Google Photos Wants $8 a Month To Print 10 Auto-Picked Photos From Your Library (inputmag.com) 102
Google has gradually been adding print services to its Photos platform in recent years, and now it's testing a particularly novel one: a $7.99 a month subscription service that'll send subscribers physical prints of 10 algorithmically-selected photos each month. From a report: The trial is both U.S.-only and invitation-only, and eligible Google Photos' users will be invited to try the service via a message at the top of the screen when they log into the service on a laptop or desktop. Users will be able to ask that preference be given to one of three image categories when Google Photos makes it selections. The first will favor people and pets, the second will focus on landscapes, cityscapes and the outdoors, while the third will be a mix of everything. Users can update their preference each month if they're getting too many pics of their pooch... assuming such a thing is even possible.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I have loads of snaps on my Google account, most of which are crap.
Why would I ever agree to that?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Interesting)
I could not agree more. I spent a long career working in the Research Labs at Kodak. It was interesting to see how people's use of images changed with easy access to digital images.
When it was hard to process and print your own negatives, people would get rolls of film printed. Some prints went into scrap books, fewer were enlarged, and many were trashed.
Digital imaging changed everything. Some images were fun to remember a moment and were easlily stored on a phone for a while and never printed. A few were printed, either on a thermal printer or professionally. Those tended to be carefully selected.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, people take loads of photos these days, most of which are trash, and the ones that are actually decent tend to be carefully curated to pick them out from among dozens of similar photos. So, right off the bat, I doubt that an AI-driven program can select photos as well as a human can.
But even if we set that concern aside, their prices are ludicrous. My wife occasionally gets prints made (we have an infant, so this is to be expected) from Walmart. In quickly checking their going rates right now for my location for ten 4x6 prints (i.e. matching Google's service):
- Store pickup (1 hour): $2.67 ($0.25 * 10 + $0.17 tax)
- Home delivery (3-5 days): $4.96 ($0.09 * 10 + $4.00 shipping + $0.06 tax)
- Store delivery (5-8 days): $0.96 ($0.09 * 10 + $0.06 tax)
So, instead of paying $8/mo. in perpetuity, you can pay less than $5 for the exact same level of convenience on an as-needed basis, and substantially less than even that if you're willing to visit your local Walmart. And unlike Google's service, you'd have the option of glossy or matte finish, different sizes, your choice of which photos get printed (if any), and the option for a faster turnaround (at less cost, no less) if you'd like something ASAP.
People who still print photos are aware of these sorts of services (Walgreens offers the same sort of service, as do plenty of online-only printers such as Shutterfly, Mpix, etc.), so I don't know who they think their intended audience is for this product.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, people take loads of photos these days, most of which are trash, and the ones that are actually decent tend to be carefully curated to pick them out from among dozens of similar photos....
Even back in the 70s, photographers used to select pictures to print using negatives and a magnifying glass. Curation hasn't really changed; it's just that they aren't negatives anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
But in those cases the photographers are the ones that are making the choice, not some random algorithm at Google deciding what pictures you should have.
Why would I want someone else to decide which of my pictures are worth printing?
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, though I'll note that the switch to digital has made it possible for everyone to curate, rather than just the professionals.
Specifically, while printing has always been the biggest cost, negatives weren't free back then either, so "normal" people rarely took more than one or two photos at a time. Maybe for a group shot they'd take a few extra just in case someone had their eyes closed, but otherwise normal people would just snap the one and hope for the best since they were worried about the cost of
Re: (Score:2)
But wait -- it gets better! From TFA: Google Photos already offers prints from $0.25 each. So... $0.25 each for prints of photos YOU select, or $0.80 each for prints of photos that Google's algorithm selects. And get this: you pick up the 25-cent prints you selected at your choice of CVS or Walmart. Sounds like with this new service, they're charging a premium for delivery, with the added bonus of not letting you select the photos to print.
Re: (Score:2)
So a more expensive service, sold as a monthly subscription, with less options than what already exists.
Yup, sounds like the new typical "everything is a monthly service" thing to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, with the cost of throwing away a photo reaching somewhere between negligible and zero, compared to having to waste a frame on a film that you then need to get developed and every picture actually being an, albeit small, financial consideration, the amount of trash pictures went up by magnitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why would I ever agree to that?"
It's an offer for the people who still print photos.
Both of them.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Funny)
Actually I stopped printing photos, so there's only Steve left now.
Re: WTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you hear? Steve died.
