and owned by you, but you would only give that information to Microsoft because they already had the other billion sites setup in their scheme and adding your's means that anyone using IE (the only browser out there) could access your website just as easily as the other billion. You have no impetus to deposit your site->IP information elsewhere since everybody is hooked into the MS scheme. Nobody can build another browser because they don't have ready access to the IP->name schemes necessary. Beyond that, nobody will give them their IP->name information to create a new scheme and browser because the website owner would have to maintain that info on 2 independent internets. Sure, Microsoft wouldn't "own" the internet or your website, but there would be outrage that they had the lockdown on the data.

 

I reiterate that I have no problem with Jeremy making money from GC.com's features/interface...I just wish there had been more input in the beginning as to the business model that was chosen for the data collection/repository. I think all of us would be better served now (and in the future) from having healthier competition in the features/interface department. Those that are happy with everything exactly as it is right now would *still* be happy if the data itself were more readily available to everyone in the interface market. Those that aren't happy that they don't have good stats or maps the way they like, etc, would be able to find a competitor closer to the features they wanted.

 

Split the browser from the data and Jeremy could even make his money just by licensing the data/organization and/or providing the most advanced interface to this point. But having both controlled in the same company doesn't allow for a healthy competitive market for either function and that means the consumers/users as a whole suffer.

[+rusty_tlc]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

I think this (below) says that once you agree to let GC.com provide the initial listing of your geocache, maintain the server that the logs and cache pages are stored on, and promote your cache, all free of charge, they own the data, without respect to who's work created it or the logs. If you use the site you agreed to these conditions.

 

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions

 

Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

 

Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice.

 

The Site and all content available on the Site are protected by applicable intellectual property laws, and are for personal and noncommercial use. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved by Groundspeak or by the respective owners of the intellectual property rights. All materials available on or through the Site, other than Third Party Submissions (collectively, the “Site Materials”) are the property of Groundspeak or of its licensors and are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Groundspeak reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions upon Your use and viewing of particular Site Materials, and any such terms and conditions may be posted on the Site in connection with those Site Materials. You may not reproduce or retransmit the Site Materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, except as follows: You may make a single copy of the Site Materials solely for Your personal, noncommercial use, but such copying must be consistent with any applicable additional terms and conditions and You must preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with such Site Materials. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form and whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of such materials. If you have any questions, contact us at contact@Groundspeak.com.

.....

[+as77]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

A little too simple. The cache data is not owned by Jeremy. He has full license to use the data any way he wants.

That practically amounts to ownership, don't you think? If I can legally do to something anything I want then it's mine.

[+as77]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

I think this (below) says that once you agree to let GC.com provide the initial listing of your geocache, maintain the server that the logs and cache pages are stored on, and promote your cache, all free of charge, they own the data, without respect to who's work created it or the logs.

Isn't that what I said as well?

[+rusty_tlc]

OK, in simple terms: The cache data are not the product of Jeremy's work. He still owns them. That is not good.

I think this (below) says that once you agree to let GC.com provide the initial listing of your geocache, maintain the server that the logs and cache pages are stored on, and promote your cache, all free of charge, they own the data, without respect to who's work created it or the logs.

Isn't that what I said as well?

So you are aware of the terms and agreed to the terms by using the site. What is the problem? If you don't agree don't use the site.

 

How about another, plainly stated, prospective. I do the actual work of placing caches, writing cache pages, finding caches, and writing logs. I give these things to GC.com. In return GC.com shares my pearls of wisdom with the world and maintains the receptical in which said wisdom resides. I think it's a fair trade.

[+as77]

So you are aware of the terms and agreed to the terms by using the site. What is the problem? If you don't agree don't use the site.

This discussion is not about me, so I don't understand why you are bringing this up. We are discussing principles here. You should not move the discussion to a personal level.

 

How about another, plainly stated, prospective. I do the actual work of placing caches, writing cache pages, finding caches, and writing logs. I give these things to GC.com. In return GC.com shares my pearls of wisdom with the world and maintains the receptical in which said wisdom resides. I think it's a fair trade.

And if they decide tomorrow to format the disk that stores the database then the entire hobby collapses.

 

Geocaching is a hobby and the cache data and logs are the product of the participants. To put this database in the hands of one person or company and give up all the rights to it is not a wise thing to do. We, the geocachers lose all control over it and become entirely dependent on that one person/company. Geocachers should become a self-governing community instead and they should own the cache data. Then they can give licenses to commercial companies to use the data on the terms that the geocachers determine.

[+rusty_tlc]

So you are aware of the terms and agreed to the terms by using the site. What is the problem? If you don't agree don't use the site.

This discussion is not about me, so I don't understand why you are bringing this up. We are discussing principles here. You should not move the discussion to a personal level.

 

How about another, plainly stated, prospective. I do the actual work of placing caches, writing cache pages, finding caches, and writing logs. I give these things to GC.com. In return GC.com shares my pearls of wisdom with the world and maintains the receptical in which said wisdom resides. I think it's a fair trade.

And if they decide tomorrow to format the disk that stores the database then the entire hobby collapses.

