Sure, let's go ahead and start peppering our memories with fake enhancements. Next stop, fully fake 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.
Google Photos Will Use Machine Learning to Animate Your Still Shots
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please provide a source showing that's what Google Photos does (using the subjects of your photos as part of your advertising identifier).
Your general premise here is likely accurate, but you're making a lot of statements without any sources to back it up. That's really no different than the blind Google defender.
Fear based information is just that. Whether it's right or wrong, it tends to be tainted with bias and hyperbole. That happens on both sides here.
There isn't a source showing that specifically, because it hasn't been confirmed either way.
If you want to make the assumption that an advertising company with a known history of data mining people's personal information and creating profiles that track even non-users around the web, is now suddenly not analysing photos for similar purposes... more power to you I guess.
Personally I'd be asking for some evidence from them that they aren't doing that.
You call it "fear based information", but there's a much more common phrase at play here:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
We're well past twice, at this point.
It isn't 2001, Google isn't just some techno startup from a dorm room with bright eyes and good intentions.
Listen, I'm not some huge Google fan. But I am a fan of rational thought processes, and what's going on here is not rational. Google has, for years, been extremely transparent about the fact that they mine users' data for their ad purposes. Most people don't actually read their terms and descriptions - but they actually do a pretty good job of telling you what they're doing with your data and why (which also addresses your "fool me once..." comment). They've also been very transparent when they stop doing that with a particular service (like Gmail for example).
So for you to make a claim, even if it was loose, that they're using the actual subjects of photos in that data mining profile, that's a fear based remark, and without some actual info to back it up, is not much better than general "FUD".
I'm not making any assumptions here. They could very well be doing it. I'm asking you to provide backup for your assumption - otherwise it's just that, and comments like that just feed into a fear based narrative. If it ends up being true, then so be it, and we can all address it at that point.
Edit: Also, if you think Apple is "bright eyed" with only good intentions here, you're misguided as well. They are both corporations with one goal in mind - maximizing shareholder value. Do I like Apple's approach better? Absolutely. But there's some genius marketing going on there with Apple as well.
You and I have a very different opinion of what being "Very transparent" means.
their privacy page is very hand waivey about how they use data and the key problem is still the same: you’re trusting them with it.
whether they use the actual data gained from photos for ads right now is like 1% of the problem I’m describing.
the whole point of apple’s on-device ML is that they literally can’t just suddenly decide to slip a quiet change to the terms and use and hey presto all those learned attributes are available for them to use.
Apple and Google both have shareholders and their goal is profit - no question. But that’s ignoring the vastly different business model.
Apple sells you and I, devices and services and content. We pay to use stuff they make or provide access to.
Google sells access to people’s eyeballs and attention, in the form of ads. Everything else is an afterthought. Until quite recently literally no other business units at Google made any profit, and the majority actually lose money, hand over fist.
Ads are Googles cashcow, and there is zero reason to trust that their claims to not use data captured today won’t change tomorrow.
You can choose to call this irrational fear of you want, and I can choose to call your opinion of Google irrational trust. That’s the beauty of opinions: we all get to have one.
This is just dumb.
Now you have to consciously take two pictures for every moment, meanwhile Live Photos works with one shot
They say two similar, but I wonder what they could do with a Full-Res burst photo "set" where each photo is spaced 1/30 second apart (i.e., captured @ 30 fps).
Could they make it look as if it was captured @ 60 fps ?, or even better, @ 120 fps ?
Perfect OR near-Perfect Cycle-to-Cycle Timing capture performance would be needed to make it a possibility !
Could they make it look as if it was captured @ 60 fps ?, or even better, @ 120 fps ?
Perfect OR near-Perfect Cycle-to-Cycle Timing capture performance would be needed to make it a possibility !
