[HN Gopher] Google Issues Quality Warning for Millions of Google...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google Issues Quality Warning for Millions of Google Photos Users
        
       Author : anupamchugh
       Score  : 61 points
       Date   : 2021-02-27 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.forbes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com)
        
       | josteink wrote:
       | Free unlimited full quality pictures "for life", Google Edition.
       | 
       | [1] https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/pixel-pixel-xl-
       | continu...
        
       | bennettfeely wrote:
       | I'm stunned by the image showing the difference between original
       | and what Google apparently considers "high quality"
        
         | wccrawford wrote:
         | I think that image is faked. The caption says the difference
         | will exist, but "not by this much". It's a fake.
        
       | philips wrote:
       | I have started to use Microsoft OneDrive along side Google Photos
       | for two reasons.
       | 
       | 1. OneDrive also backs up my photos on my Android device in
       | original quality.
       | 
       | 2. I have Google Takeout backup to OneDrive quarterly.
        
         | Griffinsauce wrote:
         | Be careful using OneDrive for important storage, I've been
         | using OneDrive with my band to share musical projects for a
         | while and we discovered there is a bug that is somehow moving
         | random files to the windows recycle bin.
         | 
         | The files were not necessarily touched (they're often from
         | archived projects), I haven't been able to spot a pattern yet.
         | (it may have to do with fast-moving changes + a mix of OS's
         | perhaps)
         | 
         | There are topics in their support forums about this but no
         | serious responses, it's a vague problem but I was shocked that
         | it wasn't a red alert moment for them.
         | 
         | We're switching as soon as possible, but yeah, keep an eye on
         | your recycle bin...
         | 
         | (Edited for clarity.)
        
         | tinus_hn wrote:
         | Just like a Google account, your Microsoft account can be
         | blocked for any reason and you will have no way to retrieve
         | your files.
         | 
         | Keep local backups.
        
       | jrockway wrote:
       | I got burned by this. I take 4x5 film photos and stored my
       | library in Google Photos as 80 megapixel TIFF scans. One day,
       | they told me I was out of storage, and that all the files were
       | converted to phone-quality jpegs. They look awful.
       | 
       | I got into this situation because I had a few terabytes of free
       | storage that I accumulated while working at Google; there was
       | some deal like "fill out this survey and we'll give your personal
       | account unlimited free storage forever"... but they altered the
       | deal and that storage went away.
       | 
       | I use iCloud now.
        
         | noAnswer wrote:
         | > I use iCloud now.
         | 
         | As long as you don't use it to store music...
         | 
         | Basically same story, different file type:
         | 
         | https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250315803
        
           | nitrogen wrote:
           | I guess that's one solution to piracy and competition...
        
         | mrfusion wrote:
         | How to do it on iCloud? Like a backup?
        
         | federona wrote:
         | If you use terabytes of storage on consumer oriented free or
         | nearly free services you are going to get burned sooner or
         | later. Switch to b2 or s3. Your data will be there for a much
         | longer time. b2 costs $5/terabyte. If you don't access this
         | stuff, it's probably at most $10 - $20/mo.
        
           | angrais wrote:
           | Sorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't access
           | data often, why not just buy an external HDD of say 10TB or
           | such? Yeah, it's possible that data may fail, but is quite
           | unlikely particular if you're not using it often.
        
             | federona wrote:
             | Remote storage, redundancy, and portability. At $5/mo/tb.
             | you can still access any of it anytime you want, you just
             | pay for what you actually download.
        
           | jrockway wrote:
           | I'm not really looking for archival storage or disaster
           | recovery. After all, the 80MP scans are just low-resolution
           | copies of the originals. I have hard drives for local
           | storage. Yes, if my house burns down I lose the scans and the
           | negatives, but I don't care enough to spend money on it.
           | 
           | The reason I used Google Photos was for one-click sharing. I
           | could make a link, and viewers could pan and zoom and see all
           | the details through a pleasant web interface. S3 doesn't do
           | per-photo per-user access controls, and doesn't have a user
           | interface for sharing or viewing. It's object storage, not
           | photo sharing. As object storage, it's a lot more expensive
           | than negatives in a binder, but about as useful.
        
