Google Photos Launches With Unlimited Storage, Completely Separate From Google+ 175
An anonymous reader writes with a report that Google yesterday announced at its I/O conference a photo-storage site known as Google Photos. Says the article: The new service is completely separate from Google+, something Google users have been requesting for eons. Google is declaring that Google Photos lets you backup and store "unlimited, high-quality photos and videos, for free." It's a bit creepy to see all the photos that Google still has on tap, including many that I've since deleted on my phone.
that's what spy agencies do (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what spy agencies do. They keep your photos for 20 years after you've already forgotten about them, and then POW. When you step out of line and vote for the wrong person or support the wrong cause, they'll dredge them back up, and blackmail you on the basis that you were sitting together in the same bar as a known bad guy one day while you were both in college.
TANSTAAFL.
Re:that's what spy agencies do (Score:5, Funny)
Pftbt, I'd be impressed if any Google service lasts 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they shut down Reader doesn't mean they threw the dataset away.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh, yeah, that's me and Hitler. He was one angry MF, believe me, but it was kinda fun to listen to him rant, at least until he tried to take over Munich. Got any old photos? How about that one of me and Marlene Dietrich? Whaddya mean that never happened?"
Re: (Score:2)
Then do what everyone else does - donate and just check the box that marks it anonymous.
Everyone says Steve Jobs didn't donate a penny to charity, yet he did. Of course, he did it anonymously, because you never know how it's going to appear. And no, he decided his image didn't need the afterglow from the charities he gave to. I'm
No thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather just use Flickr or write my own little CMS. Google, you're a bloated, shitty company now. You release flop after flop and have ruined or killed all your older good products. Your social hubris has humiliated your reputation. 10 years ago I'd be excited about this news. Now I simply don't even care.
Amen to that (Score:4, Insightful)
Try the new Google maps, when you embed it, it now only has one view onto a map (rather than one view per embed) and any selected market is lost.
Switch between street view and maps view and the location your street view is gone.
Stuff is hidden, what your maps? You click the cursor on search, and wait and a little menu 'My Maps' will drop down.
Want to edit your maps? Well you have to switch to the original map then edit, and in that edit mode you lose Satellite view now.
It's shite.
Android they're only just adding fingerprint and multi-window, split keyboard, and USB file browsing, whereas Samsung has had these for years.
It still doesn't play nicely with network drives insisting you store your stuff in Google spy cloud.
Face it, they have jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:1)
Google bought QuickOffice, which has been a third party office compatable since the PalmPilot days, and reconfigured it to only load files from Google Drive. Forget about using it with the files you have on your SD card. "SD card??? What is that? You're not supposed to have an SD slot. You're just being all obsolete!"
Ner ner! (Score:5, Insightful)
Backup...using a Google service? I prefer my backups to be reliable and private, thank you. Although hard drives do occasionally tell me "Hey, you've got a week to get your shit off me, ner ner!", at least they can't help it.
Re: (Score:1)
Backup...using a Google service? I prefer my backups to be reliable and private, thank you. Although hard drives do occasionally tell me "Hey, you've got a week to get your shit off me, ner ner!", at least they can't help it.
But it IS reliable and private. It's only NOT private when you take the "Free" options. I've been using Google Photos for backing up my entire families photos (80gig and climbing) for years. It costs me a $1 and is as complicated as checking a box on each of our phones.
If you want something else... ok write it and stop bitching.
Re:Ner ner! (Score:5, Informative)
But it IS reliable and private. It's only NOT private when you take the "Free" options.
[citation needed]
From the Terms of Service [google.com]:
Neither that, nor their Privacy Policy [google.com] mention any exceptions for Photos if you pay for them. Where did you get this idea?
Re: (Score:2)
a) Think of everything people expect a photo hosting service to do. How to you think you can legally do them without those permissions?
b) Nothing in there refers to public posting that the user did not request.
Re:Ner ner! (Score:5, Insightful)
The demands they make are ridiculously broad, not only do they ask for the right to take anything you upload and repurpose it in whatever way they please, they even demand this on the part of their partners, "those we work with." A picture (which you thought you deleted) of you and your ex-girlfriend at the zoo appears on a Samsung phone in an ad? Covered under the agreement. Can you tell me any other photo sharing service that demands this?
