Hacker News Reader

Comment by kissickas | Hacker News Reader

This is simply an example of Google actually providing you with a service in exchange for the information you give them. If your iPhone photos include the same information but they don't give you a (admittedly mediocre, I've never saved one) album which uses that data in exchange, you're not maintaining any more "privacy." You're just not being made aware of how little privacy you have when syncing to a cloud-based service.

View on HN

The Photos app on my iPhone does geotagging and creates relevant albums of trips away.

Yup! But what’s cool is the iPhone does all of that locally on the phone instead of on the cloud.

And it does not allow any app to export it once you archive your photos - oh, except for iCloud which is a super-expensive pay-to-play service beyond the first few photos.

Super-expensive? It’s $10/mo for a 2TB plan, which is less than the 1TB plans from both Google and Dropbox!

Know that since three months it isn't expensive anymore, but it launched over 6 years ago. So it was 5 years and 9 months expensive, since 3 months it's not expensive.

BUT, there is no 500 gb plan. So everyone who wants more than 200 gb is paying for 2TB.

They are earning more, just in a smarter way

I have 33,000 photos and it's happily under 200GB, which I pay £2.49/mo for.

You can store any kind of files on iCloud or only photos/video?

any

Not the parent, but I think the mentality that the user is wrong and misunderstands their (intentionally limited by Google) options with regard to privacy is why people move away from their ecosystem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com