 

Geocaching is a hobby and the cache data and logs are the product of the participants. To put this database in the hands of one person or company and give up all the rights to it is not a wise thing to do. We, the geocachers lose all control over it and become entirely dependent on that one person/company. Geocachers should become a self-governing community instead and they should own the cache data. Then they can give licenses to commercial companies to use the data on the terms that the geocachers determine.

Absolutely correct, let me re-phrase;

If an individual is aware of the terms and conditions of use for the site and they disagree with those term and conditions they shouldn't use the site.

Better?

 

As to the rest of your post;

I don't see a thing in the world that stops the geocaching community from starting their own site. In fact it could be happening as we speak, I think the idea might have been discussed before.

I still wouldn't expect GC.com to hand over it's data base free of charge.

 

BTW: Do a search on hobby, I think there has been some discussion on weather geocaching is, in fact, a hobby, sport, or activity.

[+flask]

ok, i think i understand two basic principles here: somebody does not like juggler's use of language, and people are divided as to whether gc.com is a good thing or whether a diverse field of providers would be healthy for the sport.

 

1) he should use whatever language suits him. words are good. a variety of words convey shades of meaning not available with simpler speech.

 

2) do you walk to school, or bring your lunch? i like most of how Groundspeak works. i'm not sure about the single database-multiple information-flow thing, but it does not seem unreasonable. i also think that diversifying our listing portfolio can only enrich the sport.

 

i don't list caches on other sites because it's too much trouble for me. i wouldn't multiple list caches because that just seems wrong. i'm not sure i have a cogent argument as to WHY.

 

maybe someday when i get that travelling cache or that telescoping cache or what-have-you going, i'll list it somewhere else.

 

meantime, i'm going to go buy a hat or something...

[+as77]

If an individual is aware of the terms and conditions of use for the site and they disagree with those term and conditions they shouldn't use the site.

That's self-evident but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

 

I don't see a thing in the world that stops the geocaching community from starting their own site. In fact it could be happening as we speak, I think the idea might have been discussed before.

True, but without buying up the geocaching.com database first, it doesn't make any sense.

[+rusty_tlc]

If an individual is aware of the terms and conditions of use for the site and they disagree with those term and conditions they shouldn't use the site.

That's self-evident but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

 

I don't see a thing in the world that stops the geocaching community from starting their own site. In fact it could be happening as we speak, I think the idea might have been discussed before.

True, but without buying up the geocaching.com database first, it doesn't make any sense.

1) Gee I thought it was in reply to your comment that GC.com owning the data base was somehow bad, sorry.

 

2) There you go. The original discussion was that gc.com should share it's data base and take profit from other services. If the geocaching community wants to get together and buy Jeremy out, well count me out anyway. GC.com is run very well, if the data base were maintained by a commity I have doubts as to it's long term viability.

[+Robespierre]

We, the geocachers lose all control over it

Or, you have the ultimate control...(and you know what that is.) Just think of poor Jeremy, loosing sleep, quaking in his hiking boots....afraid of your control. Thing is, he knows, after years of this, that he simply has the best that anyone can offer. We're gonna stay.

[+as77]

1) Gee I thought it was in reply to your comment that GC.com owning the data base was somehow bad, sorry.

Of course it's bad. But of course if one has no choice then one will agree with the terms if one wants to use the services. "Agreeing" just means that you accept the terms; it doesn't mean that you think these terms are the best possible in the world.

 

If the geocaching community wants to get together and buy Jeremy out, well count me out anyway. GC.com is run very well, if the data base were maintained by a commity I have doubts as to it's long term viability.

I think that quite the contrary is true. Businesses are fragile, they can collapse any time, especially if they depend on a single person. A community is a much more stable entity on the long term and doesn't depend on anyone in particular.

 

BTW there is no such domain as gc.com.

[+as77]

Or, you have the ultimate control...

No, because you have no choice and no one can offer an alternative as long as the database is practically owned by Jeremy.

[+rusty_tlc]

1) Gee I thought it was in reply to your comment that GC.com owning the data base was somehow bad, sorry.

Of course it's bad. But of course if one has no choice then one will agree with the terms if one wants to use the services. "Agreeing" just means that you accept the terms; it doesn't mean that you think these terms are the best possible in the world.

 

If the geocaching community wants to get together and buy Jeremy out, well count me out anyway. GC.com is run very well, if the data base were maintained by a commity I have doubts as to it's long term viability.

I think that quite the contrary is true. Businesses are fragile, they can collapse any time, especially if they depend on a single person. A community is a much more stable entity on the long term and doesn't depend on anyone in particular.

 

BTW there is no such domain as gc.com.

It sounds like you are stating your opinion as fact. I don't think the current situation is bad. I might well say "Of course it is good." And, as you mention, one does have a choice not to use the service, which was after all my point.

 

Agreements are rarely the best possible in the world for all parties, they are what the involved parties can live with.

 

I disagree that a community is more stable, I have seen two "hobby" sites go belly up and nearly vanish in the past few months.

And how will the comunity run the site? Witness the diversity of opinions expressed in these forums. How well would the sport/hobby/activity/whatever fare when the "I hate micros" start a war with the "micros are great lobby"?

 

A business in concerned with profit, if the principal(s) want('s) to give up and move on the assets will be liquidated. That would be the time to buy.

 

BTW GC.com is a term in common usage on in this forum as shorthand for geocaching.com.