Apple's language on this point is instructive:
That's it, that's all you need.
Really important point: someone who holds media for someone else doesn't need to obtain any kind of license. You only need a license if you want to be able to make copies of something and put them in public for your own purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
"they even demand this on the part of their partners"
Because otherwise they would never be able to add anything that involved anyone else ever without asking for new permissions at any change and supporting all possible combinations of acceptance and rejection. Want to add an "Export to Facebook" bridge? Can't do it, no license. Want to apply Instagram filters and bring it back into Google Photos? Can't do it, no license.
That bit of Apple's license is only good by itself if they don't interoperate with anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright doesn't work like that, if you send a link to someone you are the one making the copy, not Google. All of the technical operations Google performs on your behalf are copies you are making, with Google as an agent; if you distribu
Re: (Score:2)
"Please cite a real example"
Strictly speaking that's not a relevant counterargument since the question is about what could or couldn't they do not what are or aren't they doing.
Re: Ner ner! (Score:2)
Selective much? You missed the sentance before:
You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
and particularly the sentance immediately after:
The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.
So no, they can't do anything they like with your content. Worst they can do is use it in an ad for the Photos service, or use it in a training dataset.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read my post? I was contesting the idea that paying for service from Google gets you any different treatment than using their "free" service.
The post to which I was responding, which I explicitly quoted said:
But it IS reliable and private. It's only NOT private when you take the "Free" options.
Re: (Score:2)
And what part of and to develop new ones in that sentence you quoted are you unclear about?
If they decided to launch a Google dating service, those photos could very well be used to help "develop" it (i.e., pre-populat
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer my backups to be reliable and private, thank you.
Privacy is a valid concern. However...
Although hard drives do occasionally tell me "Hey, you've got a week to get your shit off me, ner ner!", at least they can't help it.
I've had HDDs give me warning, and I've had HDDs fail without any warning. People have gone to their backups and found them unreadable. People have lost their tape drives, bought another one, and found out that their old tape drive was fracked and creating tapes that no other drive could read. It takes a tiered backup solution to be more reliable than Google, who will almost certainly give you months of notice before they take down a service.
Re: (Score:2)
> I've had HDDs give me warning, and I've had HDDs fail without any warning. People have gone to their backups and found them unreadable.
Absolutely agree here - a backup is only as good as the system used to validate it. But as we've seen since this service was mentioned, Google have already been found to be re-processing the images sent to it (I've seen mention of RAW images which were quite significantly compressed), so they're just as good/bad from a backup integrity point of view.
At least one can mon
Until Google closes it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with the 'backup' claim is that a Google cloud service may suffer a permanent failure upon a behind-closed-doors business decision, with potentially little warning. If Seagate, say, could instruct your usb hdd to brick itself, would you use it for backup? The Cloud is convenient in the short term, but business reality means it must be thought of as 'may fail for no reason'.
wtf are you talking about? Name any other backup scheme that wouldn't suffer the exact same potential disaster? Even if you set it up yourself in your own house on your own network that could happen. The difference is Googles far less likely to have that sort of problem than the NAS you bought off Newegg did.
If you REALLY wanted to protect your data, you'd back it up to both your house and google.
Re:Until Google closes it... (Score:5, Informative)
He is pointing out that google are renowned for dropping services for business reasons. Often with little or no warning.
Re: (Score:2)
He is pointing out that google are renowned for dropping services for business reasons. Often with little or no warning.
When has Google ever dropped one of their services without providing months of notice to the unpaying users first?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I only had to wait a single day for an example. You have 28 days to change anything that depends on this.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I only had to wait a single day for an example. You have 28 days to change anything that depends on this.
So just to be clear, I asked when has Google shut down a service and you responded with Google shutting down a feature (SMS notifications) of a service (Calendar) and then crowed victory? What a stupid dick you are.
Re: (Score:2)
SMS notifications are a service provided by google for their calendar product. Hence they are shuttering a service.
They also shut down the SMS google query
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut... [slate.com]
Or perhaps http://www.pcworld.com/article... [pcworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you feel stupid right about now.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... Google replaces the "hardware failure" with a "business decision failure".... Same difference, your data's gone...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing this is only used for photos, and not anything critical.