Don't look so surprised, he was old!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I printed a picture using a professional service, I could print to any store of the chain in the country within an hour for much much less than Google is charging here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at that size, it isn't. When I print photos, I go for A3 or larger.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you can often order 50 prints for 1 Euro on offer from somewhere else.
Why is Google stuff so expensive? YouTube is insanely expensive, their phones are expensive... Their cloud storage is okay but has been getting less generous, i.e. more expensive.
Re: WTF (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Funny)
You're not paying for the prints, you're paying for Google's super special selection of *which* photos to print. Think of how much time it will save you!
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're being sarcastic but to play devil's advocate for a moment, I think there's a hint of a good idea there.
We rarely look through old photos anymore so it could be a great experience to occasionally receive a selection of pictures you haven't seen in years, if not decades. Look at them with your family or friends and remember all the great times you've had. Kind of nice nostalgic trip.
Of course in practice this is way too expensive, Google's ability to select photos is very questionable, as is the
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot better than 10 random photos from my library and it's free.
FWIW, I do have a lot of prints made at under 10 cents for a 4x6 and I very much enjoy actual printed photos. Paying $8 to have 10 random pics mailed to me automagically seems idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Facebook figured this out, and Apple joined in. Even Eve Online did auto-generated summary videos this year.
Google seems to have thought hey, let's do that Facebook remember this picture thing, but on PAPER!
Might be a hit with the olds, but I doubt it. The last 4x6 pictures I printed were for my grandmother, a decade ago. The current senior generation is pretty cool with screens.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not paying for the prints, you're paying for Google's super special selection of *which* photos to print. Think of how much time it will save you!
The pricing still seems rather insane. It only makes sense if Google is reviewing each set to assure QC and train the AI with the aim that it will eventually get good enough to no longer require it
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't really make stuff you have to pay for, so they're not very good at pricing. If you want to advertise something, they know to the micro cent how much it's worth. But an actual product? Uhhhhh....
Re: (Score:2)
Google would love it if you'd do this. For free. They're probably not going to pay you much or at all (in money, goods or services) to do it though, because there are giant photo-rating systems that already exist, and make money, rather than spending it, to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you like getting spam in your actual mailbox instead of just your email box, and want to pay for the pleasure?
I'm just imagining the random garbage they'll be printing out that people take pictures of because it's easier to get a phone camera pointed at it, than eyeballs. Like the backs of appliances to get model numbers, or the depths of an engine bay to get a look at the clutch slave cylinder on a transmission, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I have loads of snaps on my Google account, most of which are crap.
Why would I ever agree to that?
Because "algorithmically-selected" I suppose. In theory, the claim would be that you'd only get the 10 best non-crap ones. No idea if that's true or how well it even works, but I guess that would be the idea anyway.
I could see the appeal to some folks. Not me, for sure, but others that like albums and such to collect dust on a shelf.
Re: (Score:2)
I have loads of snaps on my Google account, most of which are crap.
Why would I ever agree to that?
I'm in the same boat as you. It takes me ~2hrs/month to sort out manually which photos are decent, and then I have them printed out and sent to my kids' grandparents.
If Google were able to save me 2hrs/month through algorithms that are able to pick reasonably good shots rather than me having to do it manually, yes $8 is cheaper than the 2hrs I spend each month, so it would make financial sense for me to subscribe. (I'm not going to. Just answering your question about why someone would ever agree to it).
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I ever agree to that?
You probably wouldn't. On the other hand I only published the nicest photos I have on my Google account. I can see there being a market for this. (not for me though, I don't need more clutter in my life).
Re: (Score:2)
I have loads of snaps on my Google account, most of which are crap.
Why would I ever agree to that?
This Google project will be so unpopular that it will stick around forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they give you a "free trial" that automatically enrolls you unless you opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
I have loads of snaps on my Google account, most of which are crap. Why would I ever agree to that?
I've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere in this thread, and it makes me wonder: are most people just allowing the indiscriminate uploading of every photo they take? No one but me and a maybe few others curate their Google Photos collection? I think I'm beginning to gain some insight into the reasons a lot of people use more bandwidth than appears reasonable at first glance.
Clearly, it's aimed at a specific consumer segment (Score:2)
Namely - fetishists with an OCD.
Imagine, if you will, a foot or a food fetishist with a phone full of photos of feet or sandwiches, but frustrated with the need to classify and grade those photos according to some objective scale.
Enter Googly Photos.
From now on, only the very best of feet and sandwiches will be preserved for posterity.
Quentin Tarantino will probably retire and change his name to George Costanza.
Also, it will save parents from the frustration of picking their most and their least favorite ch
Print Photos? How Quaint. (Score:3)
Is this the 1980's, wanting their model for maximizing cash back?
Printed pictures are not the weird part. (Score:2)
I started to see them as screens with a very long refresh rate and a cheap price.
Granted, I never pay more than 10 cent per standard photo, and can get a whole photo album printed for $8.
The weird part has already been extensively commented on. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh until you run into bit rot or a hard drive failing. That said this is just another subscription service to sucker people into agreeing to.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want pics of serial numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Good UI Development is hard. Making an algorithm to do the work, is easier in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone pay for photos they cannot even pick themselves? Is listening to actual people so bad that they need an algorithm?
Good question and here's the best answer:
Google is asking your permission to examine each and every one of your photos to see if it fits their "algo."
It prints a few random photos for you as a reward. Are there any among us who can think of any possible ways Google can monetize photo-snooping and image harvesting?
Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Google already has explicit permission to examine each and every one of your photos, harvest information from it, combine that information with any other information you've ever given them, and use it to provide services to their customers. It's in their license agreements, including the one for Photos.
It would be interesting to see if this service gives them any more interesting permissions. More likely it's just a silly Google service that will get cancelled in six months or so.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right.
I'm a photographer and have several hundred thousand of terrible shots that I can't bring myself to delete. They span a period of 30 years.
I store them on Amazon Photos, iCloud, a local NAS, etc. I never used Google because I don't use Google (intentionally) for any goddam thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Same.
It's important to note that Google doesn't take ownership of your photos. But they do grant themselves the right to analyze them, link them with your other data from other Google services, and use that to better target ads for third parties. Google grants themselves those rights for *all* Google services.
You're thinking of the wrong target group. (Score:2)
Apple tells users what they should want. And their clients absolutely love that.
It's that Zen Nirvana thing, where the ideal goal of life is, to remove your own existence from this universe entirely.
You know how extroverted (e.g. Abrahamic/western) religious people whose inner model does not match reality, try to remove that which does not match to make them be equal?
This is the introverted people's equivalent: They remove themselves from the equation.
Which saves a lot of resources, and is very convenient,
Re: (Score:2)
'Picking myself' is time consuming, especially with young kids and a lot of photos.
Especially if you have a lot of 'useless' photos as other people have pointed out.
Now I wouldn't jump into trusting Google with all that. I made a simple classifier that sorts all my photos into one of 9 categories. Then use face extraction on 'people' photos.
It's... mostly right. But it does save *a lot* of time when Grandma wants a photobook of family photos. I just look for photos with >N faces and send them. Or I need
Re: (Score:1)
You are now being sued by Oracle. You may find it surprising that Oracle purchased the universe's source code from God, and you may find it ridiculous that header files are copy-writable, but this is not a legal defense. You are simultaneously in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the Bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone pay for photos they cannot even pick themselves? Is listening to actual people so bad that they need an algorithm?
You're kidding right? Paying for something that people collect and can't pick themselves has been someone that people have been doing for as long as mail and magazines have existed. You don't see those services where you pay a subscription fee and they send you a "collectors item" every month? Or attach something to a front of a magazine?
Re: (Score:1)
Who? Why, people who are high in Openness, of course.. [positivepsychology.com]
People high in Openness value new experiences very highly. They're the ones you see gushing over their trip to see the lions in Africa or the children in Haiti. What they like isn't that important, but what's important is that it's new.
As you can imagine, a place like Google is just filled with high Openness people. They love new things. It's why Google never keeps its services running too long, it gets boring and the people on the project want to m
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone pay for photos they cannot even pick themselves?
I think it's a solution to the problem that many people take truly massive numbers of photos, most of which are crap. I was commenting to a coworker that I've taken thousands of photos of my granddaughter in her two-year lifetime. She responded that she takes close to a thousand per week of her baby, and her husband takes almost as many. It's an artifact of living with a camera in your pocket all the time, and zero-cost, nearly-instant photography. It's also an artifact of not knowing how to take good p
Auto-recurring fees (Score:2)
Amazon provides so many services that seeing a bunch of line items on your bank statement for "Amazon" isn't that helpful any more. I think we need to get a monthly statement from them with the individual purchases, itemized.
Re: (Score:2)
We need put a stop for a monthly fee for every freaking thing!
Office 365, Adobe Cloud, Netflix, Hulu, CBS, Disney.....
Granted some of these services may need service fees and pricing, other you really should have the flat rate purchase fee, and others we should have a metered option.
algorithmically-selected photos (Score:2)
So, we can expect it to work about as well as those "algorithmically-selected" autocorrect words then?
Someone needs to stand up the People of Google Algorithms website while I get popcorn ready. This should be good.
What a deal!!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is assuming that you need this service once a month? And that you trust the AI to make the right decision.
I may want to remember that crappy photo, because it was of a memorable moment. While the good photo was made of a normal thing.
Re: What a deal!!!!! (Score:2)
Or -$7.90 cheaper than getting them from a random German drug store here. :)
Re: (Score:2)
This exactly. It seems someone at Google believes the service of having an algorithm pick the best photos for you is worth that price ... good to see there are incompetent people at Google too.
i did just the opposite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i have a very extensive collection of family photos going back over 100 years, and some documentation going back to the 1500's Switzerland, i scanned all these photos as jpg and put them in about 20 folders each with over 100 photos in them, i also burned several copies to CDr to give to relatives, i did this because all those photos as paper weighed about 30 pounds, now i have copies with family members and on my laptop and a microSD card on my phone, i dont want to print any, i did this so the originals can peacefully rot in their ancient photo albums since they are so old, and it is easy just to use a slideshow feature on my laptop to look through them when i take a notion to
I need to do that with our family tree. It's a couple yellowed pages literally taped together and rolled up, but supposedly (if accurate) traces my mom's side of the family all the way back to, I want to say, St. Elizabeth in the 13th Century. Who knows where my grandmother got all that information though, since it was certainly done pre-internet.
CD-Rs don't last. (Score:2)
There have been extensivr tests.
Normal, organic-based ones (green/blue) can't be trusted anymore after only 2 years.
Inorganic (gold) ones, can't be trusted anymore after 10 years.
Yeah, many last longer. The point is that you only need some not to, for the data to be incomplete. And nobody checks them yearly nor has a backup ready anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There have been extensivr tests.
Normal, organic-based ones (green/blue) can't be trusted anymore after only 2 years.
Inorganic (gold) ones, can't be trusted anymore after 10 years.
Well maybe you should point to one of these extensive tests that back up your claims, because the Library of Congress [loc.gov] disagrees with you:
In 2005 initial error testing was conducted by NIST on a collection of test samples of CD-R, DVD-R/RW and DVD+R/RW discs.
The accelerated aging study conducted by NIST revealed significant variations in the predicted longevity for the different DVD products tested, although most life expectancies were greater than 30 years. All of the CD media tested had life expectancies greater than 30 years. The standardized life expectancy estimated using this model is defined for discs maintained at 25C and 50% RH, but can be applied to give an estimate of the life expectancy at any moderate storage conditions.
Looks to me like you're off by a factor of 15 on that one. Wikipedia notes: [wikipedia.org]
Manufacturers have estimated the longevity of gold-based CD-Rs to be as high as 100 years.
So, you're only off by a factor of 10 on this one. But please, let's see one of these studies you speak of. If not, you're just making stuff up (again).
Re: (Score:2)
I did the same thing when my grandmother died. My parents asked what thing of hers did I want to keep and I said "the photos." Now, I knew I couldn't keep ALL the photos, but I also hated to see them get divided up among the family and have everyone only get some of the photos. So I took them all, scanned them, and gave all family members a CD with all of the photos. The originals could then be given out but everyone could enjoy every single photo.
Unfortunately, I tried to do the same when my wife's grandmo
The least viable business model I've ever seen. (Score:2)
What are they thinking? "We're Apple!"?
Just what the world needs! (Score:2)
Auto-purchasing crap that you can then adjust at a later date?
If I was going to review my pictures for what I wanted printed, why wouldn't I just choose the pics I wanted printed in the first place?
--
You're good salesman, if you make people buy product they don't need. - Toba Beta
Are Google serious? (Score:2)
ROFL. ... what if your super dooper algorithm chooses a load of out of focus or selfies with the heads chopped off? What then eh? You will have a load of very pissed off customers.
Sorry Google but what crazed marketeer dreamed this up.
Ok for allowing the subscriber to choose the best print but
DOA within a year and just another Google service that gets withdrawn and forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just a test to get numbers and statistics about making people pay for something they don't understand and/or don't need, to see how many will cancel and how long it's going to take them before they cancel the service.
