8 ms·

Goodbye Google plus photos

62 points by msoad 11y ago

robzyb 11y ago
I really need to choose a service to host all my photos on. I was a singular archive of every photo I've ever taken. I'm seriously considering setting up a camlistore[1] server but it would probably mean writing my own Android/iOS apps to do auto-upload. Also, I do rather like all of the features that Google Photos comes with... [1] https://camlistore.org/ https://camlistore.org/
- thethimble 11y ago
  Why not Google Photos?...
- SixSigma 11y ago
  Flickr is what, 10-15 years old. Why not Flickr?
- frisco 11y ago
  I like Lightroom + Lightroom Mobile (which has automatic sync). When it syncs to my computer it gets into Dropbox, but a creative cloud subscription will have Adobe back things up for you too. Not free, but I put value on my photos and am getting pro-level editing tools at the same time.
- Raphael 11y ago
  Google Photos is awesome for lazy people like me. Everything auto-uploads. I can publish or not. I can edit or not. Convenient, free, and useful.
- planetjones 11y ago
  I use the Amazon Cloud drive for backups of originals - it's $59.99 a year for "unlimited" storage. Here I backup my RAW images and camera phone images. Once I've edited photos and want to publish (using Lightroom) I publish to flickr. This works nicely and I'm glad I have steered clear of any of Google's or Apple's offerings - frankly I don't trust them.
- apricot13 11y ago
  I use all three - flickr, google photos (the free version) and amazon. I also have harddrive backups as well - Im very indecisive!
- danieldk 11y ago
  I use Bittorrent Sync and just order stuff in directories. I don't like proprietary storage systems. Alternatively, Dropbox and OneDrive work pretty well as well. Both have pretty nice photo viewing interfaces (on the web and mobile).
frisco 11y ago
> Goodbye Google+ Photos, hello +Google Photos! This line represents everything wrong with Google right now.
- thethimble 11y ago
  How so? It's an acknowledgement that forcing Google+ on people was a bad idea and that you can still continue to build awesome products (Google Photos) without a social network. If anything, isn't it a step in the right direction?
  - orik 11y ago
    The problem is we went from Picasa -> Google+ Photos -> +Google Photos? Why does google keep on throwing out branding, spinning down a project, only to spin up another one that does the same thing? Why didn't they go back to the Picasa namesake, with all the branding it has?
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      Apparently "+Google Photos" is just the nickname of the "Google Photos" account on "Google+". The name of the service is "Google Photos", not "+Google Photos".
      - tiredwired 11y ago
        Next year it is Alphabet photos.
        raverbashing 11y ago
        or just Photos+ or I dunno
        rakoo 11y ago
        +Photos you mean
wodenokoto 11y ago
Why do users have to make a switch? Why isn't this just considered a rebranding from a user perspective?
- thethimble 11y ago
  I think they're separate apps. People who are used to using the Google+ app to access their photos are now required to download the separate, optional Google Photos app.
  - mrinterweb 11y ago
    You're right, Google Photos is a separate app. Google Photos is one of my favorite apps. Great UI and great functionality.
  - cxseven 11y ago
    It's not just apps. The server side seems to have been rebuilt independent of Google+. Like OP, I'm wondering why Google didn't just find a way to give people outside of G+ direct access to the features inside it, which were already pretty good. Google spends a lot of energy on supposedly optimizing UI when the biggest improvement to usability would be to avoid inconsistent and frequently changing interfaces.
gloves 11y ago
Google Plus was a bit of a shame, having used it a little bit when it first came out, it was actually quote a good social network in terms of functionality. It just never achieved that critical mass of users to make it worthy of dedicating alot of time to.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Personally, I avoided it specifically because of all the "you must use this" shenanigans around YouTube and other services, as well as the Real Names policy brokenness. They could have had much more loyal users if they didn't pull stunts like that.
  - gloves 11y ago
    This is just an opinion, but I wonder how many 'non-techies' that would have bothered? As someone switched on to those kind of arguments I can definitely understand - but to the every day lay man, I wonder how much a real name policy really would have mattered... (seeing the other side, I can imagine how people uneducated in these things are also naturally suspicious - my grandma is probably more cautious with her data than any other person I know - perhaps knowing the specifics of threats rather than just fearing privacy leakage as a generic fear inducing concept is worse?!)
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      > but to the every day lay man, I wonder how much a real name policy really would have mattered... Many of the people most affected by the Real Names policy were not "techies".
- on_and_off 11y ago
  The service right now is quite good. The first implementation is circles is just broken IMO. Yes, it is a very pertinent observation (you have different social circles) but nobody is ready to take the time to create these. Instead one of the last updates brought collections. It is very reminiscent of Pinterest but does not just focus on pictures. It is a very handy way to maintain different streams like e.g. : -random social banter - technical subject 1 - hobby 1 ... The mobile interface could better serve this paradigm, but otherwise this is the best social product for me.
albertzeyer 11y ago
> With Google Photos you can store unlimited high quality photos High quality does not mean the full original quality, right? This is then as before. At the moment, there are three web interfaces to access your photos: https://picasaweb.google.com/ https://picasaweb.google.com/ https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://photos.google.com/ https://photos.google.com/ I would switch to the latest version but the other interfaces still have their advantages too. E.g. the old Picasa interface provides the best overview of all my albums (I have a lot: 1619), esp when I want to search an older one (they go back to 2004). Also, it has somehow the most compact view with the most details at the same time, like all meta information (sharing, tagged people, GPS, exif, ...). For videos though, the Picasa webinterface is somewhat broken. Also tagging people didn't quite work correctly. The Google+ interface has the nicest way to tag people. And I think the photo editor is only available here? The new Photos interface looks like the most modern one, but otherwise seems to have the least amount of features. Tagging people doesn't really work here. The photo editor is much stripped down compared to Google+. Also, it doesn't really show much meta information (no GPS? almost no exif, etc...).
- kanwisher 11y ago
  This has become a serious bit of confusion, also now google seems to index any photos and videos inside of google drive into photos. Which is not the behavior you would want. I wish they just went back to only picasa, its really been the only good photo management situation
  - kuboa 11y ago
    > also now google seems to index any photos and videos inside of google drive into photos It's optional, I personally love and benefit from it. You can turn it off in the settings.
- bwang29 11y ago
  As a photo editor developer, it has been difficult to see how the uploading/dowloading/creating API call via old Picasa Web Data API will evolve overtime. Right now the Google Drive API seems to be the most robust and if you are looking for extra editing functionality, we built something for Google Drive like https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/polarr-photo-editor-3-for/gdfmmnaccahhpnadlopcfnpkjegchnik?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/polarr-photo-edito...
m0nty 11y ago
> In May, we launched Google Photos as the home for all your photos and videos. ... In an effort to ensure everyone has the best photos experience we can deliver, on August 1st we’ll start to shut down Google+ Photos I just don't trust Google and their 5-second attention span any more. Seems like every day brings another change in direction, or outright abandonment of a service I had relied upon. I'm self-hosting email and just won't touch the rest of their offerings, because there's no guarantee of continuity or even continuation.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  Well, in this instance at least there's the continuation. The seem pretty set on Photos, and it's a strategic product for them (combined with Android). Google Photos is the successor to Google+ Photos and it surprised me they had both in the market at the same time for as long as they did.
  - nissehulth 11y ago
    Yes, I uploaded some photos to Picasa like 10 years ago and those are still available in this "new" service. But even if this is just a re-branding to get away from the G+ fiasco, it's still very confusing.
- easytiger 11y ago
  It has got ridiculous. I have thousands of photos there and appreciate the service, but almost every time i log in something has changed. I'd love to know who is making these choices, it is descending into Microsoft levels of program mgmt stupidity. Also I couldn't even map out the interconnectedness of Google's product offerings.
- larister 11y ago
  They're dismantling Google Plus. I know that's not the root cause for all the changes, but I think it's the major one and will result in significant upheaval until it's complete. I suspect that in a year or two, things will be a lot more settled and stable.
- deleted 11y ago
0x0 11y ago
I wish they would give the Picasa OSX app more love. It doesn't even support retina displays! It's one of the best ways to manage photos for us who like to keep photos as .jpegs inside actual folders, instead of inside some opaque package of sqlite and hidden hashed filenames (like Photos.app and the older iPhoto.app). But I guess supporting vendor-neutral, lock-in-less file repositories like that is out of fashion these days :-/
- 4ad 11y ago
  I also hate the sqlite "feature". Lightroom does the right thing, has the best features and it's not even that expensive, however, I will never submit to that creative cloud crap. Just let me buy the damn thing, and no .pkg installers either!
  - frik 11y ago
    Doesn't Lightroom use a MySQL database to store the users metadata/tags? Windows Vista/7 Photo Gallery did the right thing, it stored the users metadata in the pictures (EXIF, XMP, etc metadata formats) inside the JPEG/etc formarts. Windows Media Player stored the song user rating in the MP3 files in their ID3 tags too. iTunes does the contrary, stores everything in a SQLite db.
    - 4ad 11y ago
      I don't know what Lightroom uses to store metadata, but it stores data in files, which is what I'm most interested in. I have no particular opinion on Lightroom metadata, but I sure would hate if simply assigning ratings to songs would alter the file. I sure hope metadata like that is stored outside the file.
      - frik 11y ago
        What "data" are you talking about that Lightroom stores in files? How is your "data" different than what is known as "metadata"? If I tag a photo or picture, I want the metadata to go with me. I can create a dynamic playlist of photos on all my devices based on the metadata on multiple different platforms (even in my car). If I choose to strip my personal metadata later, it's just a single click. What is idiotic is to store metadata only in silos (iTunes, Lightroom, iPhoto databases), it's a vendor lock-in that will hurt the customer in the long term.
Pamar 11y ago
I am more than a bit confused - hope someone here can clarify. I have 11000 pictures under https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos. Not that I care much about the storage/editing part: I do all my editing on my desktop, and I store original and edited pictures locally, with tagging, date-sorted directories etc. What I do use Google+ for is to create posts with galleries. Typically if I go somewhere interesting I put online a series of pics for my trip, to share with family and friends, I post them as "Public" and then link to each individual gallery from my personal webpage (so I don't have to store these on my site). So the question for me is: what changes in terms of "creating posts on Google+ with a bunch of pictures associated to them"? Will this still be possible? Can I just upload pics like now, or do I need to use the new Google Photo app?
- junto 11y ago
  I'm also completely confused. It states: Download the new Google Photos today for uninterrupted access to all your photos, videos and albums. If you don’t update to the new Google Photos, Google+ Photos on Android will soon stop working, but your photos and videos will still remain safely stored... I'm actually so glad I didn't decide to use Google Picasa as a safe backup option for my photos. I'm not sure I can trust Google to take care of my data. I have now been moved from Picasa, to Google+ Photos to +Google Photos, which I assume at some point will be renamed again to *Google-+Photos=WTF I don't want an app on my phone, because I don't want a Google app to be randomly uploading photos from my phone to it's servers. So, if I don't have an mobile app, has anything actually changed? I just want a Google website app that allows me to: - Present photos in albums (that I name and sort) nicely - Share those photos with selective friends and family using a URL that I can revoke (like Flickr does) - Explore where my photos were taken on a map - Allow comments on photos without friends and family having to have some kind of Google account I use my phone like a camera. I connect it to my computer with a USB cable, download the photos and then organise and sort them, then selectively upload them. I want to have that control. I don't want to upload everything. Why does everything have to be an app these days? My perfect photo app would be open source. There is no good open source alternative. All open source photos web apps are poor. I've tried them all. I love the Google+ Photos interface. Bright, white and big photos in a mosaic. Flickr used to be good, then it decided to go all black and depressing. TroveBox and Lychee are the closest, but Trovebox (Open Photo) has a very problematic install and Lychee is missing the Amazon S3 storage option). No app offers encrypted at rest storage, which these days should be a must. I've read several times that "there is no money in consumer photo apps", but personally I'm paying Flickr a subscription and Google and Dropbox, when none of them really provide me with what I want. I'd happily pay a license fee for some open source software that actually did the job, and which I knew wasn't going to "sunset" after two years. </end rant>
alex95 11y ago
This was posted in July?!
vdaniuk 11y ago
Kolmogorov complexity of HN comments on X is approaching boilerplate level. Where X is Google's product changes, front-end apps/frameworks, advertising, etc etc.
admp 11y ago
Bear in mind this is from July 2015.
growse 11y ago
Given that the google photos app isn't supported on iOS<8 (whereas the google plus app was), does anyone know what the best way of getting camera photos to upload to Google photos from an older iPhone? I'm really hoping I don't have to do some sort of Dropbox/iPhotos dance :(
- on_and_off 11y ago
  can you import them in google drive ? There is a very handy option to automatically import your drive photos in google photos. I think it should work on ios as well.
sidcool 11y ago
This is from July 21, just wondering the significance now.
maniacalrobot 11y ago
In 232 words, "Google" is mentioned 14 times (6%), and "Photos" gets 21 mentions (9%). One in 7 words is either "Google" or "Photos". They should have got bingo cards made up before this announcement so we could have all played along at home!

62 points by msoad 11y ago

I really need to choose a service to host all my photos on. I was a singular archive of every photo I've ever taken. I'm seriously considering setting up a camlistore[1] server but it would probably mean writing my own Android/iOS apps to do auto-upload. Also, I do rather like all of the features that Google Photos comes with... [1] https://camlistore.org/ https://camlistore.org/

thethimble 11y ago
Why not Google Photos?...
SixSigma 11y ago
Flickr is what, 10-15 years old. Why not Flickr?
frisco 11y ago
I like Lightroom + Lightroom Mobile (which has automatic sync). When it syncs to my computer it gets into Dropbox, but a creative cloud subscription will have Adobe back things up for you too. Not free, but I put value on my photos and am getting pro-level editing tools at the same time.
Raphael 11y ago
Google Photos is awesome for lazy people like me. Everything auto-uploads. I can publish or not. I can edit or not. Convenient, free, and useful.
planetjones 11y ago
I use the Amazon Cloud drive for backups of originals - it's $59.99 a year for "unlimited" storage. Here I backup my RAW images and camera phone images. Once I've edited photos and want to publish (using Lightroom) I publish to flickr. This works nicely and I'm glad I have steered clear of any of Google's or Apple's offerings - frankly I don't trust them.
apricot13 11y ago
I use all three - flickr, google photos (the free version) and amazon. I also have harddrive backups as well - Im very indecisive!
danieldk 11y ago
I use Bittorrent Sync and just order stuff in directories. I don't like proprietary storage systems. Alternatively, Dropbox and OneDrive work pretty well as well. Both have pretty nice photo viewing interfaces (on the web and mobile).

frisco 11y ago

> Goodbye Google+ Photos, hello +Google Photos! This line represents everything wrong with Google right now.

thethimble 11y ago
How so? It's an acknowledgement that forcing Google+ on people was a bad idea and that you can still continue to build awesome products (Google Photos) without a social network. If anything, isn't it a step in the right direction?
- orik 11y ago
  The problem is we went from Picasa -> Google+ Photos -> +Google Photos? Why does google keep on throwing out branding, spinning down a project, only to spin up another one that does the same thing? Why didn't they go back to the Picasa namesake, with all the branding it has?
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    Apparently "+Google Photos" is just the nickname of the "Google Photos" account on "Google+". The name of the service is "Google Photos", not "+Google Photos".
    - tiredwired 11y ago
      Next year it is Alphabet photos.
      - raverbashing 11y ago
        or just Photos+ or I dunno
        rakoo 11y ago
        +Photos you mean

wodenokoto 11y ago

Why do users have to make a switch? Why isn't this just considered a rebranding from a user perspective?

thethimble 11y ago
I think they're separate apps. People who are used to using the Google+ app to access their photos are now required to download the separate, optional Google Photos app.
- mrinterweb 11y ago
  You're right, Google Photos is a separate app. Google Photos is one of my favorite apps. Great UI and great functionality.
- cxseven 11y ago
  It's not just apps. The server side seems to have been rebuilt independent of Google+. Like OP, I'm wondering why Google didn't just find a way to give people outside of G+ direct access to the features inside it, which were already pretty good. Google spends a lot of energy on supposedly optimizing UI when the biggest improvement to usability would be to avoid inconsistent and frequently changing interfaces.

gloves 11y ago

Google Plus was a bit of a shame, having used it a little bit when it first came out, it was actually quote a good social network in terms of functionality. It just never achieved that critical mass of users to make it worthy of dedicating alot of time to.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Personally, I avoided it specifically because of all the "you must use this" shenanigans around YouTube and other services, as well as the Real Names policy brokenness. They could have had much more loyal users if they didn't pull stunts like that.
- gloves 11y ago
  This is just an opinion, but I wonder how many 'non-techies' that would have bothered? As someone switched on to those kind of arguments I can definitely understand - but to the every day lay man, I wonder how much a real name policy really would have mattered... (seeing the other side, I can imagine how people uneducated in these things are also naturally suspicious - my grandma is probably more cautious with her data than any other person I know - perhaps knowing the specifics of threats rather than just fearing privacy leakage as a generic fear inducing concept is worse?!)
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > but to the every day lay man, I wonder how much a real name policy really would have mattered... Many of the people most affected by the Real Names policy were not "techies".
on_and_off 11y ago
The service right now is quite good. The first implementation is circles is just broken IMO. Yes, it is a very pertinent observation (you have different social circles) but nobody is ready to take the time to create these. Instead one of the last updates brought collections. It is very reminiscent of Pinterest but does not just focus on pictures. It is a very handy way to maintain different streams like e.g. : -random social banter - technical subject 1 - hobby 1 ... The mobile interface could better serve this paradigm, but otherwise this is the best social product for me.

