[OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda

[Steve Bennett]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> You said they gave it away for free, but in the process your privacy
> is being eroded, mind you people give their passwords away for pens so
> most people probably will never understand or care about the
> consequences until it effects them personally in a negative way.
>

So much hate...


> That's Liz's dept, I don't hate google for giving away maps, but
> please stop using the word "free" it's too ambiguous, there ain't no
> such thing as a free lunch when it comes to mega corps...
>

So much hate...


> No, google is evil because of their lack of respect for privacy, you
> really need to stop trying to claim I think their evil because they
> give map tiles away to individuals.
>

Ok, I misunderstood. So your position is:
1) Google gives maps away, which people want.
2) In exchange for their privacy.
3) Which makes them evil.

I agree with 1, probably 2, still making up my mind about 3.



> You are the one push #2, stop putting words in my mouth, I may have
> issues with google but it's not for the reasons you are implying.
>

Just trying to understand. If I restate your views incorrectly and you
correct me, then at least we're on the same page.

I didn't say nothing of value, again putting words in my mouth and
> taking my comments out of context. I said nothing of real value, map
> tiles may have some inherient value but that isn't where the real
> value is, it's in the raw data and they most definently don't give
> that away for the most part.
>

Maps have more than "some value". Maps have enormous value, and have done so
for centuries. Whether or not you get the data used to render the map in
some digital form is still a smaller consideration. It's simply not correct
to imply that the data is "real value" and the rendered form is some
trifling concern.

Do you disagree? I feel that having high quality rendered maps of an area is
like a 9/10 and having the raw data to do cool stuff with is a 10/10. What
would your numbers be?

Again you are implying stuff I never said, you need to refine your
> comments to what has been said not what you think I was implying...


You said "They want to be able to sell map data without giving anything away
of
real worth to anyone else"

And I paraphrased that as "the notion that G provides nothing of value".

That seemed reasonable to me. You now propose that the difference between
"value" and "real worth" is the raw data. That's ok. It's an unusual
distinction, which I don't think I could have been expected to read into it,
but no problem - sorry for the misunderstanding.

My
> comment was about them not releasing raw data, map tiles are only of
> limited use and is very limiting in terms of what could creatively be
> accomplished with real mash ups, not the limited subset google allows
> so they can push their advertising.
>

Out of curiosity, what advertising? The only "advertising" I see on google
maps is businesses whose names match your search terms. Is that what you
mean?

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091218/7344125a/attachment.html>