undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfwiwm2c5y ago0 comments

Why not just pay $30/yr to get access to all the features which Google Photos (and other Google services) offer? I know $30 is not the same everywhere but if you are in US (and assuming you are in tech given you are on HN), you'd spend that much in a dinner without thinking much. There is something about paying about online services which brings a lot of resistance in us (me included but I think I am getting over it)

0 comments

ENGNR5y ago

Realistically... if you wanted to pay $30/year for a set and forget photo album, is Google the best place to do that?

Given how they often they deprecate things and how hard I've heard it is to restore a disabled account, I feel like some kind of smaller company dedicated to photo storage would be much better anyway

ehsankia5y ago

Photos is a billion user product, how many of those have they deprecated? The disabled account thing may be a real concern, but statistically it's more rare than getting into a plane crash, yet we still fly planes. Also, if anything, monetizing the product and allowing it to be self-sustaining financially makes it far less likely to be killed. I'd much rather pay for a product that brings me value, since now I'm a real customer get treated differently from a free user. Also AFAIK Google has never killed a paid service either.

I would be curious to know what the competition looks like, but I don't know of any other service that lets me do "Show me photos of me and my brother at the beach" and actually return relevant results. The face/object clustering is near flawless, and even works with pets.

murgindrag5y ago

Umm.... no. The disabled account thing is pretty common. Perhaps it's safer than flying a GA Cessna 172 in a storm, or being an air force test pilot. But probably not even that.

And as for killed services with a billion users, well, free unlimited Google Photos is now a killed service.

As for killed paid services, Google Play Music, Nest Secure, Google Photos Print, Google Audio Ads, and a ton of others.

1 more reply

ghaff5y ago

Personally I use Flickr and am happy with them.

Normille5y ago

I'm not sure if you're just stating a personal preference there, or hinting that Flickr are somehow morally superior to Google. But Flickr had their own 'google Photos moment' a few years back, when they were bought out by SmugMug and immediately got rid of their 'free for life' 1TB storage.

skybrian5y ago

I am pretty much all-in with Google and do what I can to protect my Google account, but one risk you can't get rid of is if Google cancelled your account for whatever mysterious reason, which is unlikely but would be catastrophic.

I still like Google Photos, but ideally I'd automatically sync all my photos to a backup service and have things set up so I could make it the primary replica if needed.

ghaff5y ago

IMO, no one should be treating any online photo site as their primary photo storage. At the risk of seeming paranoid, I have everything local and both backed up locally and to Backblaze; the online photo site I use is strictly for sharing and, I suppose, yet another backup of last resort.

archon8105y ago

$30/year will get you... 100-200GB?

I can easily fill up that much data in a single month with videos of my kids.

The next tier is 2TB for $10/mo. Then 10TB for $50/mo.

All of a sudden, you're paying $600 a year and it isn't as insignificant as you suggested.

thekyle5y ago

If you're easily generating 200GB per month in photos and videos then a NAS would probably make more sense. But keep in mind the vast majority of people don't take that many photos.

helij5y ago

What you say makes sense but these services quickly add up.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ENGNR5y ago

Realistically... if you wanted to pay $30/year for a set and forget photo album, is Google the best place to do that?

Given how they often they deprecate things and how hard I've heard it is to restore a disabled account, I feel like some kind of smaller company dedicated to photo storage would be much better anyway

ehsankia5y ago

murgindrag5y ago

Umm.... no. The disabled account thing is pretty common. Perhaps it's safer than flying a GA Cessna 172 in a storm, or being an air force test pilot. But probably not even that.

And as for killed services with a billion users, well, free unlimited Google Photos is now a killed service.

As for killed paid services, Google Play Music, Nest Secure, Google Photos Print, Google Audio Ads, and a ton of others.

1 more reply

ghaff5y ago

Personally I use Flickr and am happy with them.

Normille5y ago

skybrian5y ago

I still like Google Photos, but ideally I'd automatically sync all my photos to a backup service and have things set up so I could make it the primary replica if needed.

ghaff5y ago

archon8105y ago

$30/year will get you... 100-200GB?

I can easily fill up that much data in a single month with videos of my kids.

The next tier is 2TB for $10/mo. Then 10TB for $50/mo.

All of a sudden, you're paying $600 a year and it isn't as insignificant as you suggested.

thekyle5y ago

If you're easily generating 200GB per month in photos and videos then a NAS would probably make more sense. But keep in mind the vast majority of people don't take that many photos.

helij5y ago

What you say makes sense but these services quickly add up.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse