Why can't other people share photos on our shared photo stream?

Ron Baltuch

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 22, 2012
4
0
Israel
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?
 

chenks

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
964
1
UK
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.
 

urkel

macrumors 68030
Nov 3, 2008
2,783
862
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?
 

chenks

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
964
1
UK
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.
 

cmChimera

macrumors 68040
Feb 12, 2010
3,930
2,764
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.
 

bbeagle

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2010
3,379
2,615
Buffalo, NY
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.
 

AlphaVictor87

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2011
797
27
Saint Louis, MO
I understand OP. It does seem a little odd but thats the way apple did it.

For example i have 2 shared photo streams in mine, one for me and one for my wife. One is a photo stream she shared with me, and one is a photo stream i shared with her.

In an ideal situation we would have one photo stream we could both upload to.

But i guess this is how apple wanted to do it.
 

bcnmac

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2012
39
0
Barcelona
Just registered to reply to this. I think it also is a stupid implementation.

For example, I live abroad. Wife and I both have iphones and I would like both to be able to share kids pics with my mom. Currently, I have to put wife's pics in my iphoto to use a single photo stream.

Ideally, we can both upload pictures directly to a common photo stream (while keeping our individual icloud accounts) to share.

Maybe an option with permissions would be the solution?
User X -> Stream owner
User Y -> Can add/delete their own photos
User Z -> Can view/comment.
 
Last edited:

bollyboy

macrumors regular
Apr 21, 2010
213
2
Manchester - UK
Agree, Photostream needs to be more customisable.

We had a family wedding and all took separate photos, I have 8 photo streams for one event. It's a pain having them all where we should all be able to add to one stream.

Hope it's sorted in next update, i've sent apple feedback on this already.
 

Sylon

macrumors 68020
Feb 26, 2012
2,032
80
Michigan/Ohio, USA
Blackberry's BBM had shared groups where everyone in the group could share their pics together, comment on them, etc. That is what I hoped Shared Photostreams would end up being. Unfortunately, it isn't. However, my friends and I just created our own streams and invited each other. Annoying? A little, but at least its better than not having anything at all.

Hopefully Apple will add an option so that Shared Photostreams is more like Blackberry's BBM group feature.
 

dontpannic

macrumors 6502
May 16, 2011
459
4
Orpington, Kent, UK
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.
What? I don't know what you're talking about there at all?

I can create a shared photo stream between myself and two friends. I set up the photostream and they accept the invitation. Because it's a SHARED photo stream, I would expect anyone invited to the photo stream to have access to add photos to it - so that the three of us can see photos shared to us from other people, and comment accordingly.

The current implementation is that the person sharing the photos can add to it, others can view or comment. That's it. This means, if three close friends are sharing photos between each other, we have three separate streams. That is a ridiculous idea.

All it needs is a 'permissions' implementation - you invite people to your shared photo stream, and give X person the permission to add new photos, but give Y permission to view photos.
 

cmChimera

macrumors 68040
Feb 12, 2010
3,930
2,764
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. More relevant, if people were on the same account they would need to do NOTHING for photostream to work because they would ALREADY HAVE A PHOTOSTREAM WITHOUT CREATING A SHARED ONE. You have no clue what you're talking about. The implementation is flawed, and if it isn't and is instead designed to work as you described, then it is a stupid and extremely redundant feature.
 

bbeagle

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2010
3,379
2,615
Buffalo, NY
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.
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 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.

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.
 

rorschach

macrumors 68020
Jul 27, 2003
2,064
591
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.
Um, that's not what "Shared Photostreams" means at all.

It's not for "FAMILIES IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD ON THE SAME ACCOUNT". It's for anyone you want to share them with. I just shared one of my Photostreams with a friend who lives in another countries and who definitely is not family nor on the same account.

From apple.com:
With Shared Photo Streams, you can share just the photos you want with just the people you choose
You absolutely should be able to allow others to contribute their own photos. I'm sure this will come either in 6.1 or iOS 7.
 

bcnmac

macrumors member
Oct 26, 2012
39
0
Barcelona
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.
Um, isn't this just the Photostream that every icloud account has? Your example is not an example of a Shared Photo stream. I have the same id on my phone, ipad and mac. The same user's content is pushed to all devices using that account.

I have a separate icloud account than my wife. I want to set up a shared photo stream where we can both selectively post pics (mostly of the kiddies) for the rest of the extended family.
 

cmChimera

macrumors 68040
Feb 12, 2010
3,930
2,764
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

WordMasterRice

macrumors 6502a
Aug 3, 2010
734
100
Upstate NY
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.
You can type until your fingers fall off, it seems that most people can't understand a use case outside of their own.
 

darknyt

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2009
599
91
You're kidding? Shared Photostream was a feature I was looking forward to having when I finally accepted the Maps disaster. And it doesn't even work the way you would expect or want?

What a ridiculous implementation!

For anyone commenting about Photostreams with a shared apple ID - STOP. That is not Shared Photostream - it's annoying to watch you flub it. My wife and I share the same apple ID so we've had this feature for ages too.

I'm wanting to share Photos with my parents and have them be able to dump photos in the same stream so we can all, you know , SHARE them. To be honest, Apple's implementation is more SENDING than sharing.

How inefficient and moronic that I would have to have TWO fricking streams to be able to accomplish this.

It seemed like such a natural idea, I can't fathom how Apple screwed this up - who is in charge over there now?
 

AlphaVictor87

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2011
797
27
Saint Louis, MO
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.
 

diogolg

macrumors member
Jun 14, 2012
87
6
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
 

AlphaVictor87

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2011
797
27
Saint Louis, MO
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
Yah thats what i was thinking of. They call it their ShareShot but yah you have to have that wifi direct on and obviously they must be in range, so basically next to you.

Or maybe it was the event page thing.

haha oh well, i'm ok with its current implementation, but improvements down the line would be great so we don't have to have 2 streams on our phone just for one person to share back and forth.
 

dotme

macrumors 6502a
Oct 18, 2011
931
84
Iowa
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.
 

tctony

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2009
684
0
Some of the comments in here make me wish we still had the "Downvote" button.

+1 to OP
 

diogolg

macrumors member
Jun 14, 2012
87
6
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.
I believe that (and hope) in future updates this will be possible. If you don't want people adding photos to your shared stream just don't give them the permission. Probably when they implement this, you will be able to choose if someone can only view or add new photos. Another 'feature' that they can make is only download a small version (thumbnail) of the photo, and then if you want the full one you choose to download it or not...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.