4 ms·

Oh yes please. It makes no sense to bind a photo product with a social platform. I mean you can make them talk to each other, for sure, but for now it's more li

Oh yes please. It makes no sense to bind a photo product with a social platform. I mean you can make them talk to each other, for sure, but for now it's more like photo won't function normally without G+. For example, it's quite silly to have Google+ as the first item in navigation view on the Photo apps on Android. Whenever I want to see my photo, I want the photo features, not social features. I will only want to touch the Google+ when I want to share it, but it's not the thing I want to do all the times.

abraham 12y ago
Maybe for your use case. The only thing I do with photos (other than back them up online) is share them with other people.
Chevalier 12y ago
I guess... aside from hoarding photos, the only other things I want to do with them is improve them and share them. And I've never seen any other site do that as well as G+. (Except Everpix, at least for hoarding and sharing.) G+'s circles make it really easy for me to define exactly who sees which photos, and the auto-awesome stuff really is pretty gorgeous. You'd prefer a dumb drive like S3 to free enhancement and easy sharing?
on_and_off 12y ago
Yeah. It is understandable when you see where Photos is coming from. Google+ has proven successful with photographs since it had (at least at the time) an very good picture experience and an interaction model that worked well for communities. So they doubled down on photo features (not to mention that according to rumors, Gundotra is supposedly prone to claim some projects for his division). Now that we have a full fledged photo product, it may be time to : -separate it from Google+, even though g+ should still be backed by photos. -Merge as many google photo products as possible into this new experience. Google has made some amazing work with auto awesome features (these automatic albums are slick) and the Photo editor, especially on mobile (where it is far from easy to build an editing pipeline, even if you use Renderscript).
myko 12y ago
More often than not when I open a photo on my phone I want to share it with someone or I'm showing it to them in person. It makes total sense to have sharing functionality right there.

abraham 12y ago

Maybe for your use case. The only thing I do with photos (other than back them up online) is share them with other people.

Chevalier 12y ago

I guess... aside from hoarding photos, the only other things I want to do with them is improve them and share them. And I've never seen any other site do that as well as G+. (Except Everpix, at least for hoarding and sharing.) G+'s circles make it really easy for me to define exactly who sees which photos, and the auto-awesome stuff really is pretty gorgeous. You'd prefer a dumb drive like S3 to free enhancement and easy sharing?

on_and_off 12y ago

Yeah. It is understandable when you see where Photos is coming from. Google+ has proven successful with photographs since it had (at least at the time) an very good picture experience and an interaction model that worked well for communities. So they doubled down on photo features (not to mention that according to rumors, Gundotra is supposedly prone to claim some projects for his division). Now that we have a full fledged photo product, it may be time to : -separate it from Google+, even though g+ should still be backed by photos. -Merge as many google photo products as possible into this new experience. Google has made some amazing work with auto awesome features (these automatic albums are slick) and the Photo editor, especially on mobile (where it is far from easy to build an editing pipeline, even if you use Renderscript).

myko 12y ago

More often than not when I open a photo on my phone I want to share it with someone or I'm showing it to them in person. It makes total sense to have sharing functionality right there.