Not for me, why not just go head to head with say Google Drive. I get 100GB for 99c per month. Cloud is cloud, I don't see apple really providing any better or worse experience than the rest, so why make it more expensive?
Not the same at all. iCloud syncs in the background. Google drive takes far more effort to back up stuff. Further, the tools it intalls calls home like every minute.
Obviously Photo for Mac is a complete overhaul/replacement of iPhoto.
Yeah, not obvious at all. As someone else said, both exist on iOS, and iPhoto does much more than has been mentioned about Photos.
Now that iPhoto is free on both new iOS devices and Macs, I could see them bringing this all together in one stock app, I'm just surprised this hasn't been discussed at all - if Photos for Mac *is* meant to replace iPhoto then I'd like to know that my huge library of iPhoto albums, faces data etc is all safe... and I've not heard that.
What if I don't want my every photo, every edit, every album to live in the cloud ?
In this day and age where storage is so cheap, why should we sacrifice internal storage for online storage ?
This. I have a. 3TB HDD in my iMac. Meanwhile my free 5GB of iCloud storage is nearly full with iOS device backups. I want a seamless way for my photos to be backed up to my iMac so that I can delete them off my devices and free up iPhone/iPad/iCloud storage.
If there is no option to solely sync with only your hardware devices and not have everything load to the cloud, then this trend could spell the end of my purchasing of Apple products.
You stop buying Apple products then. I want the cloud so I don't lose years of work if my house gets burgled, a pipe bursts and it floods, or it burns down. And I don't want to lose days of work if my laptop or phone get stolen.
I would have liked to have seen some information about Aperture and it's further development. This iOS based simplistic software is of no use to professionals, and Aperture is a much better photo manager and more intuitive to use than Adobe Lightroom. Plus no hated "it quits when you quit paying for it" subscription model of Adobe software. I have terabytes of photos in Aperture, and while this new iOs/Mac photo app will certainly be used by more consumers, there is no way it approaches the functionality of Aperture.
We just got a new, powerful Mac Pro. Keep developing photo and video software to run on it, please. Otherwise it will be quite a while before I buy another Mac. I have that new Mac Pro and a new Mac Pro 2012 that will run it for years. Apple can afford to develop for both the Aperture and iPhoto segments of photography.
Not for me, why not just go head to head with say Google Drive. I get 100GB for 99c per month. Cloud is cloud, I don't see apple really providing any better or worse experience than the rest, so why make it more expensive?
Cloud storage is everywhere. Some like Google are cheaper. The point here is the seamless integration between iOS, Mac, and web for photos. If that's not important to you then the great thing about the free market is being able to make choices.
What if I don't want my every photo, every edit, every album to live in the cloud ?
In this day and age where storage is so cheap, why should we sacrifice internal storage for online storage ? In this time of a supposed lack of internet security and spying, why would I want to put photos of anything on the cloud.
The storage on idevices are plenty for me, and I don't want to have to worry about being automatically billed for a feature that I not only don't want, but a feature I'm against having in the first place.
If I take a picture on my phone, I want it securely only on my phone.
If I take a picture on my 3rd party camera and sync it with iphoto, I want it to live only in my Mac's iphoto library.
As I said before, internal storage is cheap, it's been cheap for a long time. There's no reason to transfer the hub of my information from something I possess to something in the cloud.
If there is no option to solely sync with only your hardware devices and not have everything load to the cloud, then this trend could spell the end of my purchasing of Apple products.
I'm going to assume you are mostly referring to local storage perhaps NAS storage? And what happens when one of your devices needs to be replaced because it's lost or stolen and all of your memories stored there are lost. Traditional storage is cheap but slow, not portable, not fail safe. If you replace an iPhone how long does it take to restore a new one to the same settings, and restore all of your data including contacts, calendars, messages, visual voicemail, call records, text messages, app data, desktop folders and apps setup the way you had them, and a whole lot more. I had to have an iPhone replaced at the Apple Store recently. By the time I left the store the phone was restored and was about 50% finished downloading my apps. Cloud storage is cheap, secure, integrated between devices, faster than local storage, and is future proof. Local storage can become outdated quickly and unless RAID is implemented subject to failure. The stories of personal spying using cloud storage are overblown. Unless you have something to hide? Of course there will be controls over what will and will not be transferred to the cloud. If this is not a feature that is not of interest to you the great thing is that you have choices to not use it and choose any solution that works for you.
The new iCloud Kit for developers is a real game changer in my opinion. Basically giving devs free server side hosting. It was strangely underemphasised in the keynote but will be a hugely practical thing go forward. I wonder if that's what all the new data centres have been for.
What if I don't want my every photo, every edit, every album to live in the cloud ?
In this day and age where storage is so cheap, why should we sacrifice internal storage for online storage ? In this time of a supposed lack of internet security and spying, why would I want to put photos of anything on the cloud.
