So as long as it's free I'm definitely going to take advantage of Google Photos.
What is a couple dollars a month to someone who drives a BMW Alpina and pre-ordered a Tesla X? I would think that you would select the service that offers the features and performance best suited to your needs when the cost is so minimal. Google's photos may be more advanced but some people don't trust them. Cost alone is not always the best way to choose something.
I think there's truth in that statement in respect to a general services company like Google. The problem for Apple (and maybe others like Dropbox) is that cloud storage is careening towards completely free. I see Apple eventually offering completely free cloud storage for current OSX/iOS users. Users like you who are happy to purchase it are I think in the minority.
So the question is, if nothing is free, as evidenced by Google's enslaving the population with the occasional ad that might actually peak interest, what is the true cost that comes out of a "free" Apple service? It sounds like Apple will be streaming music for "free" this year. What's the real cost?
Then why change the name - why not keep it as Google Wallet?
Just saying the didn't put it on their own devices until Apple introduced it?
I agree, you could use Google maps to navigate, but it would not reroute you making it virtually useless offline. Only Here maps offered a usable solution.
If downloading YouTube videos is illegal, why does Google allow down loaders in the play store? The could easily remove them if they so wished.
Because that's standard procedure for brands that fail to gain traction.,rename the sucker and advertise the bleep out of it to make it appear like a new product. Microsoft has been doing this for years and remember many of those marketing clowns have jumped ship and are working for Google. Android pay will probably fail just like its predessor. After all it's just lipstick on a pig. Google is primarily in the ad selling business it hasn't a clue how to do much else really . At some point this strategy will become apparent and once the losses start really pile up and start affecting the bottom line the whole department gets the shaft , not too publically of course. Remember Google glass and all the others too numerous to mention
What is a couple dollars a month to someone who drives a BMW Alpina and pre-ordered a Tesla X? I would think that you would select the service that offers the features and performance best suited to your needs when the cost is so minimal. Google's photos may be more advanced but some people don't trust them. Cost alone is not always the best way to choose something.
It's about movies, in which I have at least a couple of terabytes. Going from a 1TB account, which I have already for my Google Drive and OneDrive accounts, to a 2TB or more starts to become a lot more than I'm willing to pay for, regardless of my financial status. Google Photos is basically Google Drive anyway, which believe it or not is an excellent service, especially video streaming as you can do so using a local player like VLC or their web interface. So far I have uploaded a little over 550 movies, started with 20, than 100, than 300, and still counting to this new service. As expected, it has streamed every film that I've tested so far perfectly. It's worth the free download.
FYI, I sold the Alpina a while back and the Tesla SUV or Model X still isn't out yet. Right now I'm driving a completely restored, down to it's chassis, 71' Porsche 911 Targa that I've had for years, was my dads. My family all pitched in to get it redone as a welcome home from the hospital present. Personally I have no need for another car as my little speedster is more than enough but I have two kids so I'm still on the waiting list for the Tesla. In the meantime we just use my husbands car when we all go out together.
Google Glass isn't dead. Far from it. They're just taking a cue from Apple and not revealing any more about it until it's ready.
Have you totally lost grip of reality like your google buddies? If the head of the glass project resigning and leaving the company does not indicate that it's dead I really don't know what will convince you. But hey live with your fantasy!
Of course Google isn't going to advertise the fact that they totally botched glass. It's what they do put it on hold. That's code for dead and buried you obviously have never worked in tech or don't understand how things really work!
Have you totally lost grip of reality like your google buddies? If the head of the glass project resigning and leaving the company does not indicate that it's dead I really don't know what will convince you. But hey live with your fantasy!
Of course Google isn't going to advertise the fact that they totally botched glass. It's what they do put it on hold. That's code for dead and buried you obviously have never worked in tech or don't understand how things really work!
I know the purse string are pretty tight at Apple nowadays but how about maybe another 1 GB for free.
Sheesh.
"As techniques such as image analytics, auto tagging, face detection and machine vision improve, the information that can be derived from a simple photo is immense. By default it means images are of clear value to companies driven by targeted ad-sales."
Don't use it if you don't want you information sold to the highest bidder
That's a good news for us , I will never use the google photo and be scan in every portion of my life for ads, but this will make pressure on apple and we will get more free storage on iCloud .
Have you totally lost grip of reality like your google buddies? If the head of the glass project resigning and leaving the company does not indicate that it's dead I really don't know what will convince you. But hey live with your fantasy!!
