New Google Photos ad riffs on struggles of 16GB iPhone users

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 69
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cali said:
    Doomed!

    I think this ad could backfire and lead to more high GB iPhone sales.

    The fact the ad ends with a knockoff device kinda kills his whole argument and again lead to upgraded iPhone sales.
    That hillarious. If anything it's going to lead people to use Google Photos over Apple's own Photos app. I've  seen this Google ad several times during the Olympics. I'm seeing Microsoft Surface and Windows OEM ads all the time. Haven't seen one Apple ad yet.
    yeah, and the MS Surface owns NFL product placement. still has lousy sales. point?
  • Reply 62 of 69
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    foggyhill said:
    Considering the Samsung S7's Android/Wizwhatever takes 10Gb, twice what IOS takes, I think this is basically projection.

    You can take a hell of a lot of photo even with 16Gb on IOS and if someone runs out of space at 16, its because they're not ever transfering photos and videos and will run out of space at 32 too.

    IF your in the habit of taking 4K movies, cleaning your phones regularly is a must unless your getting the 128GB, so the 16GB versus 32 argument in that case would be non sequitur.

    Of course, there is mention of course that Iphone's storage is actually, hum FAST, much faster in fact and that factors in why they put 16 in (faster mem, scarcer supply).


    My Macbook Pro Retina - 2012 - the SSD has a write speed of around 390 MB/s and a read speed of 440 MB/s

    The Samsung S7 uses UFS 2.0 memory system and according to Notebookcheck has a sequential  write speed of 145 MB/s and a read speed of 487 MB/s.  WHich seems to me pretty good for a phone.  Anandtech state the iPhone 6S has a sequential write speed of 163 MB/s and a read speed of 402 MB/s

    The S7 uses Samsungs advanced V-NAND flash chips, which rumour has it that Apple may also use in an upcoming phone.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 63 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    gatorguy said:
    This is your pattern. When you lose the argument, you demand that your opponent go off on some wild goose chase to find specific evidence. When I see you go into that mode, I take it as your concession.  But hey, thanks for playing. 
    As I expected.
    Dude, do you even know what the discussion you're engaged in is about?  Go back and read the messages. 
    I did.
    The question is do YOU even know what the discussion you've decided to engage in is about? Go back to post 22 where it started and the comment I singled out with bold highlights as having an issue with.
    @cpsro ;claimed as fact "Users of Google Photos give the company a perpetual, world-wide, royalty-free license to use their photos for ANY purpose, INCLUDING MARKETING". Knowing what you know now after several posts clarified things is his understanding wrong? Are there limits on what Google may legally do with user uploaded Google Photos?
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 64 of 69
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,140member
    The problem with Google photos is that you still have to manually delete the camera roll and manually unload what you don't want.  iCloud Photo Library automatically unloads photos to free up space when the phone gets full but because other apps don't do this or allow manual thinning things still get tight.

    Apple still has a lot of work to do here but that others aren't magically better.
  • Reply 65 of 69
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    That hillarious. If anything it's going to lead people to use Google Photos over Apple's own Photos app. I've  seen this Google ad several times during the Olympics. I'm seeing Microsoft Surface and Windows OEM ads all the time. Haven't seen one Apple ad yet.
    yeah, and the MS Surface owns NFL product placement. still has lousy sales. point?
    Well, In Surface Pro defense.

    There is one one product with iOS and "real" pen (not counting pens that basically work as fingertips). Anyone who wants pro iPad, will get iPad Pro.

    There is quite a choice of Windows 8/10 tablets with "real" pens. Beside Surface Pro 3 and 4, there is Surface Book, HP Elite X2, Lenovo Helix G2, Lenovo MIIX700, and numerous other devices from HP, Acer, Dell, Samsung...

    I don't think that Surface was ever designed to be "One to rule them all". At best, it was "One to show them a way", a template. Just as with Google Nexus phones.

    For one of many Windows tablets/convertibles with accurate pen input, Surface Pro is not doing bad. But it is a bit unfair to pull it out of content. It is just one of many quite similar Windows devices available.
  • Reply 66 of 69
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    cpsro said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's quite a stretch in an effort to "prove" something that you can't. Attaching a profile pic connected to a user review on a Google map is not in any way similar. You specifically give Google your profile pic that you yourself chose to represent you on Google+.  Even when you decide to attach a specific picture but don't on't want it used for endorsements or reviews, Google Maps included? Opt out. Eazy-peezy.
    https://support.google.com/plus/answer/3403513?hl=en

    So again where is your evidence that proves Google using user uploaded Google Photos content for Google's personal gain such as marketing? Don't have any? Then it didn't happen. 
    I don't have to prove Google has done this, only that their license allows it, which it does.
    And you seem not to be a very saavy Google user at all if you've not seen the many photos available to view within Google Maps, which are no doubt a tiny subset of all photos Google has rights to use.
    Are you sure this is really happening, tho? To my knowledge, user photos on Google Maps / Google Earth are submitted by users, via Panoramio service. I have done that with handful of my photos, basically some landscape and architectures (Google/Panoramio will not accept photos with recognizable faces)... some were selected to show on Maps/Earth. There is manual process involved - in submission, for every photo user has to point on map target and position from which photo was taken.

    I believe now one can upload and share photos directly on Google Maps... but I'm not aware that Google is poaching and putting users' photos on Maps/Earth on their own...?
    gatorguy
  • Reply 67 of 69
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 68 of 69
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    dklebedev said:
    16 gigs here. 3000 items in Photos. 18000 tracks in Music. Half storage empty. Zero problems. 
    That is an interesting claim.  3K 8MP photos at 2.63 MB per photo would total 7.89 GB.  A 4:27 minute  256 Kbps iTunes store track is about 8.2MB in size.  18,000 of those would take up 147.6 GB, roughly, giving us a total of 155.49 GB.

    8 GB free and no problems, you say.  I don't even want to know what bit rate you have encoded your music at, it would be worse than listening to AM radio. 
    edited August 2016 singularitygatorguy
  • Reply 69 of 69
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    cpsro said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's quite a stretch in an effort to "prove" something that you can't. Attaching a profile pic connected to a user review on a Google map is not in any way similar. You specifically give Google your profile pic that you yourself chose to represent you on Google+.  Even when you decide to attach a specific picture but don't on't want it used for endorsements or reviews, Google Maps included? Opt out. Eazy-peezy.
    https://support.google.com/plus/answer/3403513?hl=en

    So again where is your evidence that proves Google using user uploaded Google Photos content for Google's personal gain such as marketing? Don't have any? Then it didn't happen. 
    I don't have to prove Google has done this, only that their license allows it, which it does.
    And you seem not to be a very saavy Google user at all if you've not seen the many photos available to view within Google Maps, which are no doubt a tiny subset of all photos Google has rights to use.
    Those photos are voluntarily added by users/reviewers, something I discovered by, gosh, looking into it with a few minutes of research. Google didn't steal them from someone's private Google Photos collection as you insinuate they have. 

    While I originally thought you might have just been unaware instead of intentionally promoting FUD to unfairly paint a not-Apple company I'm beginning to lean the other way now with your repeated attempts to add more. Notice that everyone else who seemed at first to support you have fled the discussion and gone silent, almost certainly realizing they may have been mistaken and overstated things. 
    edited August 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.