Apple Might Finally Solve Photo Storage Hell | Hacker News Reader

Apple Might Finally Solve Photo Storage Hell

techcrunch.com

8 pointsCoolSuor17 comments

Hasn't Google+ done this for quite some time now? I think at 2048 x 2048 you can store unlimited photos. Odd that it wasn't one of the comparisons in the article anyway.

Microsoft also does it with SkyDrive, and has for the past few years.

Unfortunately, for a lot of tech journalists, until Apple does it -- it hasn't been done.

Lots of people saying Google or Microsoft has 'done this'.. Well yes and no in my personal opinion. The devil is definitely in the details and if you are like me you find the existing services frustrating in their own way. (I'm none too optimistic about Apples solution either given I'm only partly 'iDevice' compatible).

I don't want to sync my collection (have a backup in the cloud) I want to have the actual backup elsewhere and keep only a small cache of photos locally. My laptop SSD and phone are filled up with photos. At the same time I want to be 100% confident that I have the photos somewhere, forever.

Google+ has its own special madness of it seemingly choosing which of my photos it deems worthy and not actually just syncing all of them.. only the ones it likes get 'highlighted' but even clicking into 'more' it seems (I swear I'm not crazy) it only actually syncs are subset of the rest. God knows why. Does not give me confidence in the solution.

Also I want to merge the photostream from multiple photo devices according to time. And I do not want to have to 'share' a post with an album on Google+ just to make some photos public. Grr.

In short none of the existing solutions actually offers that kind of experience, though the thing outlined in the OP is pretty much what I want.

> Google+ has its own special madness of it seemingly choosing which of my photos it deems worthy and not actually just syncing all of them.. only the ones it likes get 'highlighted' but even clicking into 'more' it seems (I swear I'm not crazy) it only actually syncs are subset of the rest. God knows why. Does not give me confidence in the solution.

I don't understand this, are you saying that not all the pictures are synced to the cloud or that you can't see all the pictures synced?

Came here to say the same. Google already does what the article says, and has decent pricing. My only grief with their solution is that the "desktop" viewer is the "Google+ Photos" webapp (part of Google+) that really sucks bigtime for browsing your history of photos. Give it a try and cry.

Apple Photos.app on iPhone is tons better, with their moments, locations, people, search (in iOS8) and whatnot.

What photo storage hell? flickr offers 1TB of online storage. Free. The only downside is they are limited to .jpg uploads, but I doubt Apple would do RAW anyway. Seriously, $50 a year for 200GB is pretty sad. Almost as sad as being restricted to 5GB of iCloud backup space no matter how many iDevices you buy.

Is there some place to get it cheaper? Just for rule of thumb checking AWS (with their new pricing) it would cost ~$72/year for the 200GB storage alone, without factoring in any cost for transferring data, requests, etc.

I'm curious if there is a way to get storage cheaper than their existing $50 for 200GB/year. And yes, I know Flickr is free, but I mean from some place where the pricing isn't in exchange for some "to be determined later" monetization angle.

Dreamhost offers unlimited storage, and if you buy two years up front it's $3.95 a month (I think this might be a promo, I'm paying closer to 9 a month but it's worth it). I've been with them for about ten years and they're swell.

There is literally no inclination to how or what Apple have done to solve this problem. This is paid advertising.

... As long as you only use Apple products.

Not necessarily a problem. I was in a hotel recently that doesn't secure their network. Easily 80% of the devices in there were Apple devices. The next most common device was Samsung.

Your hotel isn't the world.

Never said it was. But hotels are good snapshots of particular demographics whom the hotel chains target.

The people spending $250/night at the particular urban center hotel made the choice that I observed on that one occasion. If that's a trend vs. a datapoint, it could be very meaningful for somebody trying to sell products.

Personally, the next time I find myself in a cheap roadside place, I'm going to make a similar comparison.

Maybe people using other devices types were more likely to not use insecure WiFi?

This latest round of updates for Apple certainly is interesting, but when's the last time they got photos right? For me it was the first iPhoto version, and since then every "exciting" development has been a bust. Main reason we're super positive at Picturelife.

its amazing how techcrunch is still respected when they keep posting badly researched articles like this one.

if its a paid article believe they should clearly state it.

It's techcrunch. They live in an Apple bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com