"When Nest CEO Tony Fadell took over Google Glass back in February, he pledged to redesign the headset "from scratch." Well, it looks like that process is well underway. In a company meeting today, Luxottica CEO Massimo Vian said the Italian eyewear company is working with the folks in Mountain View on not one, but two new versions of the device. Luxottica owns brands Ray-Ban and Oakley, and if you'll recall, the company worked with Google on frames for the original version of Glass.
"When Nest CEO Tony Fadell took over Google Glass back in February, he pledged to redesign the headset "from scratch." Well, it looks like that process is well underway. In a company meeting today, Luxottica CEO Massimo Vian said the Italian eyewear company is working with the folks in Mountain View on not one, but two new versions of the device. Luxottica owns brands Ray-Ban and Oakley, and if you'll recall, the company worked with Google on frames for the original version of Glass.
The world is full of press releases touting the next big thing and analysts informing us that you gotta buy the stock now before it's too late. One of the best pieces of advice I got about investing in companies is one should never buy a stock based on potential returns. But based on real demonstrated sales and profits. Statements about intentions and pledges are pretty much meaningless especially from a company with so may failed projects.
The world is full of press releases touting the next big thing and analysts informing us that you gotta buy the stock now before it's too late. One of the best pieces of advice I got about investing in companies is one should never buy a stock based on potential returns. But based on real demonstrated sales and profits. Statements about intentions and pledges are pretty much meaningless especially from a company with so may failed projects.
Almost every failed product by Google was either migrated or progressed into other. Nothing is lost at Google, these failed projects as you call them, basically helped pave the wave for the more successful products, building blocks of sorts. They're also free and most of the time stated that they were also in beta. Example, Orkut, the project or code was never just deleted, it later became Google+.
I actually have a little insite at Google as I have a few very close friends who work for their Swiss office. I've been told on many occasions that Google's employees are given a lot of freedoms to create pretty much whatever they want, so there a literally thousands of different kinds of projects that exist on Googles internal network, little tools for ordering pizza to full blown products. If any of them start to get attraction or used a lot internally, Google brass will disscuss bringing it to the public, especially if it's a good idea. Another such project was Google Lively, one of my friends worked on the team that brought it to life, the project was canceled not because it failed but the Google+ team wanted it for their project, also made little sense in having two chat programs, Google Lively utlimatly became Google Talk than Hangouts, same code base, just a different name. Google answers, migrated into Google Now and is now on every Android device, front and center. Google Notebook and Shared Stuff was integrated into Google Reader and Google Docs. Google Buzz was canceled and than returned as an Android app called Google NewsStand. There of course were also complete failures like their attempt at a Wikipedia alternative called Knol and search tools SearchWiki and SideWiki but again I'm sure these projects were migrated into others as well. Google Video, well we all know what happened their, Google coukdn't beat YouTube so they just bought them, Google Video's code and staff migrated into YouTube however. If you really start looking at all of the failed products at Google you will quickly see a pattern of better products coming out of them.
Most of these failed projects were also web based, which is an ever moving entity with fical users, so who knows what's going to work until you try. You also can't compare a failed Google project which is just basically server space and bandwidth to a physical product like The Microsoft Zune which resulted in a lost of billions. Especially when Googles bottom line isn't affected when one of these projects fail and that's all what they really are in the end, projects, they don't become products until they start generating revenue.
I guess it's just easier to call them failures though as it's more entertaining bringing down a companies accomplishments, especially one that you dislike so much.
Almost every failed product by Google was either migrated or progressed into other. Nothing is lost at Google, these failed projects as you call them, basically helped pave the wave for the more successful products, building blocks of sorts. They're also free and most of the time stated that they were also in beta. Example, Orkut, the project or code was never just deleted, it later became Google+.