             | federona wrote:
             | It would not be hard maybe a week or two of hacking to make
             | such an interface on top of an object store if you were
             | motivated. A simple php or python app with a time limited
             | key stored in a db of some sort. There though are already
             | open source free apps that do provide user management, etc.
             | If you are looking for an ideal solution, but you have to
             | pay for it with money or time.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | prox wrote:
         | That's bad. Using any Google product will be the same
         | experience, simply because you are not the client, advertisers
         | are. I am sure there are fine people working on the ship called
         | Google, but I don't like where it is heading.
        
           | mountainb wrote:
           | They don't treat advertisers well either, so you know.
        
           | dontblink wrote:
           | Advertisers have nothing to do with a paid product. GSuite
           | (or whatever it is called now) can be paid for. Just an fyi
           | as you seem to be misinformed.
        
             | prox wrote:
             | That really doesn't change the outcome of what kind of
             | company Google is, on the whole, and where they get their
             | value extraction from. Gsuite is only 5% of their revenue.
             | Photos is also not part of Gsuite afaik.
        
       | coolspot wrote:
       | Google seems to be in some "cut all expenses" mode recently:
       | 
       | + cancelled stadia game studio
       | 
       | + cancelled free unlimited google photos
       | 
       | + closed Chromium APIs for derived browsers
       | 
       | + closed Google Music (replaced with YT Music)
       | 
       | + froze hiring
       | 
       | + cancelled new office leases
        
         | smueller1234 wrote:
         | Google is hiring just fine. (Source: I'm hiring. I work for
         | Google. Also careers.google.com.)
        
           | bilal4hmed wrote:
           | Do yall have any remote positions?
        
             | kyrra wrote:
             | (googler, opinions are my own).
             | 
             | See: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/14/22175150/google-
             | return-o...
             | 
             | We are WFH till September for sure, and they will be
             | testing flex hours after that. Though, they are still
             | office focused, so you need to live near the office/team
             | you work for.
             | 
             | Note that there are a few special cases where they let an
             | individual be remote, but they tend to be very very
             | outstanding developers. I've only worked with 1 of those in
             | the last 5 years here.
        
           | junon wrote:
           | Haven't received my semi-yearly Google recruiting email this
           | year, I was starting to get worried! I'm itching to decline
           | for the fifth time! :)
        
             | vinger wrote:
             | 4 declines and you are out.
        
             | toast0 wrote:
             | They finally stopped emailing me after I figured out they
             | were looking for someone else with my name. They dropped a
             | hint that they were excited about my compiler work at
             | Microsoft; but I've never done compiler work or been
             | employed by Microsoft.
        
               | ignoramous wrote:
               | Their loss, toast0! You're one of the most thoughtful,
               | insightful, skillful participant on this little orange
               | site :)
        
           | TLightful wrote:
           | Tell your boss that Google jumped the shark 15 years ago. Get
           | him/her to tell their boss, and so on.
           | 
           | Appreciate it.
        
         | t-writescode wrote:
         | Google cancelling products is as common as the sun setting in
         | the west.
         | 
         | It's what they do.
         | 
         | Cancelling new office leases may have to do with WFH and a
         | pandemic.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
         | Hiring froze??
        
       | wooptoo wrote:
       | I think none of us is surprised that the free lunch is now over
       | and that this could not last ad infinitum.
       | 
       | Google One is a good deal, but if you're not afraid of doing a
       | minimal amount of manual work then there are other storage
       | services out there that offer good price per GB.
       | 
       | Most of them are compatible with S3 buckets - Backblaze B2 or
       | Wasabi are good examples. Any sort of contents can be synced to
       | these buckets using third party apps. A quick Google search
       | brings up FolderSync which looks decent.
        
