Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
I definitely recommend plenty of redundancy. That's why I use both Yahoo and Google. I'd never trust one provider with a lifetime of photos. I read recently about Google shutting down people's account because they didn't like the way they'd bought some Google Pixel phones (something about a shipping scam across US states?). The idea of them just deleting all your photos is pretty scary - especially when it relates to a completely different and unrelated product.
That's one of the nice things about paying for Flickr, they can't legally delete your photos on a whim.
And you're saying that Google can legally delete your photos on a whim when you've paid them money?
Can you pay them money? Is there any paid service with them? There wasn't last I checked.
Yes, google has storage fees based upon how much you want to store. Not that that should matter, you are buying unlimited photo storage as part of your phone purchase - though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
But I have no sympathy for those that are skirting the law. What I don't know - did the end buyers know that they were skirting the law? I have a feeling they did. -
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
You're saying these companies can't cancel your account if you've paid them? I'm not sure. I've heard too many stories about accounts getting cancelled. For example, Amazon cancelling accounts for returning to many faulty items and then you can't access your Kindle books or use your Amazon Firestick. Maybe they can't cancel during the subscription term, but if it's only monthly you could easily get caught out.
With regards to paying Google, yes, Google photos requires payment if you want to store photos at full resolution. I don't. It's done via Drive.
You still only get so much free space in Drive. After that you must pay.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
You're saying these companies can't cancel your account if you've paid them? I'm not sure. I've heard too many stories about accounts getting cancelled. For example, Amazon cancelling accounts for returning to many faulty items and then you can't access your Kindle books or use your Amazon Firestick. Maybe they can't cancel during the subscription term, but if it's only monthly you could easily get caught out.
With regards to paying Google, yes, Google photos requires payment if you want to store photos at full resolution. I don't. It's done via Drive.
Well the service that I pay Flickr for is a backup service. If they delete my account, that's bad faith and unquestionably illegal in the US. It's "intent to defraud".
Interesting - backup that allows all of the things the OP wants? seems - weird and somehow not like a real backup - unless Flickr has a specific backup account type that doesn't have the features that the OP wants.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
Correct. That's as plain as plain can be. So if the phone is gotten illegally there was no service to even cancel as the service use was stolen. So that answers that question.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
You're saying these companies can't cancel your account if you've paid them? I'm not sure. I've heard too many stories about accounts getting cancelled. For example, Amazon cancelling accounts for returning to many faulty items and then you can't access your Kindle books or use your Amazon Firestick. Maybe they can't cancel during the subscription term, but if it's only monthly you could easily get caught out.
With regards to paying Google, yes, Google photos requires payment if you want to store photos at full resolution. I don't. It's done via Drive.
Well the service that I pay Flickr for is a backup service. If they delete my account, that's bad faith and unquestionably illegal in the US. It's "intent to defraud".
Interesting - backup that allows all of the things the OP wants? seems - weird and somehow not like a real backup - unless Flickr has a specific backup account type that doesn't have the features that the OP wants.
What do you mean?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
Correct. That's as plain as plain can be. So if the phone is gotten illegally there was no service to even cancel as the service use was stolen. So that answers that question.
Well it's not like the phone was stolen.
There was a shell game played that allowed people to pay zero or a lower amount of sales tax than they should have paid. But I guess how the law was broken doesn't really matter, only that it was.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
You're saying these companies can't cancel your account if you've paid them? I'm not sure. I've heard too many stories about accounts getting cancelled. For example, Amazon cancelling accounts for returning to many faulty items and then you can't access your Kindle books or use your Amazon Firestick. Maybe they can't cancel during the subscription term, but if it's only monthly you could easily get caught out.
With regards to paying Google, yes, Google photos requires payment if you want to store photos at full resolution. I don't. It's done via Drive.
Well the service that I pay Flickr for is a backup service. If they delete my account, that's bad faith and unquestionably illegal in the US. It's "intent to defraud".
Interesting - backup that allows all of the things the OP wants? seems - weird and somehow not like a real backup - unless Flickr has a specific backup account type that doesn't have the features that the OP wants.
What do you mean?
If you can edit the backups, the actual live backups, then are they really backups at all?
I'll give the search/indexing stuff are part of backups - the part that allows you to find and recover files (though most people would be using it for their own version of production, not as a recovery).
i.e. when I go into my google photos account, I'm not searching for things so I can redownload them to my computer to recover something I changed/deleted, etc, I'm finding them in google photos so I can do whatever work on them there, in google photos.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
Correct. That's as plain as plain can be. So if the phone is gotten illegally there was no service to even cancel as the service use was stolen. So that answers that question.
