I understand that. I knew that when I signed up for Google Photos. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy free, unlimited backup of photos and videos. So I lose a little quality, what's the big deal? I'm not looking to store perfect pictures as I am no photographer by any means. I just want to keep them all somewhere for the memories.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Testing Redesigned Photos Web App on iCloud.com Beta With macOS-like Interface
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They should work on a Photos app for PC. There are a lot more iPhone users out there that aren't invested in the Mac
You could use Photos on iCloud.com at this very moment, on Windows and Mac. This is simply an improvement to that web interface.
I guess its unrelated but both the beta site and regular one will not let you login right now ????
and naturally the system status page at apple says everything is a go
and naturally the system status page at apple says everything is a go
Except it's not a backup nor is it a copy. What Google stores for you is objectively inferior to what Apple stores for you. You might not care, but to me the fact that Google Photos compresses and lowers the quality of those memories makes it immediately and fundamentally a non-starter to me.
You are being a fanboy here.
Google and Apple do THE SAME WHEN YOU PAY.
Except with Google, you can choose free tier with compression.
Grey is thinner and weighs less than color.
Jony's shirt is the primo color at apple.
For you it matters, and that's fine. But for the vast majority, all we want is to be able to store our things somewhere safe to look back at later. If it's degraded, it's not a big deal (for me). You can do what you want, but I still would like to see Apple offer something similar to Google Photos.
Does anyone know of a good alternative for cross-device/platform photo storage/management? It's like none of these companies seem to understand it well enough to get the basics right, let alone more advanced features.
Here's all I want...
A master local library, that uses the cloud to MAKE AVAILABLE that library to other devices. On the other devices, I just want thumbnails to browse and the ability to select what I want to store locally. And, then the ability to upload any photos from those devices to get incorporated/synced back into that master library. It would be nice to have native clients for each device/platform.
Kind of like what we had for iTunes and music before Apple decided to break that too.
I'd be very careful about thinking about any of these cloud-services as backup, especially since they are starting to (and encouraging) people to delete the local version of the data. In that case, it isn't even a backup, it's the primary copy being entrusted to a 'cloud' system with a horrible track record.
All your data should ALWAYS be stored locally somewhere, and THEN a cloud copy might be considered an unstable 'backup' primarily for access purposes, and you should ALSO have another form of backup (or two).
Heh. It might be 'pretty,' but it's horrible UI design.
Here's all I want...
A master local library, that uses the cloud to MAKE AVAILABLE that library to other devices. On the other devices, I just want thumbnails to browse and the ability to select what I want to store locally. And, then the ability to upload any photos from those devices to get incorporated/synced back into that master library. It would be nice to have native clients for each device/platform.
Kind of like what we had for iTunes and music before Apple decided to break that too.
I'd be very careful about thinking about any of these cloud-services as backup, especially since they are starting to (and encouraging) people to delete the local version of the data. In that case, it isn't even a backup, it's the primary copy being entrusted to a 'cloud' system with a horrible track record.
All your data should ALWAYS be stored locally somewhere, and THEN a cloud copy might be considered an unstable 'backup' primarily for access purposes, and you should ALSO have another form of backup (or two).
Heh. It might be 'pretty,' but it's horrible UI design.
Oh yes, definitely. iCloud Photo Library considers the cloud version to be the "master copy", but as long as you have the option checked to download everything on the Mac, the Photos client will keep a full independent copy of the photos and metadata on your machine. You can "disconnect" that copy from the cloud version at any time, and if you use Time Machine or some other backup method to keep regular backups of your Mac, you will have full backups to fall back on if something goes horribly wrong.
iCloud Photo Library has moved from something I didn't care for at all to one of my favorite Apple ecosystem features. It seems to be very robust* and convenient; the thing is you only get that if you use all Apple devices. Windows users will miss out on a lot.
I'd really love to see a good Windows implementation of Photos.app.
* - I have nearly 30,000 photos and over 400 videos. When I started using iCPL I did a thorough verification of all my data. I let a test Mac download my entire library and did md5sum verification with my original photos. No errors or signs of corruption so far. I'm extremely paranoid so it took a lot for me to trust the platform, and I now do. Mostly.
You need to try Google Photos. You will be amazed how much they completely nailed it even on the first day, and it's only gotten better. The minute I started using Google Photos I knew I was done with Apple continually messing up the photos services forever.
Thanks for the detailed response. I should take another look/try with it I guess before giving up on it. I think my big point of contention is how it handles sync with devices with smaller storage capacities. I don't want it filling them up. (And, it's my understanding that it does.)
As for robust and stable, as long as I can have a good backup, I guess I'm OK. I don't trust Apple's cloud stuff as far as I can throw it... they have a VERY bad track record, including a very irresponsible response when something does go wrong. (I used to work in data operations... Apple is kind of laughable in this regard. I really fear for all the people now allowing Apple to manage their storage and put stuff into the cloud only.)
I think my fear here is... Google. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with what Google might do (or one day do) with my photo library under their control. I guess I've given in on email, so I may as well take another step? I'm just not so sure. Also, Google apps are generally horrible in terms of UI and features... but I suppose I should give them a try and see. What do you think of the UI of their apps (assuming they have native apps)?
I had hopes Dropbox would be a good solution, as I already rely heavily on their service. But, they canceled Carousel, and I'm just not sure what they are thinking for the future of photo-management. So far, they've kind of half-#$$'d it.
Grey is thinner and weighs less than color.
Jony's shirt is the primo color at apple.
His shirt reminds me of the whole new flat interface of macOS.
I'm not asking for a cornucopia of colour - but surely just a little? My computer looks like a funeral.
[doublepost=1481037351][/doublepost]I had to separate my photos into two separate libraries as they were too porky and slow. I'm not sure that I could use icloud at all because of this. And I'm scared they will lose my photos in some iCloud glitch.
If you access iCloud.com on your iphone, you are not given the web version. Even if you request the 'desktop site', it does not load properly on your idevices. Try it. A recent example where this became an issue was when multiple users were receiving spam calendar invites and one way to address the issue was to go to ICloud.com and change the settings on calendar, which you could not do on your idevices (you had to use a desktop or laptop).