Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

support.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 355 posts

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#191

Post by Barrin92 »

azinman2 wrote: post #174
Barrin92 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

force protocols to be open would just about do it. People would trivially write cross-service applications on top and we could have an internet where people can freely move data around. Apple and Google would be delegated to the backend and users could choose the clients they want. It's honestly so trivial and uninvasive of a regulatory matter it's ridiculous. We're stuck in the 19th century railroad industry.

So, someone (who?) comes out with a standard, and then everyone just freezes capabilities then? Nothing evolves? Or if it does, it does so very unequally? Already in this announcement is the non-transfer of Live Photos because presumably Google doesn't support it. Apparently they also have a 20k per album cap, which at that point you get different behavior than you're expecting. These are just a few examples of where…

>and then everyone just freezes capabilities then? Nothing evolves? Or if it does, it does so very unequally?

every client provider can do whatever they want, that'd be the beauty of it. Someone could write a stripped down, privacy respecting Facebook client and charge users five bucks instead of running ads, if that's what users want. Someone could offer a chronological news-feed free of algorithmic meddling, or one that you can fine-tune however you like. That'd would simply be developer and user choice. Just think of RSS-readers or podcast apps or email clients. They're not all equal, but that's a feature, not something gone wrong.

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#192

Post by varispeed »

krrrh wrote: post #71
dangwu wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the first part of the Data Transfer Project - an initiative between major online service providers to provide an easy way to transfer data between their services.

That's interesting, and it's the first I've heard of the project. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Apple has yet released the adaptors to the open source project [1]. As much as I'm not interested in having Apple copy my photos to Google, I am very interested in scripting my own offline backups without having to make space for Photos.app to store all my photos on my laptop's SSD. Hopefully the adaptors are added t…

If you are in the EU, they are by law required to give you access to your data in a way so that you can achieve this. If this is not available then you can make a complaint and maybe sue them, but that costs money.

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#193

Post by reaperducer »

capableweb wrote: post #175
ktapcnbje wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it was outrageous that the MacBook (2015-2019) only had one USB port. However, Apple never called it Pro. The MacBook Pro has at least 2 USB ports.

> However, Apple never called it Pro. I think in the marketing material, Apple tends to call everything they do "for professionals", not just the line of hardware with "Pro" in its name.

No, this was just a plain consumer-level MacBook, sold alongside both the Pro and the Air line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_(2015–2019)

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#194

Post by rsync »

Does rclone[1] interface with iCloud Photos ? It works just fine with google photos[2] ...

Without installing rclone and without using any of your own bandwidth, you should be able to:

  ssh user@rsync.net rclone icloud:/blah gphotos:/blah
Or maybe you just want to keep a copy in your rsync.net account:

  ssh user@rsync.net rclone icloud:/blah /your/dir/tree
[1] https://rclone.org

[2] https://rclone.org/googlephotos/

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#195

Post by varispeed »

vishnumohandas wrote: post #167

If Apple opened up their APIs so that data could be imported by ANY authorized third party service, that would be fantastic. This post is about a behind-closed-doors deal with Google. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see a reason to celebrate.

They have to do it by law (GDPR) if they want to sell their products in the EU. People should start making complaints that they cannot port their data to other services, then they should implement that in no time.

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#196

Post by jdxcode »

rsync wrote: post #194

Does rclone[1] interface with iCloud Photos ? It works just fine with google photos[2] ... Without installing rclone and without using any of your own bandwidth, you should be able to: ssh user@rsync.net rclone icloud:/blah gphotos:/blah Or maybe you just want to keep a copy in your rsync.net account: ssh user@rsync.net rclone icloud:/blah /your/dir/tree [1] https://rclone.org [2] https://rclone.org/googlephotos/

iCloud photos aren’t just jpegs in a directory

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#197

Post by mbroncano »

varispeed wrote: post #183
rakoo wrote: post #144

It is a bit sad to see something as simple as "you can now take your photos and put them where you want" become a newsworthy article. This is yet another demonstration that Digital Feudalism is alive and well, and just like its ancestor, we need to get rid of it by empowering people to be their own self

They were required to do this by law in the EU.

Could you please elaborate on that? Which particular law are they abiding?

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#198

Post by puszczyk »

Barrin92 wrote: post #191
azinman2 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, someone (who?) comes out with a standard, and then everyone just freezes capabilities then? Nothing evolves? Or if it does, it does so very unequally? Already in this announcement is the non-transfer of Live Photos because presumably Google doesn't support it. Apparently they also have a 20k per album cap, which at that point you get different behavior than you're expecting. These are just a few examples of where…

>and then everyone just freezes capabilities then? Nothing evolves? Or if it does, it does so very unequally? every client provider can do whatever they want, that'd be the beauty of it. Someone could write a stripped down, privacy respecting Facebook client and charge users five bucks instead of running ads, if that's what users want. Someone could offer a chronological news-feed free of algorithmic meddling, or one…

What does the Facebook get out of it?

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#199

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #151
rakoo wrote: post #144

It is a bit sad to see something as simple as "you can now take your photos and put them where you want" become a newsworthy article. This is yet another demonstration that Digital Feudalism is alive and well, and just like its ancestor, we need to get rid of it by empowering people to be their own self

force protocols to be open would just about do it. People would trivially write cross-service applications on top and we could have an internet where people can freely move data around. Apple and Google would be delegated to the backend and users could choose the clients they want. It's honestly so trivial and uninvasive of a regulatory matter it's ridiculous. We're stuck in the 19th century railroad industry.

[deleted]

Re: Apple now lets you transfer your iCloud Photos to Google Photos

#200

Post by lupire »

azinman2 wrote: post #174
Barrin92 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

force protocols to be open would just about do it. People would trivially write cross-service applications on top and we could have an internet where people can freely move data around. Apple and Google would be delegated to the backend and users could choose the clients they want. It's honestly so trivial and uninvasive of a regulatory matter it's ridiculous. We're stuck in the 19th century railroad industry.

So, someone (who?) comes out with a standard, and then everyone just freezes capabilities then? Nothing evolves? Or if it does, it does so very unequally? Already in this announcement is the non-transfer of Live Photos because presumably Google doesn't support it. Apparently they also have a 20k per album cap, which at that point you get different behavior than you're expecting. These are just a few examples of where…

HTML had been a standard for about 25 years and it doesn't seem to be stagnant.
Post reply on HN