Google Photos is next generation.

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
5,244
1,914
Well I'm on board with Google Photos. I used it in the past when it was buried in Google+, but I didn't like using that network.

Now that Google has set it free, I'm back. And I must say it feels next generation, compared to Apple's offering.

After using Apple Photos, I have to say, I'm not even sure why they ditched iPhoto. I feels the same, and does the same. Other than the full iCloud integration, all I see is a Facelift. I still have to manually make albums, tag faces, etc., just like in iPhoto.

Google however, feels next generation of photo management. It nails faces automatically.

Some things I'd like to see added:

1) Adding names to faces. I should be able to search by a name, then Christmas and pull up all Christmas photos with that person in it. Or name 1 + name 2 and pull up all photos that have me and my wife in them for example.

2) Google+ had a Highlights feature would automagically showed you the best photos you have (based on some composition algorithm) and hide the "lesser" photos. I'm sure this is coming.

3) Snapseed editing. I'm not sure why this is missing, but they just have some very basic editing and some filters to start with. I really do like Apple Photos magic editing where you change one slider and the other slides compensate.

4) A way to print photos, make a photo book and slideshows. (edit: slideshows are there, just in a weird place).

5) Flashback feature. Resurface my old photos daily using the Highlights feature.

6) Apple TV support, but I'm sure that's a long shot.

Out of the box Google feels more robust out of the box. It's clean and fast, and of course, they understand the cloud much better than Apple has ever done over the last decade. Mulitselect is brillant as photos are files that are in great number and selecting them one by one is a pain in the butt. Why Apple insists and making everything a "tap" when a mobile device is a touched/gesture based platform is beyond me. It's like they don't ever think about how to get more out of a touch based device.

I think I'll be letting Google handle all my family & friend photos, instead of my Dropbox+Carousel method. Dropbox is forever slow to bring new features and functionality to the app, but it was the best solution for the time. I still use Flickr solely as an offsite backup and Apple TV screensaver.
 

Paco II

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2009
1,728
411
I'm feeling the same way. Was also using Carousel and kept hoping they would add the features that Google Photos has. Now using GP.

One word of caution: I am using the non-unlimited option of full size. Web uploads are downsizing videos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
Comment

Designer Dale

macrumors 68040
Mar 25, 2009
3,950
100
Folding space
There are no ads in Google Photos. Why would they show me an ad for something I clearly already have?

Stop being dramatic.
He's referring to the fact that Google can use your photos to gather even more ad related information on you than they already do. Remember that Google is an advertising company that makes all of it's money from selling personal information of users like us.

Dale
 
Comment

Paco II

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2009
1,728
411
I assume your comment is about privacy? Same old story. Google Photos is an amazing product. The search feature is beyond amazing. Blows IPL out of the water. I love Apple and iOS. I'm no hater. But Google Photos is simply an outstanding product.

Just a company you want to avoid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
Comment

Padaung

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2007
462
78
UK
Google Photos is an amazing product. The search feature is beyond amazing. Blows IPL out of the water. I love Apple and iOS. I'm no hater. But Google Photos is simply an outstanding product.
Totally agree. I tried the search feature and my jaw was on the ground with amazement. It is an amazing product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AleXXXa
Comment

robgendreau

macrumors 68040
Jul 13, 2008
3,337
254
What are the terms? RAW storage? How much for more? I couldn't find that easily, and Google+ was such a mess in that regard I haven't paid much attention.

Flickr also has a freaky search/sort thing now, which lumps things like all your people or animal photos automagically.

Still better than IPL though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xoAnna
Comment

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
5,244
1,914
Yes, Google Photos RAW, but you'll need to opt for a paid account.

Google's search feature does the same thing as Flickr, but way better. Face tagging was stellar that I'm shocked on just how far Apple is behind on this forcing me to do it my self and confirm each one. Lame.
 
Comment

Paco II

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2009
1,728
411
GP keeps impressing me. I tagged a photo I took with a cast member from Orange Is The New Black with "Orange Is The New Black". I did a search in GP for "OITNB" and it showed the photo.
 
Comment

v3rlon

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2014
581
237
Earth (usually)
Yes, we all know that. There's nothing malicious about that.
"Nothing malicious about that." Why, its just like the NSA doing it, but with less oversight. Little brother is scarier than big brother ever was.

You know those credit reporting agencies like Equifax? They are in the same business. Now imagine someone with 700+ pages PLUS 15GB of photos about you along with a record of everything you ever bought with a credit/debit card. What could they do with that info? What would someone want with that info?

Oh look, John has been doing web searches on cancer treatment and racking up a lot of copays. Insuring him will get expensive. Are you sure he's a good fit for this job?

From these photos, Angie is LGBT, best not hire or promote her.

With a credit score like that, Bobby is in no way management material.

Looks like Jessie is shopping a resume, welcome to the front of the layoff line.

