If you look at the cost for what we get out of it, yes – that’s reasonable. But what are groundspeak providing for that? A website that’s often slow and unusable, and a database full of our content. Caches and logs are made by the users, the website just glues them together. Even the stats have been done better by others for free. The map needs GME to make it better (and why don’t GS take these very popular features and roll them into the core?)
(BTW, car fuel. I find it doesn’t seem so expensive if you think of it as liquified explosive dinosaurs)
Muddypuddles is right about the monopoly, and that they can afford to ignore us. It is a business, and it’s all business, but it’s not good business.
I like the idea of a gateway site, especially if it could display everything on one great map and build PQ’s, handle field notes and do logging all in one place. That would be quite nifty!
But if it got popular and threatened them, wouldn’t groundspeak prevent access? (the backend API is used by apps and some web services to give access to information, but this generally requires a premium membership too)
I’m not sure they need our money so much that they care about losing a few premium members here or there. Probably prefer it if it gives them a quiet life.
(Tamerton: Kinda. They’ve said if you have recurring membership (ie, you trust gs enough to store your CC details in their database), you won’t be affected – but that people who pay when it’s due will. But communication and truth have both suffered so far, so who knows?)