8 ms·

Sharing photos was solved for the 99% by Facebook & Apple & Google. If you're a photographer with gobs of high resolution photos Dropbox is perfect for you, bu

Sharing photos was solved for the 99% by Facebook & Apple & Google. If you're a photographer with gobs of high resolution photos Dropbox is perfect for you, but I imagine that is a niche pain point. What is a much bigger opportunity is a way that easily lets groups share music and movies. This cannot be solved by a centralized service like Dropbox for legal reasons. This is what would concern me if I was Dropbox; BTSync's killer feature is off limits to Dropbox without a complete change in architecture (and some soul searching about if they want to risk ending up like Kim Dotcom).

mtgx 14y ago
You can auto-sync high-res photos in Google+, too, but it ounts in the 5 GB free storage you have.
- pistoriusp 14y ago
  Images that are 2048x2048 and below don't consume space on Google drive.
  - ebtalley 14y ago
    this was all well and good to me until I saw that Google shut down someones account for violation of TOS. Im already mulling over alternatives. This might be one of them.
    - NicoJuicy 14y ago
      He had a spreadsheet with passwords and usernames of his client (they were a lot of them). Automation of Google's algorithm thought he was a hacker, they fixed it and he got his account back. You should have read the whole story ;-)
      - bad_user 14y ago
        So why is Google looking inside the uploaded files, if the files aren't public? If the guy was a "hacker", so freaking what?
        Blahah 14y ago
        No human is looking inside. Files are simply security scanned and assigned a probability of breaking the TOS.
        bad_user 14y ago
        > No human is looking inside Where's the relevance? I asked why is Google, the entity, looking inside of private files? > a probability of breaking the TOS And my question was, if the files are private, why should their content be against the TOS? Also, locking somebody out of their account because of a probability generated by a script, without manual confirmation by a human? OMG. Some people can lose their jobs or money because of such flukes.
        doodyhead 14y ago
        Seems like it would've been best handled by an advance warning system, i.e., at least a few days or a week's notice that you're violating their TOS and need to take action.
        BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
        > And my question was, if the files are private, why should their content be against the TOS? They probably don't want to allow the services to be used to aid illegal activity. Say what you want about how technology should be completely agnostic to matters of culture and legality, but that isn't at all the case.
      - rurounijones 14y ago
        Hang on, that sounds like a "See, there is no problem" They only fixed it because he pulled teeth, tapped friends on staff at google and generally had to scream and shout. In no way was the trek he had to go through to fix an automation problem a good example of "Don't worry about it" Plus the fact that if it happens to you and you don't have the inside contacts you have no guarantee of getting it fixed.
        Intermernet 14y ago
        I'm pretty sure many people have had this fixed without writing blog posts or having friends in google. Just like many people have had their hotmail, paypal, facebook, itunes developer account etc. suspended for automatic detection of breach of TOS, and they've appealed and had their access returned. This is not so much a google problem, as a reliance on 3rd parties to store your important documents, when everyone is warned (in tiny print) as to what may happen when they sign up. I'm not excusing google's behavior, it's as bad as the rest of them, but they are playing by the rules we all agree to when we use their services.
  - mtgx 14y ago
    I know. I meant the "higher-res" ones do.
- junto 14y ago
  The killer feature for me with Google+ is Google Picasa. The fact that I can choose which of the zillions of photos are my favorites and only sync those to Google+, and then share them with my friends and family is awesome. Dropbox is missing the photo application on the user's computer.
nodata 14y ago
> Sharing photos was solved for the 99% by Facebook & Apple & Google. Rubbish. Dropbox already has people's photos. It's easier and better to tap the screen a few times and share them there.

mtgx 14y ago

You can auto-sync high-res photos in Google+, too, but it ounts in the 5 GB free storage you have.

pistoriusp 14y ago
Images that are 2048x2048 and below don't consume space on Google drive.
- ebtalley 14y ago
  this was all well and good to me until I saw that Google shut down someones account for violation of TOS. Im already mulling over alternatives. This might be one of them.
  - NicoJuicy 14y ago
    He had a spreadsheet with passwords and usernames of his client (they were a lot of them). Automation of Google's algorithm thought he was a hacker, they fixed it and he got his account back. You should have read the whole story ;-)
    - bad_user 14y ago
      So why is Google looking inside the uploaded files, if the files aren't public? If the guy was a "hacker", so freaking what?
      - Blahah 14y ago
        No human is looking inside. Files are simply security scanned and assigned a probability of breaking the TOS.
        bad_user 14y ago
        > No human is looking inside Where's the relevance? I asked why is Google, the entity, looking inside of private files? > a probability of breaking the TOS And my question was, if the files are private, why should their content be against the TOS? Also, locking somebody out of their account because of a probability generated by a script, without manual confirmation by a human? OMG. Some people can lose their jobs or money because of such flukes.
        doodyhead 14y ago
        Seems like it would've been best handled by an advance warning system, i.e., at least a few days or a week's notice that you're violating their TOS and need to take action.
        BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
        > And my question was, if the files are private, why should their content be against the TOS? They probably don't want to allow the services to be used to aid illegal activity. Say what you want about how technology should be completely agnostic to matters of culture and legality, but that isn't at all the case.
    - rurounijones 14y ago
      Hang on, that sounds like a "See, there is no problem" They only fixed it because he pulled teeth, tapped friends on staff at google and generally had to scream and shout. In no way was the trek he had to go through to fix an automation problem a good example of "Don't worry about it" Plus the fact that if it happens to you and you don't have the inside contacts you have no guarantee of getting it fixed.
      - Intermernet 14y ago
        I'm pretty sure many people have had this fixed without writing blog posts or having friends in google. Just like many people have had their hotmail, paypal, facebook, itunes developer account etc. suspended for automatic detection of breach of TOS, and they've appealed and had their access returned. This is not so much a google problem, as a reliance on 3rd parties to store your important documents, when everyone is warned (in tiny print) as to what may happen when they sign up. I'm not excusing google's behavior, it's as bad as the rest of them, but they are playing by the rules we all agree to when we use their services.
- mtgx 14y ago
  I know. I meant the "higher-res" ones do.
junto 14y ago
The killer feature for me with Google+ is Google Picasa. The fact that I can choose which of the zillions of photos are my favorites and only sync those to Google+, and then share them with my friends and family is awesome. Dropbox is missing the photo application on the user's computer.

nodata 14y ago

> Sharing photos was solved for the 99% by Facebook & Apple & Google. Rubbish. Dropbox already has people's photos. It's easier and better to tap the screen a few times and share them there.