Oh look at that facebook/myspace picture. I do not like it. Cancel her degree plan and tell her tough on that $40,000 she spent. We aren't going to let her be a teacher. She can have some other degree instead.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/0...e-over-drunken-pirate-myspace-photo-sues.html and http://boingboing.net/2007/05/01/drunken-pirate-myspa.html because it shows the image)

So yeah, knowingly giving weapons to people who will misuse them is malicious. We are so quick to do it because Terrorism and for the children. We just need to apply the same fervor 'because multi-million dollar faceless corporations act like sociopaths.

So no, not supporting Google anymore than I absolutely have to.
 
Comment

appleguy123

macrumors 604
Apr 1, 2009
6,558
638
15 minutes in the future
"Nothing malicious about that." Why, its just like the NSA doing it, but with less oversight. Little brother is scarier than big brother ever was.

You know those credit reporting agencies like Equifax? They are in the same business. Now imagine someone with 700+ pages PLUS 15GB of photos about you along with a record of everything you ever bought with a credit/debit card. What could they do with that info? What would someone want with that info?

Oh look, John has been doing web searches on cancer treatment and racking up a lot of copays. Insuring him will get expensive. Are you sure he's a good fit for this job?

From these photos, Angie is LGBT, best not hire or promote her.

With a credit score like that, Bobby is in no way management material.

Looks like Jessie is shopping a resume, welcome to the front of the layoff line.

Oh look at that facebook/myspace picture. I do not like it. Cancel her degree plan and tell her tough on that $40,000 she spent. We aren't going to let her be a teacher. She can have some other degree instead.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/0...e-over-drunken-pirate-myspace-photo-sues.html and http://boingboing.net/2007/05/01/drunken-pirate-myspa.html because it shows the image)

So yeah, knowingly giving weapons to people who will misuse them is malicious. We are so quick to do it because Terrorism and for the children. We just need to apply the same fervor 'because multi-million dollar faceless corporations act like sociopaths.

So no, not supporting Google anymore than I absolutely have to.
Pretty sure the data is anonymized if it ever leaves Google. Not just for ethical reasons, but for their business model. Why would they sell the data they carefully mined about you when they could use it themselves?
 
Comment

v3rlon

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2014
581
237
Earth (usually)
Pretty sure the data is anonymized if it ever leaves Google. Not just for ethical reasons, but for their business model. Why would they sell the data they carefully mined about you when they could use it themselves?
Anonymized?

Can you write 700 pages of data about yourself, include pictures and NOT know exactly who you are? With your Birthday and zip code, I have you at >95% accuracy. Everything after that refines it. So no, not really.

And ethics? Yeah, because large corporations always behave ethically. They would never do anything legally or morally wrong unless they thought they could get away with it or if the fine was less than the profit to be gained from it.
 
Comment

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,681
70
Sendai, Japan
Pretty sure the data is anonymized if it ever leaves Google. Not just for ethical reasons, but for their business model. Why would they sell the data they carefully mined about you when they could use it themselves?
You're right that people should not panic, because other entities such as VISA or that loyalty program you're a member of collects those information but does not anonymize. It's in Google's interest to keep their information private towards other companies, because that's their secret sauce. Nevertheless, Google does have that data and can use it internally as it sees fit — and we have to trust Google to handle it ethically and safely. There is certain information Google can give (if it is legally obliged to, for instance) but Apple can't. Facebook, for instance, computes attributes like sexual orientation from your social graph, I'm sure Google does the same.
 
Comment

Paco II

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2009
1,728
411
I disagree. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not you trust Google. All that does is pollute this thread which is trying to discuss Google Photos.

This is a crucial part of the value proposition of Google Photo IMO.
 
Comment

v3rlon

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2014
581
237
Earth (usually)
I disagree. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether or not you trust Google. All that does is pollute this thread which is trying to discuss Google Photos.
Not at all. If Adobe upped the price on Lightroom to $400 a month and cancelled perpetual licenses, that would greatly impact its value compared to Capture One Pro without altering its functionality.

The fact that Google uses and sells information about you while not charging you money for the software is part of the value. That information is usually yours to do with as you please, but burying terms in pages of fine print let you know that your interests are definitely not being served.

Imagine if the terms allowed them to sell you house and car, and keep the profits. Would it be a good deal then? They are trading your information, and they are making quite a bit of money doing it so that information is valuable. Could you get a better deal on it if you could control it better?
 
Comment

Paco II

macrumors 68000
Sep 13, 2009
1,728
411
None of what you're saying is unique to Google Photos. You either trust Google or you don't. No one's mind will be changed here. Your posts are intended to try and inject debate and just pollute the topic. There are other threads to discuss Google and their practices.

Not at all. If Adobe upped the price on Lightroom to $400 a month and cancelled perpetual licenses, that would greatly impact its value compared to Capture One Pro without altering its functionality.

The fact that Google uses and sells information about you while not charging you money for the software is part of the value. That information is usually yours to do with as you please, but burying terms in pages of fine print let you know that your interests are definitely not being served.

Imagine if the terms allowed them to sell you house and car, and keep the profits. Would it be a good deal then? They are trading your information, and they are making quite a bit of money doing it so that information is valuable. Could you get a better deal on it if you could control it better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: xyzoptics
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.