I actually have a little insite at Google as I have a few very close friends who work for their Swiss office. I've been told on many occasions that Google's employees are given a lot of freedoms to create pretty much whatever they want, so there a literally thousands of different kinds of projects that exist on Googles internal network, little tools for ordering pizza to full blown products. If any of them start to get attraction or used a lot internally, Google brass will disscuss bringing it to the public, especially if it's a good idea. Another such project was Google Lively, one of my friends worked on the team that brought it to life, the project was canceled not because it failed but the Google+ team wanted it for their project, also made little sense in having two chat programs, Google Lively utlimatly became Google Talk than Hangouts, same code base, just a different name. Google answers, migrated into Google Now and is now on every Android device, front and center. Google Notebook and Shared Stuff was integrated into Google Reader and Google Docs. Google Buzz was canceled and than returned as an Android app called Google NewsStand. There of course were also complete failures like their attempt at a Wikipedia alternative called Knol and search tools SearchWiki and SideWiki but again I'm sure these projects were migrated into others as well. Google Video, well we all know what happened their, Google coukdn't beat YouTube so they just bought them, Google Video's code and staff migrated into YouTube however. If you really start looking at all of the failed products at Google you will quickly see a pattern of better products coming out of them.
Most of these failed projects were also web based, which is an ever moving entity with fical users, so who knows what's going to work until you try. You also can't compare a failed Google project which is just basically server space and bandwidth to a physical product like The Microsoft Zune which resulted in a lost of billions. Especially when Googles bottom line isn't affected when one of these projects fail and that's all what they really are in the end, projects, they don't become products until they start generating revenue.
I guess it's just easier to call them failures though as it's more entertaining bringing down a companies accomplishments, especially one that you dislike so much.
It seems apparent we will never agree
So I suggest we simply agree to disagree and move on
The world is full of press releases touting the next big thing and analysts informing us that you gotta buy the stock now before it's too late. One of the best pieces of advice I got about investing in companies is one should never buy a stock based on potential returns. But based on real demonstrated sales and profits. Statements about intentions and pledges are pretty much meaningless especially from a company with so may failed projects.
Along with the subject change you could have at least said "Thanks, I wasn't aware of that". :rolleyes:
I agree with the advice about investing I guess but I wasn't recommending you buy GOOG because Glass wasn't a dead project. The stock market ain't my thing.
Google will use facial recognition to cross-match you and everyone you know with geotags and upload locations. That's what they do with every bit of information they can get their grubs on. And there's no escaping them. Even when Apple will implement some kind of search through Siri or whatever there will still be an ocean of sites using google analytics.
What do you think the Internet will finally ditch googles grasp?
No sir. they specifically talked about facial recognition. It will not be used to match faces with an identity. Rather than make stuff up and mislead casual readers it would be better to actually check before posting wouldn't it?
Comments
For me, the 'killer feature' apple offers is optimizing storage on my iPhone/Macbook with small amounts of storage.
It appears they won't let 3rd parties offer this kind of functionality - somehow Carousel does... but I'm cheap.
If Flickr or Google Photos offered this for free, I'd be much more open to using them. Until then I'll pay for the convenience.
So as long as it's free I'm definitely going to take advantage of Google Photos.
What is a couple dollars a month to someone who drives a BMW Alpina and pre-ordered a Tesla X? I would think that you would select the service that offers the features and performance best suited to your needs when the cost is so minimal. Google's photos may be more advanced but some people don't trust them. Cost alone is not always the best way to choose something.
I think there's truth in that statement in respect to a general services company like Google. The problem for Apple (and maybe others like Dropbox) is that cloud storage is careening towards completely free. I see Apple eventually offering completely free cloud storage for current OSX/iOS users. Users like you who are happy to purchase it are I think in the minority.
So the question is, if nothing is free, as evidenced by Google's enslaving the population with the occasional ad that might actually peak interest, what is the true cost that comes out of a "free" Apple service? It sounds like Apple will be streaming music for "free" this year. What's the real cost?
Because that's standard procedure for brands that fail to gain traction.,rename the sucker and advertise the bleep out of it to make it appear like a new product. Microsoft has been doing this for years and remember many of those marketing clowns have jumped ship and are working for Google. Android pay will probably fail just like its predessor. After all it's just lipstick on a pig. Google is primarily in the ad selling business it hasn't a clue how to do much else really . At some point this strategy will become apparent and once the losses start really pile up and start affecting the bottom line the whole department gets the shaft , not too publically of course. Remember Google glass and all the others too numerous to mention
It's about movies, in which I have at least a couple of terabytes. Going from a 1TB account, which I have already for my Google Drive and OneDrive accounts, to a 2TB or more starts to become a lot more than I'm willing to pay for, regardless of my financial status. Google Photos is basically Google Drive anyway, which believe it or not is an excellent service, especially video streaming as you can do so using a local player like VLC or their web interface. So far I have uploaded a little over 550 movies, started with 20, than 100, than 300, and still counting to this new service. As expected, it has streamed every film that I've tested so far perfectly. It's worth the free download.
