Right. This is one of those cases that probably does fall squarely under 'robots' in the general Google ToS.
Now, I don't think many of us would object *on principle* if an open source app like Tux Typing took advantage of something like TTS, but we do not currently have a documented public API for it. The challenge lies in that, while the API team of course works closely with the individual product teams, we obviously don't run all of the dozens upon dozens of product backends ourselves. So for something like TTS, which for all I know was added to translate.google.com as a 20% project or by an intern or something, we'd need have the product team itself commit to supporting the feature as a stable public API for the long-term. The reason being, if for whatever reason the product team needed to change those endpoints, modify the functionality, or even remove it altogether, (which they can now, because it's only available in their own frontends), then all downstream apps, like Tux Typing, would break. And if that happened, then the end users (that the team didn't even know about) and the app developers (which the team also didn't know about) would be negatively impacted, which wouldn't be good for any of us. Thus launching a public API, or even allowing robots to scrape a product frontend, isn't something we treat lightly — there's a ongoing support cost to both the app developer and to Google, even for simple services. All that said, I'd be more than happy to ping the team (again) about adding an API for this particular feature. But until there's a public, documented API, I'd honestly advise against trying to use it in an app, not just because of the ToS, but also because the feature might change or go away without warning (because the product team didn't even know you were building on it). -DeWitt On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Jeremy Geerdes <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, it is a very, very rare exception that Google employees > respond to TOS questions because company policy generally prohibits them > from doing so. However, in this particular case, you will find this thread > relevant: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api/browse_thread/thread/303218f8de1c3e69/6b7bdfc52dd2ec0c?lnk=gst&q=author%3Adewitt+clinton#<http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api/browse_thread/thread/303218f8de1c3e69/6b7bdfc52dd2ec0c?lnk=gst&q=author:dewitt+clinton#> > > > <http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api/browse_thread/thread/303218f8de1c3e69/6b7bdfc52dd2ec0c?lnk=gst&q=author:dewitt+clinton#>In > particular, take note of Dewitt Clinton's response. Dewitt is the head of > the Google APIs team. > > > Jeremy R. Geerdes > Generally Cool Guy > Des Moines, IA > > For more information or a project quote: > [email protected] > > If you're in the Des Moines, IA, area, check out Debra Heights Wesleyan > Church! > > On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:41 AM, David Bruce wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for the response. > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Jeremy Geerdes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > To my knowledge, Google does not offer permission for access to the TTS API > except for their own application purposes. At the very least, I have not > heard of anyone getting such permission. > > > I guess I'd like someone from Google to clarify what constitutes > "using Google's interface" of http://translate.google.com. It seems > to me (at least arguably) that I am using their interface, just with a > highly stripped-down "browser" (wget), and perhaps a touch of "deep > linking". > > The following is what an ordinary human user does, basically: > > $ firefox "http://translate.google.com/translate_tts?tl=en&q=Hello+World"; > > > People don't usually type the target url in on the command line when > invoking the browser, but I don't think anyone would argue that a > website ought to be able to disallow it. > > Whereas what I want to do is: > > $ wget -q -U firefox -O "Hello+World" > http://translate.google.com/translate_tts?tl=en&q=Hello+World > > > From a programming standpoint, they sure don't seem much different, > and it seems strange that one would be permitted but not the other. > Of course, I would have wget be invoked by TuxType, which perhaps > would fall under the "no robots" clause of the Google consumer TOS. > > Anyway, it would cost Google nothing and would generate goodwill to > allow this. Google already has supported our project via a couple > dozen Summer of Code internships - it seems they could find it in > their hearts to authorize Tux Typing to make use of this service. > > Thanks, > > David Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google AJAX APIs" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google AJAX APIs" group. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google AJAX APIs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-ajax-search-api?hl=en.
