Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpr | Hacker News Reader

Dang, I want to love this as a "just works" kind of solution, but as soon as I turn on Cloud Sharing, I get dinged with the need to pay for an iCloud capacity upgrade.

(Edit:) 5GB seems like a pretty measly free level.

View on HN

I always found it curious that for $800 (price of a new top end non-contract iphone) I get 5GB in iCloud. If I then go pay another $800 for a top end iPad I get zero in iCloud. I don't get 10gig for owning 2 devices.

Shrugs if it's something you actually need - paying for it shouldn't be a big deal.

Someone with a $700+ device, likely with a $50+/mo phone plan complaining about paying what, 4$/mo to get 200GB of online storage seems strange.

When you see that Google Drive give you 15GB and the same goes for Onedrive then paying $12/yr for the 15Gb seems strange.

If Photos was the same type of product as Google Drive or Onedrive I think they'd consider this.

But my grandma/dad who pay have probably never heard to those options and just want their photos backed up. And wouldnt think twice about not using iPad/iPhone or look for stuff beyond whats baked in.

Companies price based on value/positioning. It is naive to think pricing is based primarily on competition. Any book on pricing will tell you that is totally incorrect in the first chapter.

AFAIK, Apple does not use your photos for anything pertaining to Apple's own interests. Google does.

From the Google TOS: "Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored."

Also: "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."

The above is much, much broader than Apple's TOS.

Google would appear to not just allow ad targeting, but even use of user photographs or videos for promotional ad campaigns on Google's behalf by third parties. I'm happy to be corrected on this, but that is the apparent meaning.

Let me try to offer a correction or at least a clarification. :)

First, you didn't quote this key section of Google's TOS: "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours." That's a significant limitation.

Second, Apple's TOS is nearly word-for-word identical to the portion you excerpted above:

"By submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you" (https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/icloud/en/term...)

Third, the general TOS has to be read in concert with the privacy policy and any product-specific privacy/TOS. Those exist for Google+, not sure about photos.

Fourth, there's no evidence Google is doing what you suggest (ad targeting, etc.). What is happening is shared endorsements: https://support.google.com/plus/answer/3403513?hl=en&p=plus_... But note Apple has plenty of leeway to do what it wants: "Apple reserves the right at any time to modify this Agreement and to impose new or additional terms or conditions..."

To actually read and understand a TOS/privacy policy takes some time -- so this isn't a comprehensive response. But maybe it helps...

I see a glaring difference between the two. Apple reads like a license to provide you your own photos for your own personal use. Google reads like a license for them to basically do whatever they want to do with them in the course of their business, and the business of anyone they "work with"!

Apple;

   you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license
   to use... on the Service solely for the purpose for which such
   Content was submitted or made available

Google;

  you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to
  use... The rights you grant in this license are for the limited
  purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to
  develop new ones.

Frankly, I do not want Google, or anyone they work with, using my personal photos or intellectual property to improve their services, to promote services, or to develop new services. What does Google's "Services" even mean in this context? Does it extend to Adwords? Chrome Store?

Everyone reserves the right to modify their agreements, so I think that's a strawman. If and when Apple modifies their ToS to allow them (and those they work with) to use my personal property for promoting, improving, or developing new "Services", then they will have stooped to the same level.

You're right. I think the words in the Apple TOS have a different meaning, but unpacking that would take some time, and be liable to error as well!

... except for the fact you can't really compare the two at all. Disk space alone doesn't warrant a comparison. iCloud has native access to photo storage, Google Drive does not. Apple will deal with the entire backup process from the device up to their cloud without running another app in the background. Google Drive cannot do this.

Selling products and services is a lot like real estate, it's sometimes about location, location, location. Google Drive just doesn't compare.

I am not sure about Google Drive, but Onedrive does have native access to the photo storage and does allow you to manage your backups on it.

$1/month for 15GB extra (20GB total) is reasonable. It's not just photo storage too, it will increase all your iCloud storage (backups, iCloud Drive, etc).

Plus you can buy a gift card to iTunes and it'll eat away at that. I pay $25 for the gift card, apply, and then two years for extra icloud storage is covered for me.

Psst, MS SkyDrive - 30 GB free, 15 for signing up, another 15 for installing the app in a smartphone. App saves camera roll.

(Unpaid satisfied user.)

