Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can you point to one that says they don't? :eek:

When a claim is made and then support is asked for it, turning around and asking to disprove it doesn't provide support to that claim (and generally only undermines the claim actually).
 
Well of course all ad services run like this, Facebook's, Yahoo's, Google, Apple. The different is this is a tiny amount of Apple's massive multi billion revenue, where as 90% of Google's is from marketing, advertising, data mining etc.

Its also pretty easy to opt out of iAd data mining and still use all of Apple's products, you don't have that option with Googles stuff as its how they make their money.

The lack of success of iAds doesn't make it different. It just makes it less successful. Google is less successful with their hardware efforts. Apple is more successful with theirs. Apple and Google have different primary revenue streams.

You can opt out of targeted ads with Google and Apple. Even if you opt out, both companies will still serve you ads. They just won't be targeted. Both companies tell you that.

Here you go

To be fair, I was slightly wrong, the interviewer said Google, and then Tim went on to talk about companies who's main source of income is collecting personal data (eg Google)

Personal data. Hmmm. I wonder if you know what Apple considers personal data and what they consider fair game for advertising. Bet it ain't what you think it is. Btw, Googles main source of income is selling ad space. Preferably targeted, but they will still sell untargeted ad space. It's not collecting personal data.
 
Last edited:
Is there a way of hooking up Photos on OS X as the interface for this?

Love native apps, but also would love unlimited photo storage. Can't tell which of these loves will win, but if theres a way of pointing Photos towards Google, that'd be great. :)

I have a feeling that iCloud Photo library will morph into something similar to this, we may hear more about that at WWDC next month.
 
Thanks for pointing out again that people don't get what the word "product" really means.
Of course is Apple also using their information about users. The difference is that all (almost) of Google's products are about personal information gathering and analyzing.
Apple on the other hand is actually getting some money from selling iPhones.

Apple gets money from selling phones. Google gets money from selling phones. Apple gets money from selling ads. Google gets money from selling ads. One company gets more money from one stream of revenue than the other.

The difference isn't the amount each company gets from each revenue stream. The difference is people like you are okay with Apple doing exactly what Google does. Both companies collect a crap ton of information about customers. Both companies anonomize that data and use it to sell targeted ad space. No different. 'Cept Google gets more money from it. Although, if Apple initially hadn't asked a kings ransom for iAds, it might have been more successful.
 
Apple apologists out in full force I see.

This is cool, don't take enough pictures to warrant using any type of cloud service though.
 
A few months ago, I was deciding on a storage solution to backup all my photos. I wanted to use Flickr since it was free and had way more space than I would ever need. But I never found a good interface I liked that helped me get my thousands of photos online that I have organized on my computer neatly by year and by event or location or whatever.

In the end, I just bought 100 gigs of storage on Google Drive for $20 via the Drive app for iOS. What I love about this solution is it basically works like dropbox and syncs all the folders on my computer onto Google Drive. All I do is organize my photos on my computer and don't even think about the rest.

Now here comes this new Google Photos solution with basically free unlimited storage. My google drive is only about half full and I have almost a year left on what I paid for, so I'm thinking I just keep doing what I am doing for now. On the other hand, I'm thinking ahead and wondering what I will do in a year's time. Not a single photo I have is anywhere near the 15 Meg limit, not even from my Rebel XTi Camera.

Is there a way to "convert" all my photos in Google Drive into "Google Photos" photos so they switch to using the free allocated Google Photos storage?
 
You think Apple's safer on that front?

The NSA scares me, but Google scares me even more.
Why anybody thinks handing over even more of their personal data to Google is a good idea is beyond me.
 
Is it unlimited

I am lost, is it unlimited or are you capped at 15GB? If its capped at 15GB how is it advertised as unlimited?
 
I have a feeling that iCloud Photo library will morph into something similar to this, we may hear more about that at WWDC next month.

I hope so. I use very little Documents & Data (<1GB) and have 7GB of photos.

I can't store all these photos in the cloud, without paying to upgrade.

I can't store the first 5GB (or x most recent events) in iCloud.

If I use Photostream on my phone, all my photos are pushed to Photos on my Mac. This seemed ideal - automatically wireless pushing from my phone to my digital hub - until I realised there was no way of looking at photos that I hadn't put into any event. I can see All Photos, and Events, and that's it.

If you clear up your iPhone's camera roll, the photos are still on your Mac, with no easy way to highlight them all + delete them. What I need is an "iPhone Camera Roll" album.

So, while I love the new Photos app, I'm still using a cable to sync photos I want to keep from my iPhone, because the cloud side of things is insufficient.
 
Good News!!

As much as I like Apple they are terrible at cloud storage. Glad to see others stepping in with alternatives. I switched to Amazon Photo Storage with good results for me. Maybe this will send a message to Apple and they will do better. One could only hope!
 
I/ suppose that those laughs is because you think Google sell information. If so, can you point to any source that proves your claim?

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

Outlines it all right there in how they share (AKA sell) data to 'their partners'.

----------

The NSA scares me, but Google scares me even more.
Why anybody thinks handing over even more of their personal data to Google is a good idea is beyond me.

Its funny, people complain about the government, Google literally manipulates search results and news to secure political outcomes.
 
The NSA scares me, but Google scares me even more.
Why anybody thinks handing over even more of their personal data to Google is a good idea is beyond me.
Pretty much any personal service on the internet is scary on that level in that case.

----------

Brute force attack vs. Company that gladly hands over data to the gov't. Interesting comparison...
Well, for a brute force attack to work in most cases would mean that some safeguards that should be there weren't or weren't working, which was the case with Apple. And whatever data Apple has that it can get to it will also hand over to the government if/when it's required to. So it's not exactly that one is somehow really better or worse than the other in a general sense.
 
Google + my photos = never going to happen

And yet millions upon millions use and have been using Gmail, and/or many other similar online email services (with generally more sensitive and personal information than photos) just fine.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.