I don't think Google's point is trying to prevent "inefficient"
coding. It's just simple economics. It costs them money to run the
Adwords API: hardware, software, bandwidth, etc. They recoup that cost
through API charges.
If your application isn't generating any revenue, it begs the question
why you're writing it in the first place (especially an Adwords
application).
On Mar 26, 10:15 am, Phil <5000...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I understand everything that you said, but I am afraid I don't agree.
> I am somewhat astounded that you are defending the API cost based on
> the fact that it prevents irrisponsible coding.
> And I resent the implication of your last statement.
> Remember: sometime any cost is too much, no matter the merit.
> We don't all have the luxary of ready cash.
>
> On Mar 25, 2:51 pm, Zweitze <zwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I tend to think that Google wants to prevent that you write software
> > reviewing all your keyword bids... every five minutes. If you do that
> > using the web interface you need thousands of people for a small
> > account. With the API you would only need one computer, and skills in
> > asynchronous programming. In the end Google would have to purchases
> > dozens of servers so you can squeeze another penny from your bids.
>
> > Note: in the beginning quota were free, but... limited. The number of
> > quota assigned to you was determined by the money spent by your account
> > (s). For every million spent in a year you got 100,000 quota every
> > month, or something like that.
> > That system had the drawback that small shops would have no money for
> > development, testing etc., so it kept the small parties small.
>
> > In my opinion, if you write software where its merits do not exceed
> > API cost, you're doing something wrong.
>
> > On Mar 23, 9:53 am, Phil <5000...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Besides the obvious extra income that the API generates. Am I right in
> > > understanding that the reasoning behind charging for API usage is to
> > > encourage most efficient use of the service? Are there any plans for
> > > the API charge to be reduced/removed if the code that calls it can be
> > > agreed 'most efficient'? For example, Adwords Editor (as a google
> > > application) dose not 'cost', but must use the API. Is the main reason
> > > that this application is 'free' is that it is trusted google code? Or
> > > is it because it is a 'human' interface tool like the website? I would
> > > hate to be cynical and assume that the whole thing was google's
> > > continual resistence to other people's code using it's service.
>
> > > Those of us who work 'back of house' trying to improve the lives of
> > > those having to deal with long lists of activity are being negatively
> > > affected by the fact that (in the case of google, and google alone) we
> > > are costing extra money. It maybe 'relatively' small when viewed from
> > > the point of view of google's overall ad revenue, however from the
> > > point of view of small department budgets and extra £50 a week adds
> > > up. Especially when the department (in my case) is one person. In this
> > > economic climate those of us who are not directly fee earners have to
> > > be very careful to not appear as a drain on company resources. I
> > > wonder, yet, if the API charge has lead to a developer losing their
> > > job?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"AdWords API Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to adwords-api@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
adwords-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