albertzeyer 11y ago

> With Google Photos you can store unlimited high quality photos High quality does not mean the full original quality, right? This is then as before. At the moment, there are three web interfaces to access your photos: https://picasaweb.google.com/ https://picasaweb.google.com/ https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://photos.google.com/ https://photos.google.com/ I would switch to the latest version but the other interfaces still have their advantages too. E.g. the old Picasa interface provides the best overview of all my albums (I have a lot: 1619), esp when I want to search an older one (they go back to 2004). Also, it has somehow the most compact view with the most details at the same time, like all meta information (sharing, tagged people, GPS, exif, ...). For videos though, the Picasa webinterface is somewhat broken. Also tagging people didn't quite work correctly. The Google+ interface has the nicest way to tag people. And I think the photo editor is only available here? The new Photos interface looks like the most modern one, but otherwise seems to have the least amount of features. Tagging people doesn't really work here. The photo editor is much stripped down compared to Google+. Also, it doesn't really show much meta information (no GPS? almost no exif, etc...).

kanwisher 11y ago
This has become a serious bit of confusion, also now google seems to index any photos and videos inside of google drive into photos. Which is not the behavior you would want. I wish they just went back to only picasa, its really been the only good photo management situation
- kuboa 11y ago
  > also now google seems to index any photos and videos inside of google drive into photos It's optional, I personally love and benefit from it. You can turn it off in the settings.
bwang29 11y ago
As a photo editor developer, it has been difficult to see how the uploading/dowloading/creating API call via old Picasa Web Data API will evolve overtime. Right now the Google Drive API seems to be the most robust and if you are looking for extra editing functionality, we built something for Google Drive like https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/polarr-photo-editor-3-for/gdfmmnaccahhpnadlopcfnpkjegchnik?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/polarr-photo-edito...

m0nty 11y ago

> In May, we launched Google Photos as the home for all your photos and videos. ... In an effort to ensure everyone has the best photos experience we can deliver, on August 1st we’ll start to shut down Google+ Photos I just don't trust Google and their 5-second attention span any more. Seems like every day brings another change in direction, or outright abandonment of a service I had relied upon. I'm self-hosting email and just won't touch the rest of their offerings, because there's no guarantee of continuity or even continuation.

madeofpalk 11y ago
Well, in this instance at least there's the continuation. The seem pretty set on Photos, and it's a strategic product for them (combined with Android). Google Photos is the successor to Google+ Photos and it surprised me they had both in the market at the same time for as long as they did.
- nissehulth 11y ago
  Yes, I uploaded some photos to Picasa like 10 years ago and those are still available in this "new" service. But even if this is just a re-branding to get away from the G+ fiasco, it's still very confusing.
easytiger 11y ago
It has got ridiculous. I have thousands of photos there and appreciate the service, but almost every time i log in something has changed. I'd love to know who is making these choices, it is descending into Microsoft levels of program mgmt stupidity. Also I couldn't even map out the interconnectedness of Google's product offerings.
larister 11y ago
They're dismantling Google Plus. I know that's not the root cause for all the changes, but I think it's the major one and will result in significant upheaval until it's complete. I suspect that in a year or two, things will be a lot more settled and stable.
deleted 11y ago

0x0 11y ago

I wish they would give the Picasa OSX app more love. It doesn't even support retina displays! It's one of the best ways to manage photos for us who like to keep photos as .jpegs inside actual folders, instead of inside some opaque package of sqlite and hidden hashed filenames (like Photos.app and the older iPhoto.app). But I guess supporting vendor-neutral, lock-in-less file repositories like that is out of fashion these days :-/