I love the Windows Phone/SkyDrive (or rather, OneDrive) sync, especially once 8.1 brought full resolution syncing. But I wish that when I deleted photos on my Lumia, it'd delete them on OneDrive. Means that I have to take every bad shot out twice.

I have just tried on Windows Phone and I can say it is great indeed.

I had to upgrade due to the goddamn Other bug. I plan on trying the restore on my iPhone and iPad this weekend, but I've been going a few months on the paid plan, because I've been dragging my feet on wiping my devices. Things like iBook samples aren't synced, and you never know what else could be lost.

I'll be doing a local backup in iTunes, probably.

It's not like they can just give away unlimited storage.

I think it would add a lot to the Apple experience if they provided unlimited iCloud storage for your photos. It would be a much more seamless experience for a product like this.

Google allows me to back up unlimited "standard size" photos for free.

I also don't really see the problem. Very few will use excessive storage, which is the insight those free services with sizable storage is based on, like Flickr with 1 TB free which is essentially "unlimited" when it comes to photo storage. Key is to restrict it to a certain use scenario / file format, which will make it even harder to abuse.

Amazon Prime has unlimited photo backup as well (with prime subscription of course...)

which reminds me, I have a large stash of photos to re-backup.

But giving away the server software to host yourself would never happen either :-/

.. its not like the average user doesn't have their own bandwidth, and their own means of managing storage, back home at their computer. I think Apple are doing the world a disservice by putting more focus on the Cloud nature of things, and less attention on refining their OS to make it easier for people to manage these resources themselves, using the traditional method: with your own computer, your own bandwidth, and under your own control.

Seems like a ripe opportunity for a product - build your own Cloud on top of an OSX machine, leave it all at home and administer it - safely - from the beach while you're on vacation.

I think it's an ease-of-use race to the bottom - the whole cloud storage thing.

Inevitably, the cloud is going to be full of photos/videos nobody even remembers exist. It'll be cloud hoarding. It already is that with youtube allowing anyone to upload anything but I have to wonder if that's sustainable.

What you're proposing is the next step if cloud hoarding becomes a difficult enough problem - if not, it'll be like Windows being an unbelievable resource-hog but since users keep on buying faster and faster machines, nobody cares.

Except here, Apple and the other big companies are taking the hit, not the consumers, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

> I think it's an ease-of-use race to the bottom - the whole cloud storage thing.

That set me thinking if there's an asymptotic limit for that.

I suppose it would be for everyone in the planet to always be recording everything their eyes can see (and their ears can hear).

Greg Egan wrote at least one story about implanted devices for that, and there are calculations around for the data bandwidth.

I'd never thought of that, but it really is cloud hoarding! The masses of hi-definition tat on YouTube is really staggering. Unfortunately I contribute to it...

It's ok :)

If it gets to be too much, we'll quickly see 'pay to keep your videos afloat if they're not receiving over X number of views after X number of days' or something else to that effect.

The days of everything free are an early stage, short-lived move in order to gain massive market-share. Once near-monopoly position is established, it'll be time to monetize.

That's why the older generation shakes their head at walled gardens that gain massive momentum - they know what's most certainly going to come of it in due time.

Oddly though, YouTube has been at the point of monopoly for a long time yet are slow with their subscription model. They appear to be far more interested in redesigning their site and applications every 5 minutes.

There's a big gap between unlimited and what Apple gives away.

Flickr gives you 1TB of photo storage free but their app has been lacking the seamless integration with the OS and apps that Apple is promising.

But they show ads in your stream. I use flickr but am looking elsewhere.

Its a jarring experience really. you can look at 3 photos in a slide show, then in place of the 4th photo an ad. You can't even pay them to stop showing ads with your photos, as subscribing (which I did) only stops you from seeing the ads.

The paid version of Flickr is only $24 a year, and includes no ads. I've been using it since 2008 and have built a library of almost 9000 photos and videos. Even after Flickr's redesign, I still recommend the service for photo storage (unless you need RAW storage).

To keep everything backed up, I have a NAS in my basement that pulls a copy of my Flickr library on a routine basis.

Edit: Flickr Ad-Free is $49/year, but $24/year for grandfathered Flickr Pro subscribers. Sorry for the confusion.

I think his complaint is that the paid version only stops the person paying from seeing ads. A subscriber, for example, can't share their photos with a family member without them being interrupted by ads while viewing them.

thats right

Reply on news.ycombinator.com