Well it's not like the phone was stolen.
There was a shell game played that allowed people to pay zero or a lower amount of sales tax than they should have paid. But I guess how the law was broken doesn't really matter, only that it was.
Right, and means that there is no contract with Google for the service, ergo no service that Google needs to not cancel.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
If you can edit the backups, the actual live backups, then are they really backups at all?
You can always edit backups. Just the nature of storage.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
i.e. when I go into my google photos account, I'm not searching for things so I can redownload them to my computer to recover something I changed/deleted, etc, I'm finding them in google photos so I can do whatever work on them there, in google photos.
A backup is how you use it, not what it is.
-
I used to use Dropbox for camera upload. I have also used OneDrive, which if you have Office365, you get like 1TB or 100GB or whatever it is now. Currently, I use Prime Photos (I do have Prime), Google Photos, and I haven't used it in a bit but Flickr too. For an all-in-one package, I think Google Photos is the best.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
i.e. when I go into my google photos account, I'm not searching for things so I can redownload them to my computer to recover something I changed/deleted, etc, I'm finding them in google photos so I can do whatever work on them there, in google photos.
A backup is how you use it, not what it is.
Exactly, so the moment you start treating it like production, it's no longer backup.
-
@thanksajdotcom said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
I used to use Dropbox for camera upload. I have also used OneDrive, which if you have Office365, you get like 1TB or 100GB or whatever it is now. Currently, I use Prime Photos (I do have Prime), Google Photos, and I haven't used it in a bit but Flickr too. For an all-in-one package, I think Google Photos is the best.
O365 gives you 1 TB. OneDrive was given 1 TB for a short time for free, then MS rolled that back - people cried.
-
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
i.e. when I go into my google photos account, I'm not searching for things so I can redownload them to my computer to recover something I changed/deleted, etc, I'm finding them in google photos so I can do whatever work on them there, in google photos.
A backup is how you use it, not what it is.
Exactly, so the moment you start treating it like production, it's no longer backup.
Right, but that goes for ANY backup system. So it's pointless to say "that makes it not a backup". By your definition that you "can" edit, there is no such thing as backups.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
Correct. That's as plain as plain can be. So if the phone is gotten illegally there was no service to even cancel as the service use was stolen. So that answers that question.
I don't think so. From what I gather people broke Google's terms of service regarding reselling phones, but didn't do anything illegal. And these were terms relating specifically to the Pixel. So having their Google accounts (eg Gmail) deleted seems harsh, since Gmail shouldn't have anything to do with Pixel.
But Google considers breaking one set of terms violates all terms and cancel all your Google related services. That's what I disagree with and fear.
-
Also, Google now agree with me, and have reinstated deleted accounts.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
@Dashrender said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
though I suppose they could claim that since you got the phone illegally, then the contract is null and void.
Correct. That's as plain as plain can be. So if the phone is gotten illegally there was no service to even cancel as the service use was stolen. So that answers that question.
I don't think so. From what I gather people broke Google's terms of service regarding reselling phones, but didn't do anything illegal. And these were terms relating specifically to the Pixel. So having their Google accounts (eg Gmail) deleted seems harsh, since Gmail shouldn't have anything to do with Pixel.
But Google considers breaking one set of terms violates all terms and cancel all your Google related services. That's what I disagree with and fear.
Seems reasonable, though. If you are in breach of contract with them, you are in breach. They should not have to do continue to do business with their enemies. You would not want someone trying to steal from you but be forced to keep servicing them in other ways.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
Also, Google now agree with me, and have reinstated deleted accounts.
Well, their PR agrees that this will look better. Not that they necessarily agree it is right.
-
Sharing google photos is easy and allows anyone with any type of account to see them.
You also can set the access, so you can keep them private and just allow certain people to view them.
You should be able to back up all photos without any issue, I'm the type of person who always has the originals on my computer, so if something ever happened, I'd still have them. lol!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Photo storage -Flickr vs Google photos vs ?:
You would not want someone trying to steal from you but be forced to keep servicing them in other ways.
By "stealing" you mean breaking their terms of service for a specific product. Which I don't read. All I'm saying is that as I get more and more sucked into the Amazon and Google ecosystem the greater the risk that at some point I will do something to break one of their terms (or just randomly annoy them) which will cause my account to be deleted. For example, if I return too many faulty electrical goods purchased from Amazon then they will stop me from watching TV or reading my Kindle - even if those goods were genuinely faulty. And there seems to be no arbitration. If you're happy with that situation, then good for you, but I'm not entirely comfortable. I'm not blaming them per se, I just don't want to over expose myself to the whims of a private American company.
