3 ms·

Everything. Compared to Google Photos there's not one query that isn't vastly inferior. Finding text in images, finding obscure relationships between a query a

Everything. Compared to Google Photos there's not one query that isn't vastly inferior. Finding text in images, finding obscure relationships between a query and a photo. I mean, I can search for my cars by make! Like, no logo showing, I type in "Porsche" and my old Boxster shows up including photos that don't have a visible logo. I had out of town guests visit and we went to Times Square. I could find pictures from a specific vantage point by searching for specific text in billboards The facial recognition is a million miles ahead too. Across all my photos Apple only recognizes a handful of recurring faces. Google recognizes people I don't even realize were in multiple pictures. - I suspect Apple is behind because they're using less invasive indexing or something, so I'm not saying switch... but also Apple Photos might as well not have search once you've tried Google Photos.

carabiner 5y ago
Apple's runs on the device, Google's runs on cloud with the results downloaded.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Sure that's the less invasive indexing I mentioned, but they're also just not even in the same ballpark as Google I'm not convinced that even if Google ported their indexing models to the device (like they did for the Pixel's voice recognition) they'd sink to the level of Apple's current implementation.
  - carabiner 5y ago
    Why don't they?
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Don't they what, port their models to being on-device? I'm not Google, but just look at why they did it for voice: The hardware caught up, the UX is better when it's done locally, and I think they mentioned better power consumption? Presumably at some point that might happen for image recognition. They already started in Google Lens with porting OCR + translation onto the device