Re: (Score:2)
When had Google ever shut down a service with little or no warning? They always give you plenty of time, typically a year, to move somewhere else. It's annoying, for sure, but it's not like a HDD dying and taking all your bits with it.
I have maybe 100GB of photos. I could upload that lot in a couple of nights, or less than one day. As it happens I don't rely on Google to back my photos up, but if the encrypted cloud service I do use went down it wouldn't be a problem to move to a different one. It's only cr
Re:Until Google closes it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who the fuck are you? Go die in a fire, you disrespectful worthless turd.
Next you'll be shouting web developers down for not using an automated tool like Dreamweaver, or advocating driverless cars with no manual controls. Our forefathers and our freedom are closely connected, forget one, you may as well forget the other. Long live text only devices! Long live being able to connect from anywhere, with anything, and participate based on one's intellectual prowess rather than one's socio-economic status!
Re: (Score:2)
I think you took my comment as sarcasm. I am well aware of the bandwidth-saving benefits of unformatted text, I'm also a big fan of, and I make use of, the fact it's cross-platform and when paired with interpreters and interfaces written for many platforms can be used and contributed to by anyone on an equal standing. Slashdot itself is a good example of this; I can actually still post using my Nokia 6230i running Opera Mini over GPRS. I would, in fact, despair somewhat if I couldn't!
The universal participa
Re:Until Google closes it... (Score:5, Informative)
Calm down dear, it's just the 'code' setting in User->Accounts->Post. (Having grown up with text mode, I kind of have a nostalgic attachment to monospaced text -- you might guess that from my /. UID)
Re:Until Google closes it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with calm down, but I also agree that it's stupid. When you put your text in monospace, what you are saying is "I am a special snowflake, so you should read this text even though it is more difficult than if I didn't set a special style that I only use because I am a hipster." So if that's how you want to come across, by all means, keep setting your comments in monospace. If you've set a flag that makes all your comments enter in monospace, then you're an extra-hipster.
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down dear, it's just the 'code' setting in User->Accounts->Post. (Having grown up with text mode, I kind of have a nostalgic attachment to monospaced text -- you might guess that from my /. UID)
Well, I for one thank you for posting without the <code> tag in your post this time, and hope it's a permanent change.
Having one poster's comments show as monospaced font in contrast to everyone else's is visually disruptive and rather annoying. Unless one is posting actual code snippets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To mirror others, fuck self-appointed authoritarian self.
unlimited, free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello! I am a company offering unlimited storage for no cost, and with no strings attached.
Umm... no. Frankly, I'd rather pay someone just because then, at least there is a chance, that it is an honest deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Hello! I am a company offering unlimited storage for no cost, and with no strings attached.
Umm... no. Frankly, I'd rather pay someone just because then, at least there is a chance, that it is an honest deal.
Then pay them, they have a paid option too.
Re: (Score:2)
Then pay them, they have a paid option too.
And do you think that paying them will stop them from killing this service too, when they get the urge? I say STAY THE HELL AWAY!!!
Re: (Score:2)
And if you think paying ANYONE is a promise against the service shutting down for business, legal, ethical, or just pure financial reasons, then you have obviously not been around long enough.
Services come and go all the time, (payment means nothing).. so still keep some local storage around for when the inevitable shutdown, or price hike that scares you, or the terms of service you don't agree with, etc.. I think people forget that google (like all companies) are not doing these things out of the kindness
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And does your ISP allow 'unlimited' uploads?
Re: (Score:2)
ohhhhhhh......... they mean bandwidth, not storage? I gotta RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... no. Frankly, I'd rather pay someone just because then, at least there is a chance, that it is an honest deal.
Because dishonest tricksters never take money...
Re: (Score:2)
Free Candy
Re: (Score:2)
What is on there already (Score:5, Interesting)
I just went to the site and Its already got photo's of mine from yesterday to 2009. I'm sure most of those are only good for the bin. However it could be a good thing in some cases. Say you photographed something sensitive like the police using excessive force, well that can't be deleted from your phone now.
on the other hand there are some terrible photo's such as when you accidentally click the shutter..
you might want to check to see what you're sharing with google already.
