3 ms·
A scheme to reduce storage size.
by 66yatman 3y ago
A scheme to reduce storage size.
- vore 3y agoStore location history remotely: this is just a scheme to invade privacy and hoover up user data. Store location history locally: this is just a scheme to cut down on storage costs. There's no winning here, is there? Personally, I'm a fan of Google never giving the option to store location history remotely and this is a step in the right direction.
- ffpip 3y agoYes, because they are not promising to not use it for tracking. They are just offloading the storage costs to you.
- vore 3y agoDo you actually want them to store everywhere you've ever been on their servers because they would be using their storage instead? Because I don't, and I don't care to guess what the actual reason might be, because I'm just glad they don't want to do it anymore because it's better for everyone – removing remote storage removes a whole host of privacy issues.
- ffpip 3y agoI don't. I turned off location tracking long ago.
- oh_sigh 3y agoSomehow I doubt that the company running a site that gets 8 hours of video uploaded every second is concerned about the storage size of a bunch of (lat,lon,time) tuples.
- ajross 3y agoMap location data stored at, what, 1 minute granularity for the entire population of the world is... You know, I'm not going to bother to flip over an envelope on this one. That's at least a million times smaller than Youtube daily traffic. And I might be short a few orders of magnitude.