FYI, I sold the Alpina a while back and the Tesla SUV or Model X still isn't out yet. Right now I'm driving a completely restored, down to it's chassis, 71' Porsche 911 Targa that I've had for years, was my dads. My family all pitched in to get it redone as a welcome home from the hospital present. Personally I have no need for another car as my little speedster is more than enough but I have two kids so I'm still on the waiting list for the Tesla. In the meantime we just use my husbands car when we all go out together.
one way to know...read the legal statement you sign for the service
Have you totally lost grip of reality like your google buddies? If the head of the glass project resigning and leaving the company does not indicate that it's dead I really don't know what will convince you. But hey live with your fantasy!
Of course Google isn't going to advertise the fact that they totally botched glass. It's what they do put it on hold. That's code for dead and buried you obviously have never worked in tech or don't understand how things really work!
"As techniques such as image analytics, auto tagging, face detection and machine vision improve, the information that can be derived from a simple photo is immense. By default it means images are of clear value to companies driven by targeted ad-sales."
Don't use it if you don't want you information sold to the highest bidder
"When Nest CEO Tony Fadell took over Google Glass back in February, he pledged to redesign the headset "from scratch." Well, it looks like that process is well underway. In a company meeting today, Luxottica CEO Massimo Vian said the Italian eyewear company is working with the folks in Mountain View on not one, but two new versions of the device. Luxottica owns brands Ray-Ban and Oakley, and if you'll recall, the company worked with Google on frames for the original version of Glass.
"What you saw was version 1," Vian said. "We're now working on version 2, which is in preparation."
http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/24/luxottica-working-on-google-glass-2/
Intel Corp. will supply the chipset for a new version of Glass expected this year
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-glass-deal-thrusts-intel-deeper-into-wearable-devices-1417395598
The world is full of press releases touting the next big thing and analysts informing us that you gotta buy the stock now before it's too late. One of the best pieces of advice I got about investing in companies is one should never buy a stock based on potential returns. But based on real demonstrated sales and profits. Statements about intentions and pledges are pretty much meaningless especially from a company with so may failed projects.
Almost every failed product by Google was either migrated or progressed into other. Nothing is lost at Google, these failed projects as you call them, basically helped pave the wave for the more successful products, building blocks of sorts. They're also free and most of the time stated that they were also in beta. Example, Orkut, the project or code was never just deleted, it later became Google+.
I actually have a little insite at Google as I have a few very close friends who work for their Swiss office. I've been told on many occasions that Google's employees are given a lot of freedoms to create pretty much whatever they want, so there a literally thousands of different kinds of projects that exist on Googles internal network, little tools for ordering pizza to full blown products. If any of them start to get attraction or used a lot internally, Google brass will disscuss bringing it to the public, especially if it's a good idea. Another such project was Google Lively, one of my friends worked on the team that brought it to life, the project was canceled not because it failed but the Google+ team wanted it for their project, also made little sense in having two chat programs, Google Lively utlimatly became Google Talk than Hangouts, same code base, just a different name. Google answers, migrated into Google Now and is now on every Android device, front and center. Google Notebook and Shared Stuff was integrated into Google Reader and Google Docs. Google Buzz was canceled and than returned as an Android app called Google NewsStand. There of course were also complete failures like their attempt at a Wikipedia alternative called Knol and search tools SearchWiki and SideWiki but again I'm sure these projects were migrated into others as well. Google Video, well we all know what happened their, Google coukdn't beat YouTube so they just bought them, Google Video's code and staff migrated into YouTube however. If you really start looking at all of the failed products at Google you will quickly see a pattern of better products coming out of them.
Most of these failed projects were also web based, which is an ever moving entity with fical users, so who knows what's going to work until you try. You also can't compare a failed Google project which is just basically server space and bandwidth to a physical product like The Microsoft Zune which resulted in a lost of billions. Especially when Googles bottom line isn't affected when one of these projects fail and that's all what they really are in the end, projects, they don't become products until they start generating revenue.
I guess it's just easier to call them failures though as it's more entertaining bringing down a companies accomplishments, especially one that you dislike so much.
It seems apparent we will never agree
So I suggest we simply agree to disagree and move on
I agree with the advice about investing I guess but I wasn't recommending you buy GOOG because Glass wasn't a dead project. The stock market ain't my thing.