Mikel,
On 04/11/2011 05:27 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635
In the following message, all quotes are from your blog post.
I've given this matter some thought and I think while your concerns are
legitimate, you are perhaps overreacting a bit.
OpenStreetMap and Google have always been friendly competitors. We have
profited a lot from Google. They have invented many things that we could
copy (e.g. the "slippy map"); they have blazed a trail that we could
follow, they have made online maps into the commodity they are, they
have established the product and created the market.
How often have I had it easy to OSM to someone because I could say: This
is just like Google Maps, just that <list differences>.
Google have also supported us directly. Ed Parsons being present at a
number of State of the Map conferences has given us a credibility boost
in the eyes of many (when they could also have sent a low-ranking minion
for information gathering). Google gave us cash for a new server at a
time when money wasn't flowing like it is today; and they have given our
project Summer of Code stipends even though it would have been perfectly
in their right to say "no, we don't want to support the competition".
On top of all this, they have patiently accepted that we are bashing
their product nearly every time we "market" OSM: We are like Google
Maps, only better!
Google’s strategy is to build market in Africa by appropriating the
appearance of open data community methodologies, yet maintaining
corporate control of what should rightfully be a common resource.
I share your sentiment, but I have long given up fighting this. I stand
aghast at someone waving their iPhone, asking them why on earth they
willfully submit to Apple's dictate over what they can and cannot do on
this little machine that, for many, quickly becomes an integral part of
their life. Their answer: "It just works!" - I see people uploading half
their lifes to Twitter, geocaching.com, Facebook, and I say "don't you
know these are closed platforms operated by commercial entities with the
aim of maintaining corporate control?" - and they go "but everyone does
it, and it works so well, it doesn't cost a thing, and anyway it's not
really closed, look it even has an API!"
And what works for the individual also works for large organisations -
whole universities training their geography students in ESRI software
because ESRI made this great offer where the academic license was almost
free and comes with premium support - when one could argue that this
provides them quite a bit of corporate control over education.
What you lament for countries in Africa has happended to cities in
Germany in very similar fashion - the city had their own geodata but no
printed street map; a publishing house came along and offered to print
free street maps for everyone if they get an exclusive license to using
the data in print; the city said "great, win-win situation" and signed
the contract; now they're stuck with second-rate printed maps and don't
even control their own resources.
It happens all over the world, all the time - commercial entities making
offers that are too good to refuse, just sign away a tiny little part of
your sovereignty here and we'll give you all this for free. (Thing
exploration of natural resources!) I, too, find a lot to be criticised
here, but I think it is unfair to single out Google.
What bothers me so much is how they have blatantly copied
OpenStreetMap. First their MapMaker product is directly modelled on
OSM, but with a restrictive data license, where you can not use the
data as you see fit. Second, they have stolen the idea of Mapping
Parties, a unique concept and name we developed. Third, they’re even
copying initiatives to map impoverished informal settlements, like
Map Kibera.
I think "blatantly copy" and "steal" are not the right words to describe
the situation. Could we have patented the ideas of OSM and of mapping
parties if we had wanted to? I doubt it. It is ok for others to be
inspired by the success of OSM - just as we have been inspired by what
Google offers their users in online mapping.
I think we have to admit that "free and open" is a luxury thing. First
you want a working computer, and then you can think about whether it's
free and open. If Microsoft offers to install a Windows PC in every
school in your impoverished city, you will not say no just because it's
a proprietary operating system.
And while some might bash Microsoft for exploiting the weakness of the
other side in this situation, I don't think that's fair - they make an
offer and the other side is free to accept or reject.
Which brings us back to Google offering, as you say "free maps" to
impoverished countries in return for, I assume, commercial exploitation
rights to the geodata that has been collected. Yes, you could say
they're exploiting the weakness of the other side - but then again, just
like the iPhone user is allowed to sign away his liberty to install
whatever he pleases for a few of Apple's baubles because "it just
works", isn't the impoverished country allowed to sign away their
geodata in return for a non-free web map that "just works"? Maybe this
is all they want - maybe this is, indeed, the best deal for them?