       | verytrivial wrote:
       | For a few years it seemed to me that updates to Photos on Android
       | would silently flip the quality setting down from Original to
       | "High" as in "compressed", so I was never sure if the images I
       | wanted to backup in original actually _were_ backed up or not. I
       | never set it to  "High" but it kept flipping back to that.
       | 
       | I raised, flagged, liked and did everything I could on the
       | support forums to get the Photos GUI to report _somewhere_
       | whether an image was backed up in Original or  "High" quality. It
       | went nowhere. And last I checked it was still impossible.
       | 
       | I now treat Google Photos as a last resort approxi-backup and do
       | all my own offline backups to a HDD because I can't trust the
       | metadata. And I'm one of those idiots who even pays for Google
       | One.
       | 
       | (seriously, would a tag like "quality:original" stump the
       | engineering team?!)
       | 
       | Edit: Ha! It's set back to "High" for me AGAIN!
        
       | lambda_obrien wrote:
       | Google photos is the best photos product out there for simple
       | sharing with family (and partner share), so of course they're
       | going to destroy it with mismanagement. Time to start looking for
       | alternatives.
        
         | coolspot wrote:
         | Check out Photoprism
         | 
         | https://github.com/photoprism/photoprism
        
         | oflannabhra wrote:
         | iCloud shared albums has served our family well for over five
         | years, all for free.
        
           | mrfusion wrote:
           | Explain
        
           | sahila wrote:
           | That's fine as long as you're all Apple people. Walk outside
           | that garden though and how do you share an album with
           | someone? To contrast, Google photos web app is actually good!
        
             | oarsinsync wrote:
             | You can do a read-only web share from iCloud. Definitely
             | not ideal, but in some circumstances, good enough.
        
         | mceachen wrote:
         | I'm building a self-hosted, cross-platform one that you're
         | welcome to try! https://photostructure.com/faq/why-
         | photostructure/
        
           | hedora wrote:
           | It looks great, but lack of open source is a deal breaker. I
           | wouldn't mind paying for it, but what if I want to run it
           | outside of docker (and not on Ubuntu?), let alone on an ARM
           | or BSD machine?
           | 
           | Consider using the BSL license!
        
       | kumarharsh wrote:
       | This article reads like senseless hate-mongering.
       | 
       | The email this article is talking about is for users of the
       | Google One subscription only. Of course they'd like their users
       | to know that they can upload full quality photos to Google Photos
       | - that's one of the main reasons I bought the subscription too!
       | 
       | Disclosure: I work at Google, but had bought the subscription
       | before joining.
        
         | vinger wrote:
         | So you drank the cool-aid before making it?
         | 
         | Bring back picasa
        
           | craftinator wrote:
           | > So you drank the cool-aid before making it?
           | 
           | Ballsy move, kumarharsh. Is it weird working there now? Sort
           | of feels like working for the Empire, but you all have fruity
           | little sweaters instead of stormtrooper armor?
        
       | almog wrote:
       | I stopped using Google Photos after a bug I experienced few years
       | ago when I configured my phone to upload everything to Photos and
       | remove local copies: I knew photos are not exact copy and will be
       | kept up to a certain resolution, yet some photos, due to network
       | fault I believe, appeared on Photos as a tiny pixelated copy of
       | the original copy. The pixelated images were probably a result of
       | a interlaced progressive compression. The main problem for me was
       | that client removed the local copy thus costing me few dozens
       | photos forever lost.
        
       | IshKebab wrote:
       | High Quality is not just limited to 16 megapixels, the photos are
       | also re-encoded at a lower bitrate.
        
       | thevagrant wrote:
       | I remember setting original quality on purpose as I didn't want
       | downgraded images. I paid for extra storage... Only to find
       | multiple times Google Photos app would randomly reset my
       | preference and use their "high quality" setting. I made sure to
       | stop using Google Photos (except as a low quality backup) and
       | used other storage providers. My early experiences with Google
       | Drive were also negative to the point that I would rather use
       | Dropbox, One Drive or another solution.
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | It sounds like Kugel is running out of storage space
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-02-27 23:02 UTC)