New Google Photos App yea or nay? Maybe something else?

[Grateful11]

Been kinda lying low lately, anyway have a question about cloud photo storage.

Just heard about Google Photos last night. Been trying to find about their rights to users content.
So far I've found this:

""Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of
any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and
those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works
(such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content
works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute
such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and
improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

It gives Google a broad license, yes, but you retain ownership of the material. That is substantially different
than what you suggested."

Nephew told me this morning that Flickr now gives you 1Tb of storage for free which is more than enough for
my photos but not personal videos. I haven't looked into their license agreement yet. I haven't uploaded
any photos to Flickr since 2009, I just logged in to see if anything was still there. I have plenty of storage
here at home but would like to have some sorta off-site storage for catastrophic reasons.

Really don't want to pay Apple for extra iCloud storage, I'm too cheap.

[Bimwad]

I installed the iOS app just to play around.

The "unlimited" storage applies only if you allow them to compress the images.

They say that it's indistinguishable, and those under 16MB in size (like most phone images) should remain intact.

The option to upload uncompressed images counts against the 15GB limit per Google account.

Overall, it's similar to iCloud photos, and it's also been described as "Gmail for photos."

Flickr's 1TB limit is attractive, but I've never liked using it, or its apps.

Privacy-wise, I don't expect anything uploaded to the cloud to be truly private; that's a tradeoff for such "free" or low-cost services.

If anything, if this spurs Apple to stop being so stingy with their free tier, then it will have done at least some bit of good.

[Uncle Wig]

I'm glad they brought this out because it sort of operates the way the old Picasa web galleries did.

For me, Flickr will remain my primary image depository. I like the groups, communities, and organizational tools. But it looks like using Google Photos will make it easy for me to set up a quick gallery (say, photos from a vacation) that I can share with my family AND have it be easier for them to navigate. For a couple of reasons I find this not as easy to do in Flickr. So I'll use it to some extent.

[Paul F.]

I just learned about Google Photo's from YOU...
And I'm jumping in with both feet.

[Article Accelerator]

Paul F. wrote:
I just learned about Google Photo's from YOU...
And I'm jumping in with both feet.

Google loves you, Paul.

Expect to soon see weird coincidences between what is pictured in your photos and the ads you see in your browser.

[datbeme]

Ewww. A picture of Paul F's feet just appeared in a banner ad for Tinactin.

That's eerie. I don't even know Paul, and I don't have athlete's foot.

[vision63]

It used to be a part of Google Plus. Another no brainer. Works flawlessly. Flickr is still more useful however.

[Paul F.]

I have 50 staff members with 100+ iPads, all b#$@ching about moving photo's... I don't really CARE what Google does with their photo's, so long as they leave me in peace so I can finish writing some data export filters for our student database!

Article Accelerator wrote:
[quote=Paul F.]
I just learned about Google Photo's from YOU...
And I'm jumping in with both feet.

Google loves you, Paul.

Expect to soon see weird coincidences between what is pictured in your photos and the ads you see in your browser.

[$tevie]

The good news: Google offers unlimited storage for photos and video. The fine print: Google compresses the images, although Lieb says they're still high quality. A 1080p video will still be 1080p high def, he says.

If the photographer wants to keep the images at full resolution, they can buy storage from Google. The first 15 gigabytes are free, and then it's $10 a month for 1 terabyte.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102715123

[vision63]

$tevie wrote:

The good news: Google offers unlimited storage for photos and video. The fine print: Google compresses the images, although Lieb says they're still high quality. A 1080p video will still be 1080p high def, he says.

If the photographer wants to keep the images at full resolution, they can buy storage from Google. The first 15 gigabytes are free, and then it's $10 a month for 1 terabyte.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102715123

This is just fine. I doubt anyone can tell (they'll say they can but they cannot). However, flickr.com is the very best option.