Does Google allow development

[goran77]

Is there anyone (preferably someone from Google) who can explain to me
whether we are allowed to create general purpose programs or not?

I have been writing this application for 7 months now, and it seems
like I can't release it?

Is this correct? Is this really what Google wants?

regards
Goran Nagy

[burebista]

The new terms seem to have confused lots of people. I didn't get any
answers to a similar question a few days ago and I doubt they will
answer now as they don't want to "interpret" the terms for you.

A simple issue such as "can a program be commercialized if used only
with the purchaser's own non-shared api token?" has become ambigous.

Would such a program be considered "internal use" if commercialized?

[burebista]

Even more confusing the "terms" page accessible via the api center
within your account doesn't seem to have been updated

https://adwords.google.com/select/AdWordsApi_TC.html

[Robert]

I have worked for 5 month (6h per day) on an AdwordsAPI based program,
and now I can't release it also. If the AdwordsAPI team doesn't
understand this, please read my last posting
http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api/browse_thread/thread/b5afb9fcb88eb948/ddab1eb1b351517e#ddab1eb1b351517e
(respectively http://tinyurl.com/9u2tv).

Robert

[dtracker]

A commercial version will be available on January 1st.

[burebista]

Do you mean a commercial version of adwords api?

If so, does that mean that no api tools should be commercialized in the
meantime?

(As no developer can distribute an application which can use only his
token - which developer has enough quota to be able to do that?!)

[nightmedia]

Can you share with us where you saw the information about a commercial
version, and can you give us some details?

[tomasvdb]

Seems slightly odd to me that any company would release a new
commercial product on january 1st. Good luck finding people to do
support...

[Kostas]

It's mentioned here:
http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api/browse_thread/thread/5ce29b31e28a8be9/2a9112d5533e99c8
I suspect that a number of the changes that we have been seeing
recently (like the T&C) are related to this.

[nightmedia]

I am still debating the morality of charging for accessing an API that
ultimately brings Google money anyway.

For the not so faint of heart, one could expand on the ideas presented
here:

http://hacks.oreilly.com/pub/h/2746

and use the Goggle's own web based admin, just to get the "high ticket
items" processed. That way, your API quota is not used. It has its
downsides, i.e. when google decides to change page layout, but how
often does that happen...

[inasisi]

As someone who did screen scraping(described in the oreilly site)
before the API became public, I can tell you that the page layout does
change quite often. Any change in the website is also that much more
difficult to propagate into your code. There is no way one would be
able to build a stable commercial product using screen scraping.
Moreover screen scraping is something that is very easy for Google to
find.

My take on this recent change is that, they want to charge money
through the Commercial version of the API for all the commercial
products. So this change in the Terms and condition is a precursor to
that.

[Akbar]

Just found this:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/inktomi314000.php
"Chris Lee and Goran Nagy (developer of Keywords Analyzer) today
launched a desktop based Google Adwords management tool, the Adwords
Dominator, designed to simplify Adwords management and bring all the
aspects of Adwords PPC advertising to the user desktop for ease and
convenience."

Is this program now illegal and forbidden, because the user must enter
its own token to this Third Party Adwords API client?
(Adwords API Terms & Conditions: "you may not use your Developer Token
with an AdWords API Client developed or hosted by a Third Party")

Akbar

[ro...@knowyourbiz.com]

Just want to chime in and say that I too, am anxiously awaiting to see
if the new Adwords T&C really prohibits API users from using programs
written by others - such as, for example, Adwords Dominator. Seems
terrible to let developers spend all these months writing programs and
then change the terms so that users cannot legitimately use these
programs - please say it isn't so, Google!

Robert

[dtracker]

I think we should create a front or at least an Adwords API dev. front.
There is a lot of questions out there that need to be clarified. I know
a lot of us are working on apps based on the API, I think we need more
info about this commercial version that is key to ur devellopment.
Maybe we should all send an email to Google explaining our concerns.

[burebista]

dtracker, it's pretty clear google doesn't care much about the
developer's concerns - they only care if they have angry advertisers
and/or bad publicity. Some advertisers using commercialized api tools
haven't realized yet they probably soon won't be able to continue using
them under the new terms.

