5 ms·

Google already have unlimited storage for photos, maybe they are just increasing the size of things that count to the free storage. From: https://support.google

by dudus 11y ago

Google already have unlimited storage for photos, maybe they are just increasing the size of things that count to the free storage. From: https://support.google.com/picasa/answer/6558?hl=en https://support.google.com/picasa/answer/6558?hl=en Keep in mind that photos up to 2048x2048 pixels and videos up to 15 minutes long won't count toward your storage limit.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
I think separation from Google+ will be the big thing.
- criley2 11y ago
  I'm super psyched about this. Photos was easily my favorite part of Google+, but I was never comfortable having my entire phone connected to a public-only social network. I never trusted photo backup from my phone to a public-only profile page. I understand that google respects privacy and tests their code well and doesn't auto-share photos, but the reality is I will never be comfortable with a public-only profile page directly connected to my cellphones camera with auto-upload. I may be that tiny, tiny minority but I'm very psyched I'll be able to finally use some of the great tools without having to worry about the fact that my phone is being dumped into a public-only social network that "should" protect my privacy.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Photos was easily my favorite part of Google+, but I was never comfortable having my entire phone connected to a public-only social network. In what sense is G+ a "public-only social network"?
    - criley2 11y ago
      When you create a G+ profile, you explicitly must check a box that affirms that they are creating a publicly viewable profile for your account. That profile page will, no matter what, be a public internet page with no permission filter at all. You can then subsequently lock down features ON that page, such as hiding work information, hiding photos, hiding this, hiding that, (in fact, each of the dozens and dozens of options must be individually hidden), but the net result of that work is a public page with very little info on it. By proxy, I can set my Facebook page to "visible to friends only" and even if you have a hardlink, you'll receieve a "page does not exist" error when you view it without logged-in whitelist (friend list) approval to even know the page exists. I was never OK with the idea that, essentially, my android device had a public web page. A direct link between my data and a public profile page that I had no ability to remove access to. As evidence of this I made a dummy G+ for a mostly unused Google account I have. Even though I turned off all features and hid all sections and turned on all privacy settings, and have added 0 content, 0 customization, 0 demographic settings (completely and totally blank G+ profile, no posts, nothing), the G+ dummy profile has "715 views" in the past year. I made a fake G+ with no data and as private as possible, and it has been accessed about 700 times a year. That's not "privacy" to me. It's forced-public, searchable, etc. The best you can do is have a public profile page that you mark "do not search" (but which will still be crawled because search engines often crawl then hide instead of ignore). You can never have privacy on G+ like Facebook, where you have a private page that does not even resolve as an address to non-friends.
      - danellis 11y ago
        That's default-public, not public-only. > I made a fake G+ with no data and as private as possible, and it has been accessed about 700 times a year. That's not "privacy" to me. You didn't say what information was revealed on the profile. If it was completely blank, then how is that a privacy issue?
        criley2 11y ago
        The information revealed was: forced real name and existence of page. I do not want the existence of a profile to be known. I do not want social networks, search engines, and government organizations crawling and recording information from a profile page connected directly to my cellphone. I explained this: on Facebook, if you click a link to my profile it will say "sorry this link is invalid". If you click it on Google, despite my best attempts, it will say "Hey, this user exists, here is their full name, oh, they don't share anything else with you". That's an invasion of my privacy, to me, to have a public page that resolves and identifies me against my will. The fact that you're OK with 700 automated bots crawling a blank profile shows me that you don't respect your own information and data and are okay with literally dozens of organizations collecting personal information about you without your permission or knowledge. What do you think those 700 clicks are? People hitting a blank profile? They're bots, and they're data harvesters. The existence of a profile is great information to help build more complete profiles of me, my devices and accounts, and ultimately my browsing history, locations, purchasing histories, advertising history, etc.
        danellis 11y ago
        Your real name, apart from almost certainly not being unique, isn't private information anyway, so no privacy is being lost. > The fact that you're OK with 700 automated bots crawling a blank profile shows me that you don't respect your own information and data and are okay with literally dozens of organizations collecting personal information about you without your permission or knowledge. "blank profile" ... "personal information" -- this isn't even coherent. > without your permission They implicitly have my permission to crawl anything I allow to be public. That's what making something public means!
soylentcola 11y ago
Yeah, I thought they already had this. For a while it was sort of half branded under Picasa and half under G+/Photos but I set it up last winter for my girlfriend's mom. She has a load of scanned photos and digital camera photos on her laptop but no backup plan. Since she didn't want to buy a NAS or subscribe to online backup, I set it up so imported photos were backed up to Google+/Photos. Same stipulations: resized (but still decent) photos wouldn't count toward any limit but original resolution would require her to pay for Google storage. She agreed that the free storage of resized images was a decent compromise. Chances are she won't need the backups but if her laptop's hard drive dies then at least she will have decent copies of all of her photos. For a free solution it wasn't a terrible deal. She's not a photographer or anything so the smaller (but again, still decent) images would suffice for the cost.

