[Geowanking] update - open letter to google

Thu Aug 11 09:09:01 PDT 2005

> The real genius behind google maps is the API, this is the reason why
> google maps has succeed in 45 days while OGC has been at web mapping
> standards since 1998 and generally draws a, "Huh?"
I disagree with this.  Sure, their api is pretty decent.  But before
they had an api there were hackers figuring out how to build stuff on
top of it.  The 'real genius' is tons of really nice data, available
for free, and very fast, in an app that's a joy to use.  Any of the OGC
members theoretically could have done this, indeed a forward looking
mapping agency could even have done this.  Building such an app all on
open source software and high quality open data could have enabled even
more user innovation of interesting services.  People aren't going to
switch purely because standards and data are open, but if the service
below it is comparable, I suspect many will be more than happy to
switch.

Chris


My reading of the
> GO
> debacle was that it was a non-starter.
>
> I honestly don't see a reason why Google would want to play with OGC,
> especially in light of rumors of threatened legal action over KML/GML
> copyright infringment.
>
> sonny
>
> Josh at oklieb wrote:
>
> > In this vein, it might be more effective to show rather than tell -
> > if people at Google see adoption of a WMS wrapper around Google
> maps,
> > and interest in working on user interface objects as standards
> > (somewhat like GO geoapplication objects), they might be drawn to
> > join in, or at least react. If they see instead that people are
> > willing to restrict themselves to whatever tools Google gives them
> in
> > order to get at that gorgeous content, they won't have much
> incentive
> > to pay attention to anything else.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> > On Aug 11, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Greg Elin wrote:
> >
> >> Tim O'Reilly, in his presentations regarding open source and
> >> changing paradigm, often points out that the world is not binary
> >> between proprietary and open. There is a dance.
> >>
> >> It makes sense to accept that Google, like any interested party,
> has
> >> its own agenda -- or better put, own mixed agendas -- that  impact
> >> how it plays with others. But just b/c Google is a big  company
> now,
> >> we shouldn't forget that a company like Google, more  so than
> >> Microsoft, is *very* dependent upon the participation by  the
> larger
> >> community. This is another point Tim likes to point out  --
> infoware
> >> applications are incredibly dependent upon end-user  participation
> >> and contribution.
> >>
> >> There's always a tension between pushing a standard (or
> >> functionality) by getting everyone on the same page and just doing
> >> it and shipping good enough product that works.
> >>
> >> Talk to Google (again and again and again). And talk to others
> >> (again and again and again). And ship great code/apps (again and
> >> again and again)...
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2005, at 7:22 PM, Schuyler Erle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> * On 10-Aug-2005 at  4:05PM PDT, Jody Garnett said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> After you have put the story on your blog, could you please
> tell
> >>>>> http://slashdot.org .  This is just the sort of story that
> slashdot
> >>>>> will publish and it has a huge following in the tech community.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't expect you will get a response from Google unless you
> >>>>> publish
> >>>>> the letter to a large public forum (like slashdot).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ug, just the kind of bad press that google etc don't want. Try
> and
> >>>> talk
> >>>> to them first, I have it went reasonably well. Why start the
> >>>> conversation off on bad footing.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I definitely don't want to go on record as a nay-sayer, but I
> have a
> >>> feeling that we're wasting our time with this. Having visited
> Google
> >>> and met the people involved with their maps program, it doesn't
> seem
> >>> to me that they really have the budget or resources to offer the
> >>> things that the community would appreciate, as you point out. I
> can
> >>> attempt to make introductions myself, but I think that so broad a
> >>> platform of requests and desires would simply overwhelm them, and
> I'm
> >>> not sure that anything would come of it.
> >>>
> >>> The problem, of course, is that Google is a for-profit business,
> >>> ostensibly one with shareholder accountability. Unless we can
> make a
> >>> case for how they can justify our requests to their shareholders,
> we
> >>> can't really expect them to bite. Even though what they've done
> for
> >>> mapping on the web is pretty incredible, Google is still
> hamstrung by
> >>> obligations to their data providers. (Insert something her about
> "...
> >>> once you have paid him the Dane-geld / You never get rid of the
> >>> Dane.")
> >>>
> >>> I think we have to face the fact that the community must provide
> for
> >>> itself, and that no publically held company is going to go out on
> a
> >>> limb for us. To put it quite bluntly, Google doesn't owe us
> anything.
> >>> If we want Google's (or any other corporation's) help in building
> the
> >>> geospatial web that we all know is possible, then we're going to
> have
> >>> to come up with very tightly targeted proposals that will stand
> up to
> >>> the scrutiny of corporate due diligence.
> >>>
> >>> SDE
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Geowanking mailing list
> >>> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> >>> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Geowanking mailing list
> >> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> >> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geowanking mailing list
> > Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> > http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
>


----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: https://webmail.limegroup.com/