The storage on idevices are plenty for me, and I don't want to have to worry about being automatically billed for a feature that I not only don't want, but a feature I'm against having in the first place.
If I take a picture on my phone, I want it securely only on my phone.
If I take a picture on my 3rd party camera and sync it with iphoto, I want it to live only in my Mac's iphoto library.
As I said before, internal storage is cheap, it's been cheap for a long time. There's no reason to transfer the hub of my information from something I possess to something in the cloud.
If there is no option to solely sync with only your hardware devices and not have everything load to the cloud, then this trend could spell the end of my purchasing of Apple products.
Take a step back from the ledge chicken little- jeez. You don't have to use it. Just don't turn it on, like Photostream now. Then open aperture and "import" your photos. Again- like you do now. Apple isn't going to force you to spend $.
All that typing and for what? "The sky is falling"
I wonder when we can start buying the space. I was all set to spend for Flickr, then it went free, but Yahoo will not create an account without my phone number. So, I decided against it.
I'd rather spend my money on something like this, which I know is specifically designed for my devices. I'll opt for 1TB!
iCloud photo streams ARE stored in the cloud, hence iCloud in their name.
There is no (reasonable) storage limit and it doesnt count against your 5GB iCloud limit.
There is no time limit, they stay untill you delete them.
They are not saved to your device unless you open them and then it cashes them temporarily.
I will create a photo stream (select your local photos, click the export/share button in lower right, pick iCloud, create a new photo stream) and share it with my family. then I can delete the photos on my local photo roll and they are saved indefinately in the photo stream and everyone can see them. you can even add 5 minute videos and none of this counts against your iCloud storage limit just like your normal photo stream. I am not talking about the auto 1000 picture photo stream, you have to setup a shared photo stream with other people or just send the invite to anyone to create it initially.
"Photos in shared photo streams are not deleted after thirty (30) days, but the size of any given photo stream may be subject to photo or recipient number, and/or size limitations. Downloaded photos can be manually saved to the iOS Camera Roll."
With iCloud Photo Sharing, you can share photos and videos with just the people you choose, and you can let them add their own photos, videos, and comments.
A shared stream can hold a maximum of 5000 photos and videos combined. When you reach your limit, you must delete some photos or videos before adding new ones.
The photos and videos you share (and the comments or Likes associated with those photos) remain in iCloud until you or the contributor delete them manually, or until you delete the shared stream completely.
my iCloud backup of my device is usually 90% photos so I move them off into a photostream and delete them and my storage space is freed up in iCloud. It seems like no one is aware of how the iCloud photo streams works currently and how awesome it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Because the photos aren't stored in the cloud...?
If you're storing them in iCloud backup, that eats at your storage. If you're not, it's just syncing them to various devices (but no iCloud copy).
Not for me, why not just go head to head with say Google Drive. I get 100GB for 99c per month. Cloud is cloud, I don't see apple really providing any better or worse experience than the rest, so why make it more expensive?
Google Drive gives you more for free, but 100GB is actually $1.99 per month, where as iCloud storage is $3.99 for 200GB. So the pricing model is about the same (Google doesn't seem to offer a 200GB plan). As well, you get the convenience of having all your photos automatically backed up, with no messing with Google Drive, so the experience is definitely better, at least in that regard.
iTunes Match is completely outside iCloud storage, and doesn't currently (nor will it) have any effect on your iCloud storage limits. It's only limit is a maximum of 25,000 songs that you've uploaded yourself (purchases done through your iTunes store account don't count towards the limit). If you've passed the 25,000 song limit, that's an amazing collection of music, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "real pain".
Comments
Not for me, why not just go head to head with say Google Drive. I get 100GB for 99c per month. Cloud is cloud, I don't see apple really providing any better or worse experience than the rest, so why make it more expensive?
Not the same at all. iCloud syncs in the background. Google drive takes far more effort to back up stuff. Further, the tools it intalls calls home like every minute.
Obviously Photo for Mac is a complete overhaul/replacement of iPhoto.
Why is that obvious? They have both on iOS.
I would rather see these new features added to iPhoto. I don't want to use two apps.
Obviously Photo for Mac is a complete overhaul/replacement of iPhoto.
Yeah, not obvious at all. As someone else said, both exist on iOS, and iPhoto does much more than has been mentioned about Photos.
Now that iPhoto is free on both new iOS devices and Macs, I could see them bringing this all together in one stock app, I'm just surprised this hasn't been discussed at all - if Photos for Mac *is* meant to replace iPhoto then I'd like to know that my huge library of iPhoto albums, faces data etc is all safe... and I've not heard that.
This. I have a. 3TB HDD in my iMac. Meanwhile my free 5GB of iCloud storage is nearly full with iOS device backups. I want a seamless way for my photos to be backed up to my iMac so that I can delete them off my devices and free up iPhone/iPad/iCloud storage.