It wouldn't be the best deal for me, but then again I am not using an
iPhone. I can try and talk people out of such decisions that I think are
bad, but in the end it is their call. I hate Apple for seducing them
("but don't you SEE, they're luring you into this golden cage") but
that's irrational; I don't have anything that would seem like a better
offer to them.
All of this with no credit, and no shame. I’m sick of Google. What
can we do?
I’ve tried to stay civil with them, through years of this kinda
stuff. I’m friends with many googly Googlers. But I don’t see
cooperating or being quiet helping at all. They’re deceptive and need
to be stopped.
Now if Google really was "deceptive" over and above what everyday
marketing entails, then that would be a point to oppose. However, I
think that it is very likely that even if you concisely and clearly lay
down the terms, spelling out the fact that Google retains intellectual
property rights over a lot of the data, they would still be taken up on
their offer.
Seriously, Google claimed to map “the largest slum in Africa”, with
“citizen cartographers”. They’re building their business by
glorifying half-baked “community” mapping initiatives, promoting
their brand on the back of poverty.
Now I don't know the details behind that. But if I am not mistaken, then
you told us yourself that when you ran the Map Kibera project, you had
to pay people to map because otherwise they would be forced to spend
every spare minute trying to earn money, and would not have time to do
mapping as a "hobby" like most of us. Correct me if I'm wrong but to me
this implies that once the money dries up, the "community" will also be
gone. If you want to make the point that whatever Google does there is
half-baked, then you have got to provide more substance, and explain.
Poor people, in my experience, often tend to be ruthlessly pragmatic -
if for some reason Google gives them better immediate results than OSM
can deliver, then they will go with Google, no matter how much us
westerners decry the lack of freedom.
I totally get why African governments and techies are excited about
Google. Their moves in Africa are going to help build up the market
for everyone. What is horrible is the hidden dangerous bargain
they’re offering. To most people, Google is not just a company, but a
force for good in the world. They even forget its a business, with so
much done for “free”. But remember, it’s an extremely lucrative
business, and they reason they don’t participate in OpenStreetMap,
like every other major internet company (AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo…), is
because it doesn’t make sense for their bottom line. They see value
in owning your data.
I think that's unfair again. As I have explained above, lots of major
internet companies see a lot of value in owning your data, and are quite
successful.
They’re moving to own the data of communities
and governments in Rwanda, Kenya, Zambia. They can do whatever they
like with the data, they own it. Of course, they will eventually take
advantage of that. Scratch eventually, they changed the terms on
Friday, so you have to pay to opt out of GMaps API advertising.
Again, I share your sentiments. I think that advertising, today, is
mostly evil, and I make every effort to banish advertising from my life.
However, I think this is a luxury thing as well. If advertising on the
map is the price you have to pay for someone mapping your country - and
if you're willing to pay that price because you get good value for it -
then why not.
I think Google's business model is sound, and while I would try to avoid
the advertising business as much as possible, the deal they have to
offer isn't unethical.
What would be unethical, and you have hinted at that, is if Google were
to deliberately mislead people about what the deal entails.
So my take on this would be not to try and "stop" Google or "shame"
them; just make sure that the other side knows exactly what they are
signing up for, and if they then still want to sign, then so be it -
it's their choice.
As proponents of free and open data, we could do our part in setting the
record straight - we could explain and exhort the value of free and open
data, and try to make people understand why we think that anything
non-free has considerably less value. We could monitor what Google
offers these people, and if Google's offer is indeed misleading, we
could point that out and request that Google play fair.
But even if Google are completely fair and tell everybody exactly what's
on the table, there will *still* be people who want to take them up on
their offer - just as there are people buying iPhones, or using Twitter,
or using Facebook, or LinkedIn, or Xing, or any other non-free platform.
We have to accept that.
Even if it is hard sometimes ;)
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