I stand alone it seems (Score:2)
I like the idea - family and vacation photos are meant to be seen otherwise why take them. If the algorithm is good I think I'd prefer it automatically pick items to display in a large electronic picture frame though..
Come to think of it I saw a recent /. thread about how much people hated electronic picture frames, I guess I've just gotten way out of step here
Re: (Score:2)
I have an older electronic photo frame that I used to display on my desk at work. The biggest issue I had with it was keeping it up to date. I'd put an SD card with the latest photos in it and, in a few months, all of the photos would be old. I'd then need to take the SD card home, load it up with new photos, and put it into the frame at work. An Internet-connected photo frame that integrated into Google Photos would be better so I could tag which photos I liked enough to display and how old to go on the ph
Worst Idea Ever (Score:1)
I don't get it (Score:2)
Look, Ma, No Technology! (Score:1)
Wow (Score:2)
$8 for ten 4x6 prints per month as a subscription and I don't get to choose the photos? Geez Louise, Walgreen's will do 4x6 prints piecework on photos of my choice for 34 cents a throw!
How about NOPE? (Score:2)
I'm sorry but all that promise of "targeted advertising" and I still get ads for stuff I wouldn't be interested in a million years.. and that Google Assistant stuff on my Google Photo app already makes dumb decisions about what it thinks I'd like for videos / slideshows etc.. so yeah.. I sure as heck am not interested in letting them charge me tor the privilege of printing photos I likely don't want..
I've got a printer and I know exactly what prints I do and don't want, thank you.
There used to be a time wh
This is a MUST-HAVE! (Score:1)
I received my invitation, signed up, and have already received my first batch! They are:
2 photos of the label on the back of my dryer (had to get the model and serial numbers for a part)
1 photo of the pimple I had a few weeks ago on the back of my ear (had to take a photo to see if it was a pimple or a bug bite)
3 photos of patch panels in a customer's phone room from an install a few weeks back
1 photo of the pins inside a broken HDMI cable I threw away (used camera to get a closer look at the tiny pins)
1 ph
Re: This is a MUST-HAVE! (Score:1)
I take photos of the labels off customer's parcels shipped on for repair. And cable arrangements inside boxes before I disassemble them so I can get them back together right after a repair. And pictures of books and other media I see while shopping that I want to get a used copy of cheaper. And cats. We have five cats, and I don't need the internet to look at cat pictures, they are right on the sd card in my phone
i know a certain guy (Score:2)
who would get nothing but pictures of himself
Re: (Score:2)
Wife or girlfriend? (Score:1)
Walgreens (Score:1)
I can go to the corner drugstore and get ten prints made for $8. And they aren't selected randomly. So does Google also spy on your email and your browsing history to select these prints?
How much more to look at them? (Score:3)
So eight bucks a month for pictures I don't choose to be printed.
Is there an option to pay an extra $3/month to have someone else look at them and save me that time, too/ :)
hawk
I order a photo book every year (Score:2)
My wife was unhappy when we went digital that we didn't have photos to look through in the physical world. I started about 6 years ago making her a photo book every year at Christmas (I use shutterfly, but there are others that are the same thing). She loves them.
The difference is that I pick the pictures and lay them out nicely on matte lay-flat pages. It's not some random algorithm.
We also have a photo printer at home if we need a random photo printed. It works perfectly and costs me about 3 cents per
WTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many people take hundreds or thousands of photos per year. They completely overkill it. Going through the collection to choose the best ones is an overwhelming process that would take hours. But, people would still like physical prints of their best photos.
Google actually does a very good job of choosing the best photos...I really like the slideshows they auto-create for me. I don't know if I want 10 prints per month, but I can definitely see buying an auto-generated photobook of the "best photos of 201
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment above, but.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it take collage to come up with this? (Score:2)
Oh, joyous day! (Score:3)
Google Wants $10 a Month from You (Score:2)
Bad for the Environment (Score:2)
How many photos are going to get printed and shipped by this service that aren't wanted? Talk about being bad for the environment. It would be better if it was a service that let you choose the pictures and the size of the prints every month.
Google jumped a shark or 100 (Score:2)
Really, paying for 10 prints that are randomly picked, most which are most likely not 'print worthy'. I know companies can get desperate for new ideas. but damn! O_o
old = new (Score:2)
Everything old is new again?
What is next, google music sending you a monthly bundle of 5 music albums by mail?
Why the hell do they think we have all this stuff digitally stored?