This is stupid, why even call it shared photo stream if I am (the person who opened the shared stream) the only one who can upload picture there?
Thats a silly excuse.because they are your photos and you are the one sharing them.
surely any sensible person wouldn't want to give cart blanche access to anyone sharing your photos without you knowing about it.
Thats a silly excuse.
If I'm sharing a photo stream with the 45 other people who went to the same wedding with me then why wouldnt I want a group pool that everyone can put their pictures in and comment on?
because it's YOUR photostream.
it's not a system for everyone and their granny to upload photos to.
use Flickr groups if you want to do that.
It's a SHARED photostream. We think the current implementation is flawed.
If you want to give everyone in your wedding party YOUR apple id, and they use that apple id on their iphones/ipads/Apple TVs, then they will get your shared photo stream.
The 'shared' part is meant for FAMILIES IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD ON THE SAME ACCOUNT, not the world at large.
Maybe your definition of SHARED is different from Apple's definition, but this does not mean the implementation is flawed. This means that the description of the service is flawed.
If you want to give everyone in your wedding party YOUR apple id, and they use that apple id on their iphones/ipads/Apple TVs, then they will get your shared photo stream.
The 'shared' part is meant for FAMILIES IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD ON THE SAME ACCOUNT, not the world at large.
Maybe your definition of SHARED is different from Apple's definition, but this does not mean the implementation is flawed. This means that the description of the service is flawed.
Giving everyone my AppleID is a stupid idea.
Everything about your post makes little sense. If the feature was strictly for sharing with people using the same account, (which, by the way is an extremely small number of people. The idea that Apple designed a feature specifically for that is pretty ridiculous.) then why allow you to add other people to the stream, AND make it public. The implementation is flawed, and if it isn't and is instead designed to work as you described, then it is a stupid feature.
If you want to give everyone in your wedding party YOUR apple id, and they use that apple id on their iphones/ipads/Apple TVs, then they will get your shared photo stream.
The 'shared' part is meant for FAMILIES IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD ON THE SAME ACCOUNT, not the world at large.
Maybe your definition of SHARED is different from Apple's definition, but this does not mean the implementation is flawed. This means that the description of the service is flawed.
With Shared Photo Streams, you can share just the photos you want with just the people you choose
My entire family uses the same AppleID, and the feature works flawlessly. My wife takes a picture of my daughter's first day of school, and at work it appears on my iPhone and I can see it immediately.
I'm glad. Most people do not do this though, nor do they want to.My entire family uses the same AppleID, and the feature works flawlessly. My wife takes a picture of my daughter's first day of school, and at work it appears on my iPhone and I can see it immediately.
Flickr doesn't at all work like a photostream, and isn't even remotely close in the convenience the photostream has. How do you pretend Flickr works the same way as a photostream? You argument is simply nonsensical.I don't want to share ALL MY PHOTOS with more than just my family. If I take a photo of my wife that I think is a great photo, and an hour later she doesn't like the photo because she thinks her hair looked bad or something, I want to be able to NOT share that photo to the rest of our extended family. That's what sites like Flickr are for.
YOUR family photostream. I have FRIEND photo streams, and I want them to be able to share photos in one stream. I think it's stupid to have to have a separate stream for however many friends want to share photos. It's inconvenient, pointless and defeats the purpose of the feature. The feature isn't called family stream, it's called shared photostreams.Of course I won't share my AppleID with anyone outside my family, and of course I won't give others access to my FAMILY PHOTO STREAM.
I'm glad. Most people do not do this though, nor do they want to.
Flickr doesn't at all work like a photostream, and isn't even remotely close in the convenience the photostream has. How do you pretend Flickr works the same way as a photostream? You argument is simply nonsensical.
YOUR family photostream. I have FRIEND photo streams, and I want them to be able to share photos in one stream. I think it's stupid to have to have a separate stream for however many friends want to share photos. It's inconvenient, pointless and defeats the purpose of the feature. The feature isn't called family stream, it's called shared photostreams.
Not trying to like brag android, but doesn't the gs3 have this feature the way we are wanting it on our iPhones where you can get a shared photo stream and everyone can upload to it?
I thought i had seen a commercial about this, it was like this girl a wedding didn't have a gs3 and everyone else did.
Hmm as far as I know gsIII has S-Beam which allows to share one photo with multiple devices, but they need to be connected through wi-fi direct(?)
Shared photostream is a little different, you don't need to have your friend near you to share. Moreover, while we have this shared photostream we could upload images there, regardless the distance or when it was initially created...
An app that I know that support that (android only) is Google + and they new event-page-thing
It's not a "ridiculous implementation"
It's a very smart one. I can publish, and remove, photos from my shared stream any time I want to. It's my shared stream, I want full control over it.
Can you imagine 45 people all uploading photos to your shared stream, and how quickly phones will max out on storage? That's out of control. How would you turn that off?
No, I like it fine just the way it is.