If there is no option to solely sync with only your hardware devices and not have everything load to the cloud, then this trend could spell the end of my purchasing of Apple products.
You stop buying Apple products then. I want the cloud so I don't lose years of work if my house gets burgled, a pipe bursts and it floods, or it burns down. And I don't want to lose days of work if my laptop or phone get stolen.
Obviously Photo for Mac is a complete overhaul/replacement of iPhoto.
thank goodness, iPhoto doesn't do well on an external drive connected to the router
photos eat up a ton of space on my late 13 mbp because i have to keep all my pics local
because of iPhoto limitations
so this new iCloud storage will be my everything cloud?
including
iOS and device backup
i just paid for the 50gb iCloud and pushing its limits with iOS device backup --maybe i'll get a discount
i hope it converges ALL my mac and iOS needs
i'd love one cloud for all things
We just got a new, powerful Mac Pro. Keep developing photo and video software to run on it, please. Otherwise it will be quite a while before I buy another Mac. I have that new Mac Pro and a new Mac Pro 2012 that will run it for years. Apple can afford to develop for both the Aperture and iPhoto segments of photography.
Not sure what you are referring to. I have over 7,000 songs on iTunes Match with the 5gb plan and I don't have a problem.
The new iCloud Kit for developers is a real game changer in my opinion. Basically giving devs free server side hosting. It was strangely underemphasised in the keynote but will be a hugely practical thing go forward. I wonder if that's what all the new data centres have been for.
Take a step back from the ledge chicken little- jeez. You don't have to use it. Just don't turn it on, like Photostream now. Then open aperture and "import" your photos. Again- like you do now. Apple isn't going to force you to spend $.
All that typing and for what? "The sky is falling"
I wonder when we can start buying the space. I was all set to spend for Flickr, then it went free, but Yahoo will not create an account without my phone number. So, I decided against it.
I'd rather spend my money on something like this, which I know is specifically designed for my devices. I'll opt for 1TB!
iCloud photo streams ARE stored in the cloud, hence iCloud in their name.
There is no (reasonable) storage limit and it doesnt count against your 5GB iCloud limit.
There is no time limit, they stay untill you delete them.
They are not saved to your device unless you open them and then it cashes them temporarily.
I will create a photo stream (select your local photos, click the export/share button in lower right, pick iCloud, create a new photo stream) and share it with my family. then I can delete the photos on my local photo roll and they are saved indefinately in the photo stream and everyone can see them. you can even add 5 minute videos and none of this counts against your iCloud storage limit just like your normal photo stream. I am not talking about the auto 1000 picture photo stream, you have to setup a shared photo stream with other people or just send the invite to anyone to create it initially.
"Photos in shared photo streams are not deleted after thirty (30) days, but the size of any given photo stream may be subject to photo or recipient number, and/or size limitations. Downloaded photos can be manually saved to the iOS Camera Roll."
http://www.apple.com/legal/icloud/en/terms.html
With iCloud Photo Sharing, you can share photos and videos with just the people you choose, and you can let them add their own photos, videos, and comments.
Does iCloud Photo Sharing use my iCloud storage?
No. Photos and videos uploaded to iCloud Photo Sharing don't count against your iCloud storage.
How many photos and videos can be stored in a shared stream?
A shared stream can hold a maximum of 5000 photos and videos combined. When you reach your limit, you must delete some photos or videos before adding new ones.
How long are iCloud Photo Sharing photos and videos stored in iCloud?
The photos and videos you share (and the comments or Likes associated with those photos) remain in iCloud until you or the contributor delete them manually, or until you delete the shared stream completely.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5902
my iCloud backup of my device is usually 90% photos so I move them off into a photostream and delete them and my storage space is freed up in iCloud. It seems like no one is aware of how the iCloud photo streams works currently and how awesome it is.
Because the photos aren't stored in the cloud...?
If you're storing them in iCloud backup, that eats at your storage. If you're not, it's just syncing them to various devices (but no iCloud copy).
Not for me, why not just go head to head with say Google Drive. I get 100GB for 99c per month. Cloud is cloud, I don't see apple really providing any better or worse experience than the rest, so why make it more expensive?
Google Drive gives you more for free, but 100GB is actually $1.99 per month, where as iCloud storage is $3.99 for 200GB. So the pricing model is about the same (Google doesn't seem to offer a 200GB plan). As well, you get the convenience of having all your photos automatically backed up, with no messing with Google Drive, so the experience is definitely better, at least in that regard.
Will the 5 GB work for iTunes Match as well?
The current limit is a real pain.
iTunes Match is completely outside iCloud storage, and doesn't currently (nor will it) have any effect on your iCloud storage limits. It's only limit is a maximum of 25,000 songs that you've uploaded yourself (purchases done through your iTunes store account don't count towards the limit). If you've passed the 25,000 song limit, that's an amazing collection of music, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "real pain".