Re: (Score:2)
Deleting most people's photos could be considered a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you doing with your stuff? I've got an Android phone. I've got a Gmail account. I've got a 2 YouTube accounts. I take photos with my phone all the time, all of which are still on said phone. I have videos uploaded onto both YouTube accounts. I use Picasa on my PC to organize and tag photos that I took with both my phone, and my more expensive camera.
I just checked Google Photos. Squat. There's nothing there. All my photos are safely restricted to my phone and computer.
What the heck
Re: (Score:2)
well some of them are picasa web albums , there is also an autoback on android which works in the background. Google has its dropbox folder on each account and thats not picky over what it backs up i think i had a linux distro on one microsd card and most if not all the icons (around 1000) ended up in there.
As another poster said it is a tad awkward to delete on mass the rubbish.
I really don't have 'sensitive' photo's connected to google. though so saying be careful setting up chromecasts particularly for o
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, what you're saying is: "I uploaded a bunch of stuff to Google, and now GOOGLE'S GOT IT!!!!1!!111!1!1eleventy!1!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
not really i used picasa web albums as backup a while back and google synced up a bunch of stuff, mostly junk and now its been gathered together in google photo's.
There is nothing there i am concerned about, other people may have more 'sensitive' private images that they may not want stored on google's servers.
on the other hand people lose phones or have them stolen and mostly they are concerned about the lost photo's of grand children and stuff like that. for them it's a life line they probably didn't know
Picasa again? (Score:1)
What? Where did Picasa go? Oh, right everything old is new again...thanks google!
A Data Point (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife uses gmail. I don't and have never had a google account, have never uploaded a photo to them or to any other web photo service. One day my wife asked me "What's that picture with your email, the Causeway?"
A long time ago, before Google bought them, I created a YouTube account and uploaded a couple of time-lapse videos of my commute across the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway. And my contact email for that account was my yahoo email account. So apparently, when I sent my wife an email the Google gophers went scampering for an avatar, and having nothing else took the sample still for one of my YouTube videos and pasted that at the top of my incoming email.
I'll leave it to others to speculate on just how this could have gone wrong. I could probably fix it since my old YouTube account has apparently been grandfathered in to a g+ or whatever account now, but I'm leaving it as is to remind me never to trust them with anything sensitive.
Re: (Score:2)
What limitations had you placed on that video you posted?
Or was it really just publicly available to everyone, so you really have nothing justify your fears about privacy?
Well that's not quite the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to call bullshit.
Unless you've checked the box for "Allow Google to do absolutely anything with absolutely anything of mine, for absolutely any reason whatsoever."
I've never actually seen this option in Google's settings, so I doubt it's that.
I've already posted this, so here's the short version:
I've got an Android phone, Gmail account (which is linked to said Android phone), 2 YouTube accounts, both with videos uploaded, use Picasa for organizing my photos taken with both my Android phone and my
Till they're not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is declaring that Google Photos lets you backup and store "unlimited, high-quality photos and videos, for free."
Thats until they're NOT.... Google has a VERY nasty habit of cranking up these spiffy services, running them for a while, getting everybody onboard
with them, then turning them off.... Stay away!! STAY FAR AWAY!!
Re: (Score:2)
Google is declaring that Google Photos lets you backup and store "unlimited, high-quality photos and videos, for free."
Thats until they're NOT.... Google has a VERY nasty habit of cranking up these spiffy services, running them for a while, getting everybody onboard with them, then turning them off.... Stay away!! STAY FAR AWAY!!
Meh.
Google shut down a raft of lightly-used and virtually unused services when Larry Page took over as CEO. Google has never shut down a widely-used service (no, Reader wasn't widely-used), and also has a habit of providing plenty of notice and options for getting your data out of every service, especially those that are being shut down.
So what's the worst case? You get a nice service for a few years and then have to download your photos and move them elsewhere. On the other hand, if this really does en
Unlimited 4MP pics (Score:2)
The price is not bad, but auto charge every month is a pain. I usually don't leave any active credit card number attach
Re: (Score:2)
If You Find Them Creepy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you find it creepy that they keep your photos around forever, just disable the auto-backup feature in your android settings
Or just delete them when you don't want them kept any more.
Re: (Score:3)
Datasets for neural net training.
If you didn't see the article/service, it can now classify photos so you can search by something like "car" or "red".