4ad 11y ago
I also hate the sqlite "feature". Lightroom does the right thing, has the best features and it's not even that expensive, however, I will never submit to that creative cloud crap. Just let me buy the damn thing, and no .pkg installers either!
- frik 11y ago
  Doesn't Lightroom use a MySQL database to store the users metadata/tags? Windows Vista/7 Photo Gallery did the right thing, it stored the users metadata in the pictures (EXIF, XMP, etc metadata formats) inside the JPEG/etc formarts. Windows Media Player stored the song user rating in the MP3 files in their ID3 tags too. iTunes does the contrary, stores everything in a SQLite db.
  - 4ad 11y ago
    I don't know what Lightroom uses to store metadata, but it stores data in files, which is what I'm most interested in. I have no particular opinion on Lightroom metadata, but I sure would hate if simply assigning ratings to songs would alter the file. I sure hope metadata like that is stored outside the file.
    - frik 11y ago
      What "data" are you talking about that Lightroom stores in files? How is your "data" different than what is known as "metadata"? If I tag a photo or picture, I want the metadata to go with me. I can create a dynamic playlist of photos on all my devices based on the metadata on multiple different platforms (even in my car). If I choose to strip my personal metadata later, it's just a single click. What is idiotic is to store metadata only in silos (iTunes, Lightroom, iPhoto databases), it's a vendor lock-in that will hurt the customer in the long term.

Pamar 11y ago

I am more than a bit confused - hope someone here can clarify. I have 11000 pictures under https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos https://plus.google.com/photos/yourphotos. Not that I care much about the storage/editing part: I do all my editing on my desktop, and I store original and edited pictures locally, with tagging, date-sorted directories etc. What I do use Google+ for is to create posts with galleries. Typically if I go somewhere interesting I put online a series of pics for my trip, to share with family and friends, I post them as "Public" and then link to each individual gallery from my personal webpage (so I don't have to store these on my site). So the question for me is: what changes in terms of "creating posts on Google+ with a bunch of pictures associated to them"? Will this still be possible? Can I just upload pics like now, or do I need to use the new Google Photo app?

junto 11y ago
I'm also completely confused. It states: Download the new Google Photos today for uninterrupted access to all your photos, videos and albums. If you don’t update to the new Google Photos, Google+ Photos on Android will soon stop working, but your photos and videos will still remain safely stored... I'm actually so glad I didn't decide to use Google Picasa as a safe backup option for my photos. I'm not sure I can trust Google to take care of my data. I have now been moved from Picasa, to Google+ Photos to +Google Photos, which I assume at some point will be renamed again to *Google-+Photos=WTF I don't want an app on my phone, because I don't want a Google app to be randomly uploading photos from my phone to it's servers. So, if I don't have an mobile app, has anything actually changed? I just want a Google website app that allows me to: - Present photos in albums (that I name and sort) nicely - Share those photos with selective friends and family using a URL that I can revoke (like Flickr does) - Explore where my photos were taken on a map - Allow comments on photos without friends and family having to have some kind of Google account I use my phone like a camera. I connect it to my computer with a USB cable, download the photos and then organise and sort them, then selectively upload them. I want to have that control. I don't want to upload everything. Why does everything have to be an app these days? My perfect photo app would be open source. There is no good open source alternative. All open source photos web apps are poor. I've tried them all. I love the Google+ Photos interface. Bright, white and big photos in a mosaic. Flickr used to be good, then it decided to go all black and depressing. TroveBox and Lychee are the closest, but Trovebox (Open Photo) has a very problematic install and Lychee is missing the Amazon S3 storage option). No app offers encrypted at rest storage, which these days should be a must. I've read several times that "there is no money in consumer photo apps", but personally I'm paying Flickr a subscription and Google and Dropbox, when none of them really provide me with what I want. I'd happily pay a license fee for some open source software that actually did the job, and which I knew wasn't going to "sunset" after two years. </end rant>

alex95 11y ago

This was posted in July?!

vdaniuk 11y ago

Kolmogorov complexity of HN comments on X is approaching boilerplate level. Where X is Google's product changes, front-end apps/frameworks, advertising, etc etc.

admp 11y ago

Bear in mind this is from July 2015.

growse 11y ago

Given that the google photos app isn't supported on iOS<8 (whereas the google plus app was), does anyone know what the best way of getting camera photos to upload to Google photos from an older iPhone? I'm really hoping I don't have to do some sort of Dropbox/iPhotos dance :(

on_and_off 11y ago
can you import them in google drive ? There is a very handy option to automatically import your drive photos in google photos. I think it should work on ios as well.

sidcool 11y ago

This is from July 21, just wondering the significance now.

maniacalrobot 11y ago

In 232 words, "Google" is mentioned 14 times (6%), and "Photos" gets 21 mentions (9%). One in 7 words is either "Google" or "Photos". They should have got bingo cards made up before this announcement so we could have all played along at home!