I see more and more people becoming aware of the situation on various
forums and blogs.

[Chrisl1234]

Well, it's clearly a still a mystery.

Despite all the postings asking Google to clarify its position, there
is still no comment from anyone from Google. This thread has been going
for a week and I find it hard to believe that noone from Google has
read it.

If we mail Google, we're told to ask here, what the implications are
of the TOS changes. But here, it would seem, noone from Google wants
to comment.

What is clear is that

(a) Google opened up the API to allow developers to develop third party
tools.
(b) They ostensibly changed their mind by unilaterally, and without
warning changing
their TOS to apparently stop allowing developers from developing third
party tools. (Although
this construction has to be so ludicrous as to be verging on the
farcical - just what on earth
is the point of an API anyway?)
(c) They are not willing to talk about it in public.

>From this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the boardroom
has been
taken over by lawyers and all the employees are terrified of the suits
in the boardroom;
They've fired their PR people and now manage their press
releases by quietly releasing amended contracts and keeping quiet about
it afterwards.

The only thing that makes a modicum of sense is the forthcoming release
of
the commercial API.

Now, can anyone from Google stick their head over the parapet and tell
us whether third party tools will be allowed when the Commercial API
is launched on 1 Jan, and what the likely terms of that arrangement
will be.

What's more, is there any particular preference/dislike for the type of
tools
that could be developed?

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[Patrick Chanezon]

Thanks for the feedback Chris.
We've been reading all the forum emails, and acknowledge your concerns over the terms and conditions.
I posted an official answer on the blog and in the Forum today.

That's all I can stick over the parapet for now:-)

P@

--
Patrick Chanezon, AdWords API evangelist
http://blog.chanezon.com/
http://www.google.com/apis/adwords/

[Patrick Chanezon]

On 11/28/05, burebista <master...@musicians-anytime.co.uk> wrote:

dtracker, it's pretty clear google doesn't care much about the
developer's concerns

I am sorry that you would think that, we do care very much, and heard the feedback, even if we are sometimes slower to answer it than some of you might wish.

P@

- they only care if they have angry advertisers
and/or bad publicity. Some advertisers using commercialized api tools
haven't realized yet they probably soon won't be able to continue using
them under the new terms.

I see more and more people becoming aware of the situation on various
forums and blogs.

[jor-el]

Hi,

I am just wondering how does google plan to identify non-compliant
clients anyway ? Google Adwords API is just a SOAP based web service.
If people are using library X, that was written by author Y to send
requests to your SOAP enabled server how in fact do you plan to
identify this ?

I do not quite understand logical thinking behind your decisions, or
do you by "Third party client" mean something that couples the
communication
and interface together ?

Thank you.

[hmcclungiii]

I'd imagine the User-Agent field would be a start.

[jor-el]

Detecting what version of code library someone is using to talk to
their
system based on user-agent string the client is sending would be
ridiculous.

If they really wish to guard access to the API and make some sort of
commercial
program, they would need to support official client libraries for every
platform out there.
Also then what's the point of using SOAP. Just throw some propriatery
communication
layer that only your client library understands.

[hmcclungiii]

> Detecting what version of code library someone is using to talk to their
> system based on user-agent string the client is sending would be ridiculous.

Don't you set a UserAgent string? I've tried leaving it blank, I
always get a generic error from AdWords.

> If they really wish to guard access to the API and make some sort of
> commercial program, they would need to support official client libraries for every
> platform out there.
> Also then what's the point of using SOAP.

The point of using SOAP is that every platform does support it.

[jor-el]

>Don't you set a UserAgent string? I've tried leaving it blank, I always get a >generic error from AdWords.

This is not security. User Agent can be anything client wants to set it
to.
That's my point. You never put security into the hands of client.

>The point of using SOAP is that every platform does support it.

Yes I am well aware SOAP is open standard and widely supported. What I
am simply trying to say is if they want to limit access to the API,
from the official clients only that they design/release/maintain then
might as well use propriatery protocol instead of SOAP since people
won't be able to figure it out as easy. None
of this nonsense will work in the end though. I am just trying to show
them
how silly the ideas they are trying to push around really are.