Re:oajds (Score:5, Interesting)
They obviously can't be too capricious and unpredictable, or they'll spook users; but you can't offer 'unlimited' storage without making some provision for 'that guy who hacks together a FUSE filesystem that uses images uploaded to Google Photos as a storage medium' or the 'Cool, this will make my next time-lapse video project way easier' cases.(and, of course, if you are feeling particularly uncreative,
Are they just going to go with the ISP-style 'I said unlimited; but I actually meant X photos or Y GB of traffic per month; apparently I'm allowed to get away with that, so STFU', are they going to have peons manually examine accounts whose size gets out of hand and decide what to do?
Re: (Score:1)
There are some reports that Google simply rate limits uploads, by introducing increasingly frequent "cool off" periods during which the user can't upload. If that is true, then it depends on the implementation whether there is a hidden limit that you approach Xeno-like or can actually upload unlimited amounts of data, but take a very long time to do it.
I assume that most people who try to upload all of /dev/urandom or something equally useless do so with an account that does not have their real name attache
Re:oajds (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd be interested to see is if, and how aggressively, they take action against image collections that are not of any use for their desired purposes. They obviously can't be too capricious and unpredictable, or they'll spook users; but you can't offer 'unlimited' storage without making some provision for 'that guy who hacks together a FUSE filesystem that uses images uploaded to Google Photos as a storage medium' or the 'Cool, this will make my next time-lapse video project way easier' cases.(and, of course, if you are feeling particularly uncreative, /dev/random just needs a dash of formatting information to be as many bitmaps as you could possibly desire.)
Are they just going to go with the ISP-style 'I said unlimited; but I actually meant X photos or Y GB of traffic per month; apparently I'm allowed to get away with that, so STFU', are they going to have peons manually examine accounts whose size gets out of hand and decide what to do?
Their track record on removing useful and loved services for little or no reason should spook users well enough without playing games with the content.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, if they can extend that to automatically classify photos with tags like "FFM", "ladyboy", and "bukkake" I predict a HUGE market.
Re:oajds (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the fine print. They can use the pics anyhow they want.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like Slashdot's parent company Dice seems to do anything they want with Sourceforge projects and then pretends it never happened.
Shit Dice, we have the rest of the fucking Internet. This isn't China. Have you ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the GPL allows it, but not everything that is legal is moral. Dice are being dicks.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, we don't have to like, or even accept something someone or something does just because it's legal. There is such things for example as "bad behavior".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
“By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”
http://agbeat.com/social-media... [agbeat.com]
Re:oajds (Score:4, Informative)
This sounds pretty standard. To go through it word by word:
"a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license"
perpetual: So you can't say "Oops, the license expired. Now you own me $750,000 for hosting my photos."
irrevocable: So you can't suddenly decide that Google isn't ALLOWED to have the photos you submitted to them.
worldwide: So Google can't be sued by a user in Country A if their photo is stored on a server in Country B.
royalty-free: Google is hosting this for you for free, why do you think they would pay you royalties for hosting your photos?!!!
non-exclusive: This one protects the customer, not Google. This means Google is given a license but you can still give/sell a license to someone else.
"reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content"
reproduce: So Google can copy the photo files without infringing on the owner's copyright.
adapt/modify: Google will sometimes apply various kinds of "photo magic" to your photos. This allows them to change your photos for these features. Also can apply to resizing your photos for display or rotating them so the top is up.
publish: If you share your photo with other people, Google is actually publishing them. So they need to make sure they have the right to do so.
publicly perform: In case you share your video with the general public.
publicly display: Same as previous, but for photos.
distribute: Again, displaying photos to other people can be seen as distributing and Google wants to make sure they won't be sued by people for "copyright infringement" when they do just what their users asked them to do to the photos that the users submitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine (and good work btw), but the intent you have shown, although admirable on google's behalf it can also be pretty dark side. The fact that copyright is still owned by the uploader may have a significant impact.
Android File Transfer is fucking dumb. (Score:1)
A relative asked me how to get some photos off of her Nexus 5 some time ago. All she wanted to do was to copy them from her phone to her Mac desktop. The last time I had used Android, which must have been some version of Android 2, it just involved connecting the phone to the desktop computer using a USB cable. This resulted in the desktop mounting the phone as if it were an external hard drive or flash drive. Then the photos could be copied off like files typically are from any other external drive. It was
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with the old approach (USB mass storage) is that the partition first has to be unmounted from the Android system, which leaves apps without their data, or even removes apps from the OS if they're installed on the SD card, and then the user can destroy the file system by failing to unmount it from the desktop OS before unplugging the phone or remounting the file system in Android. The new approach is a file level protocol, not raw filesystem access. I do concur that it is shit though. Some altern
Re:Android File Transfer is fucking dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
So why can't Android just use fucking Samba?!
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't Android just use fucking Samba?!
Because you haven't downloaded the 'Samba Filesharing for Android' app yet. Did you even look?
Re: (Score:2)
So why can't Android just use fucking Samba?!
Because MTP is better. I don't know why the OP was messing around with Android File Transfer. Any modern desktop OS should support MTP, which is plug and play and much cleaner than USB Mass Storage.
Re: Android File Transfer is fucking dumb. (Score:2)
Android File Transfer *is* an MTP implementation. OSX, at least older versions, did not support MTP naively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any experience of mtp on mac os or linux but the windows MTP implementation sucks. For usb mass storage or SMB I can use any application that uses the normal windows file APIs to work with the files. The windows MTP implementation even when it's working* isn't integrated into the filesystem, so you have to manually copy stuff between the device and a real filesystem so I can work on it
In summary while I can see that the switch to MTP solves some problems on the device side it was a substantial
Re: oajds (Score:2)
There is no free lunch
Re:oajds (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid anyhow. These days you can buy a 128GB USB flash drive for like $30, which should hold a lot of pictures at full quality.
But it can't be (easily) automated. And USB flash drives are EVIL for backups - you should buy a HDD for that. With the auto-upload you have the photos backed up (and also ready to be sent to someone through any channel) in matter of seconds, without the need for any action you can forgot, delay, or whatever. A good backup solution doesn't require any activity from the user. And this is especially important if you want to backup your grandma's data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: oajds (Score:3)
Google's offering unlimited storage of 16MP images and smaller. For most consumers that's all they need, though professionals will still want to back up their larger & raw files themselves of course. 1080p video is now unlimited too.
The categorization that Google is doing uses image recognition that goes a fair ways beyond any photo management software you can run yourself, but again likely won't be flexible enough for pro users.
The "unlimited" part isn't actually new, BTW. Google have been storing unli
Re: (Score:2)
You have fallen for marketing bullshit.
Modern flash in it's raw form has some nasty properties that magnetic media does not suffer from (or suffers to a much lesser extent). The erase blocks are much larger than the write blocks and much larger than the logical blocks used by most file systems. The lifetime of each erase block is determined in terms of the number of erase cycles (unlike magnetic media which doesn't really suffer from localised wearout),flash cells can also discharge over time causing a cell
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that's creepy, wait until someone breaks into your account and begins blackmailing you; threatening to publish your photos of that long forgotten 'incident' which seemed like harmless fun at the time.
FWIW, Google Photos changes this behavior by default. I think there's a way to override it, but in general if you delete a photo in one place now, it gets deleted from all of them. There are some very prominent warnings trying to make people understand that. This doesn't apply if you've shared it, though; the shared copies still exist.
Re:An anonymous reader writes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because when you accidentally delete the wrong photo on the phone, the first thing you'd hope is that you could go to your backup?
Re:An anonymous reader writes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has Google started deleting data?
Google has long allowed you to request that your data be deleted. See the Google dashboard. And, yes, it really does get deleted, permanently. I think sometimes it may survive for a while on tape backups, but eventually those get deleted, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldN'T deleting a picture on a phone NOT also remove it on the backup device?
You're confusing mirroring with backup. If Google just mirrored what you did on your phone and deleted photos automatically when you delete them from your phone, then it's no longer a "backup device".
Though if you don't want Google to backup your photos, you can turn it off.
Re: (Score:1)
Talk about missing the point of an evidence cache.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can go onto Google Drive and delete the backup copies there. I guess that's not so bad. I once accidentally deleted all the photos from my Camera folder on my phone when I was simply trying to delete the most recent one that the app used as a thumbnail for the folder. Stupid, yes, but it let me do it without so much as a "are you really sure?" warning - or an Undo option (which seems to be there now). I didn't have G+ backups enabled, and lost them all. If deletions automatically deleted the