That "modicum of tinkering" is what sets you (edit: and I) apart from the other >99% of Apple's customer base and is why Apple has the cloud strategy they have: No tinkering required.
I think the reasons this isn't a feature of OSX, itself, as an operating system is that its simply not profitable for Apple to do this - they're giving the OS away for free, after all, now. (So I've been informed.) So they can't profit from new features of OSX.
And so this whole cloud thing is to me, a distraction from poor attention on the part of Apple to the responsibilities they have as vendors of an Operating System - I get it, though. This isn't hip any more. Its far more profitable to be the BOFH's for so many millions of cloud-addled new users.
This is made for "the rest of us."
I didn't realize, though, that you don't need a Mac to run Photo for OSX. That's a curious development - what I guess you mean is, all you need to buy (from Apple) is an iDevice, and they'll then own everything you do with it from that point onwards .. to the extent that they'll make it easy for you to gain access to your media/content. (Psst.. as long as you keep paying the subscription.)
Oh, and btw, I already pay a subscription for access to the Internet. Why can't I just use this to share my data, instead of needing an additional Cloud-fee to do the same task? I think people need to remove their blinkers here - we're being shafted with this Cloud culture blaring its horns.
I have a Mac. I want to share my media/content with the world. The Mac is perfectly capable of doing that - and I trust it more than any other computer in the world, because its sitting there, on my desk, in my house, under my lock and key, with my network equipment, passwords for which I control. I don't think this Cloud business has anywhere near that level of quality of service, and if only the OS vendors were aware of the demand for this sort of thing, they'd be building in peer-to-peer NAT traversal tools, sticking a nice GUI on top, and calling themselves real Operating System vendors again. Alas, this doesn't seem too hip these days, in the technology world ..
Your DIY solution is still too complex for your average user.
> Maybe this is more of a European thing, but the backlash against cloud computing is very much still in full force - there are people actually not buying computers because all this Cloud nonsense is being shoved down our throats - are these not 'the rest of us'?
I don't think the proportion of people not buying computers because of "all this Cloud nonsense" is that big, and to be honest, if they cared that much, they won't buy Apple devices with their locked down bootloaders. Apple never had those customers to begin with, and they seem to be doing fine without them.
> Why can't I just use this to share my data, instead of needing an additional Cloud-fee to do the same task? I think people need to remove their blinkers here - we're being shafted with this Cloud culture blaring its horns.
You can. You just have to do it yourself if you wanted that. Install a web server and some gallery software -- easy for most Hacker News readers, impossible for my grandma. Heck, she had a hard time understanding the concept of email. These users just want to take and share the latest photos they took, not figure out why NAT traversal doesn't work with their $20 Comcast-supplied router.
> Sorry, is ownership of your data not important? Is control over where and when your data is available, and by which means it is shared with the world, not important?
Again, to Hacker News readers, maybe. However, not to my grandma. She takes pictures of flowers and pets on her daily walk and shares it with her friends. Why does she care about "what means it is shared with the world" so long as her friends and family can see it?
> I don't think this Cloud business has anywhere near that level of quality of service, and if only the OS vendors were aware of the demand for this sort of thing, they'd be building in peer-to-peer NAT traversal tools, sticking a nice GUI on top, and calling themselves real Operating System vendors again.
For the average user, I would say that the cloud is much more reliable than whatever they can control themselves. I think if you allow people to run their own servers, you will find that things would be inaccessible and/or compromised most of time. Remember -- the average user manages to install all sorts of nasty adware and spyware on their own system unprompted, and I am not sure they are going to be much better at managing servers.
Before I bought my grandparents iPads, they used Windows PCs. Invariably, I will receive a call every couple of months asking me to debug their computer or router because they managed to screw it up one way or another. Now they do everything on iPads, and it is great for them (safer, easier to use) and great for me (no need to play tech support any more). iCloud Photos and the like are targeted at these people.
I think the economic desire is just not there - Apple have given up being an OS-vendor and are in the 'next generation' phase of things where they're producing commodity, throw-away hardware for consumers. This is all a brave new world, but my point is: I think there's a missed market opportunity here, for someone, to produce the anti-cloud.
On a long enough curve, nearly every user becomes a "power user," and if you look back, a lot of stuff that was once strictly "advanced configuration," becomes simplified, or eventually just abstracted away and the domain of mere IT mortals. Apple and others could play a role here.
The problem -for me- is that Apple simply isn't that good at the cloud. Their competitors seem to beat them on both features and price here. You only go with iCloud for inclusion/integration with your other Apple devices, not because it is a superior cloud service.
They could be the "anti-cloud" company if they really wanted, but I think it is easier and more profitable for them to jump on the bandwagon and offer it themselves. To be an "anti-cloud" vendor would require them to sell against overall technology / consumer trends. They don't need to do that when they can extend their profits offering the same, and especially if it doesn't hurt the "luxury" status/profit margin of their main goods.
Yep it sure is. That's why there are many software options available for exactly this purpose. It's your responsibility to use them if that's what you prefer.