4 ms·
>not everything needs to be, nor should be, a pure webapp google thinks you're wrong. me too.
by D_Guidi 11y ago
>not everything needs to be, nor should be, a pure webapp
google thinks you're wrong. me too.
- mey 11y agoGoogle of course thinks that wrong, they want you on their platform. Doesn't mean it's what I want as a consumer (with a DSLR and NAS full of RAW images)
- wstrange 11y agoYou are not their target market - which is fine. There many good options for serious photographers. 90% of folks just want seamless backup and organization of their photos. Phone cameras are getting pretty amazing in quality these days. Google photos caters to that demand.
- newjersey 11y agoIs there any public information on how "unlimited" the unlimited storage is on Google photos? Is there a built in rate limit or max size per account?
- ploxiln 11y agoSoon we'll all be running all our applications in facebook or googleplus or icloud, in a browser, in a virtual machine, on a proprietary-blob-driven all-in-one device. Apps will be announced with huge fanfare (the most innovative thing ever), they'll show up in front of you without any action required on your part, they will change drastically in front of your eyes, corner cases will be buggy, and then in a few months to a couple of years they'll disappear forever. yay, the future is almost here
- Sanddancer 11y agoI've got a rather large collection of large photo images. Images which I can and do want to work on, crop, tune brightness, contrast, etc, before publishing them. Webapps right now are amazingly primitive and crude for even the most basic of workflows, especially when you're working with raw images. Additionally, in order to save the images I want how I created them, I'd have to pay a non-insubstantial amount of money to store them. By saving everything locally, I can have the full-resolution image for my own usage, and just pay the occasional cost to upgrade/replace hard drives. Furthermore, I'm almost certainly going to have to have a copy of many of the images on my computer anyways. A lot of the images I make, I tend to want to share in 2 or more other places, not just a random web album. So again, the webapp usage story falls apart. I'm also not always in a place where I have internet access which is particularly fast and reliable. So, needing a webapp in such a situation means that I can't edit and arrange my photos at all until I get to a location that has internet access. Not everyone wants to be hyperconnected all the time. Webapps mean you're even more beholden to someone else for functionality than a desktop app. You are limited in how you can post your content, where you can post your content, and even what content you're allowed to post. A desktop application has none of these limitations, whereas they're inherent flaws in the webapp ecosystem.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoPhotoshop or Lightroom should meet your needs. Not free, but better they're not free: that means they'll stick around.
- Sanddancer 11y agoYeah, I've been moving my stuff over to lightroom, this announcement will just accelerate that move.
- vvanders 11y agoYup, Lightroom was tailor build for exactly this.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoDigikam is good for photo management (though the facial recognition doesn't yet work as well for me as Picasa did 10 years ago).
- jwatte 11y agoThere is nothing on the web able to even enter the same ballpark as Photoshop. Separately, when on travel, a web connection for your photos may be very hard to find and/or expensive. Separately, again, Google photos downscales my photos. My hard drive does not. Why do you think we should only have shitty tools with bad accessibility and low quality?
- fernly 11y agoThey only downscale if you choose the "free unlimited" option under settings. If you choose the "Original" option they don't -- or at least, I assumed they don't! Unfortunately if you want to store more than 14GB of "Original" images -- a quite trivial quantity for the serious photog -- you have to pay. I'd have to pay $10/mo for the 1TB if I wanted to put all my pics online. At for example Smugmug.com you can have unlimited storage of original images with a VASTLY better UI for less than $4/mo.
- jwatte 11y agoThere is nothing on the web able to even enter the same ballpark as Photoshop. Separately, when on travel, a web connection for your photos may be very hard to find and/or expensive. Separately, again, Google photos downscales my photos. My hard drive does not. Why do you think we should only have shitty tools with bad accessibility and low quality?