by dudus 11y ago

k-mcgrady 11y ago

I think separation from Google+ will be the big thing.

criley2 11y ago
I'm super psyched about this. Photos was easily my favorite part of Google+, but I was never comfortable having my entire phone connected to a public-only social network. I never trusted photo backup from my phone to a public-only profile page. I understand that google respects privacy and tests their code well and doesn't auto-share photos, but the reality is I will never be comfortable with a public-only profile page directly connected to my cellphones camera with auto-upload. I may be that tiny, tiny minority but I'm very psyched I'll be able to finally use some of the great tools without having to worry about the fact that my phone is being dumped into a public-only social network that "should" protect my privacy.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Photos was easily my favorite part of Google+, but I was never comfortable having my entire phone connected to a public-only social network. In what sense is G+ a "public-only social network"?
  - criley2 11y ago
    When you create a G+ profile, you explicitly must check a box that affirms that they are creating a publicly viewable profile for your account. That profile page will, no matter what, be a public internet page with no permission filter at all. You can then subsequently lock down features ON that page, such as hiding work information, hiding photos, hiding this, hiding that, (in fact, each of the dozens and dozens of options must be individually hidden), but the net result of that work is a public page with very little info on it. By proxy, I can set my Facebook page to "visible to friends only" and even if you have a hardlink, you'll receieve a "page does not exist" error when you view it without logged-in whitelist (friend list) approval to even know the page exists. I was never OK with the idea that, essentially, my android device had a public web page. A direct link between my data and a public profile page that I had no ability to remove access to. As evidence of this I made a dummy G+ for a mostly unused Google account I have. Even though I turned off all features and hid all sections and turned on all privacy settings, and have added 0 content, 0 customization, 0 demographic settings (completely and totally blank G+ profile, no posts, nothing), the G+ dummy profile has "715 views" in the past year. I made a fake G+ with no data and as private as possible, and it has been accessed about 700 times a year. That's not "privacy" to me. It's forced-public, searchable, etc. The best you can do is have a public profile page that you mark "do not search" (but which will still be crawled because search engines often crawl then hide instead of ignore). You can never have privacy on G+ like Facebook, where you have a private page that does not even resolve as an address to non-friends.
    - danellis 11y ago
      That's default-public, not public-only. > I made a fake G+ with no data and as private as possible, and it has been accessed about 700 times a year. That's not "privacy" to me. You didn't say what information was revealed on the profile. If it was completely blank, then how is that a privacy issue?
      - criley2 11y ago
        The information revealed was: forced real name and existence of page. I do not want the existence of a profile to be known. I do not want social networks, search engines, and government organizations crawling and recording information from a profile page connected directly to my cellphone. I explained this: on Facebook, if you click a link to my profile it will say "sorry this link is invalid". If you click it on Google, despite my best attempts, it will say "Hey, this user exists, here is their full name, oh, they don't share anything else with you". That's an invasion of my privacy, to me, to have a public page that resolves and identifies me against my will. The fact that you're OK with 700 automated bots crawling a blank profile shows me that you don't respect your own information and data and are okay with literally dozens of organizations collecting personal information about you without your permission or knowledge. What do you think those 700 clicks are? People hitting a blank profile? They're bots, and they're data harvesters. The existence of a profile is great information to help build more complete profiles of me, my devices and accounts, and ultimately my browsing history, locations, purchasing histories, advertising history, etc.
        danellis 11y ago
        Your real name, apart from almost certainly not being unique, isn't private information anyway, so no privacy is being lost. > The fact that you're OK with 700 automated bots crawling a blank profile shows me that you don't respect your own information and data and are okay with literally dozens of organizations collecting personal information about you without your permission or knowledge. "blank profile" ... "personal information" -- this isn't even coherent. > without your permission They implicitly have my permission to crawl anything I allow to be public. That's what making something public means!

soylentcola 11y ago

Yeah, I thought they already had this. For a while it was sort of half branded under Picasa and half under G+/Photos but I set it up last winter for my girlfriend's mom. She has a load of scanned photos and digital camera photos on her laptop but no backup plan. Since she didn't want to buy a NAS or subscribe to online backup, I set it up so imported photos were backed up to Google+/Photos. Same stipulations: resized (but still decent) photos wouldn't count toward any limit but original resolution would require her to pay for Google storage. She agreed that the free storage of resized images was a decent compromise. Chances are she won't need the backups but if her laptop's hard drive dies then at least she will have decent copies of all of her photos. For a free solution it wasn't a terrible deal. She's not a photographer or anything so the smaller (but again, still decent) images would suffice for the cost.