Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#221

Post by Dma54rhs » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:32 PM UTC

chronolitus wrote: post #156

oliwarner wrote: post #154

There are clearly a lot of self-hosting options. What frustrates me from moving away from Google Photos is the "last mile" integration into Android that would upload photos from my phone but more, allow me to select images from my greater library in Android's file and photo pickers. Anyone know something that actually replaces that functionality on Android?

In general, I can't believe there isn't a truly good sync app for android. I use Insync on the PC, and was disappointed to learn they used to have an android app which they discontinued. Currently I use DriveSync Pro to keep a few selected folders two-way-synced to my drive, which mostly works, but after a few weeks of leaving it alone, I open the app and most of the time it has been inactive for a few days.

Depending on your phone manufacturer, you need no disable energy saver feature for the app you want to run background. It might get even more confusing and complicated depending what customization the manufacturer has added to stock Android.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#222

Post by kingosticks » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #216

nsteel wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got and email about this few weeks back (I must have signed up to the list at some point) but I was put off by two things. > We've already preserved 100,000+ files, and are quite reliable at this point. "quite reliable" doesn't cut it for a paid service for me, even a new one. My second issue, and I might be wrong about this, is that there's no way to share photos with someone who isn't a (paying) ente user.

I think this is a mismatch between UK English where "quite" means "extremely" and US English where "quite" means "mostly".

I'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#223

Post by kingosticks » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:38 PM UTC

vishnumohandas wrote: post #219

quaintdev wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing he is expecting to share pics with users who did not sign up. It maybe a one time thing. But I think you need user logged in because of encryption.

That’s right. We could generate public URLs that contain the decryption key of the album within the URL fragment. But as an encrypted storage provider, we would like to ship this only after we're reasonably confident that there are checks in place to prevent abuse.

Yes, this is what I meant and the solution you describe is what I'd be looking for. So +1 from me!

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#224

Post by romseb » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #190

I like Koken: http://koken.me/

Download link has been down for at least months now.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#225

Post by dolmen » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:42 PM UTC

Jabbles wrote: post #210

chomp wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not, however for some of us, there was an implicit “I let you datamine my images, you host them” relationship. Having to pay google tips the scales, so why not spend your $2 on a more privacy oriented service?

What kind of datamining? I suppose we have no way of actually knowing if it's true, but Google does say they don't use Photos data for ads: As always, we don’t sell your information to anyone, and we don’t use information in apps where you primarily store personal content—such as Gmail, Drive, Calendar and Photos—for advertising purposes, period. https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/keeping-priva...

> As always, we don’t sell your information to anyone, and we don’t use information in apps where you primarily store personal content—such as Gmail, Drive, Calendar and Photos—for advertising purposes, period.

As always with privacy policies, the information is in what is NOT said.

1. They don't sell to anyone. But what giving away for free?

2. They don't use personal content for advertising purposes. But what about other purposes than advertising? For example applying face or location recognition in photos to establish a profile that is used in a fraud detection service in Google Pay?

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#226

Post by StavrosK » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:46 PM UTC

kingosticks wrote: post #222

StavrosK wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a mismatch between UK English where "quite" means "extremely" and US English where "quite" means "mostly".

I'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.

Doesn't "quite good" mean "great"? That was my impression, at least.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#227

Post by lazydud » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:50 PM UTC

bgdam wrote: post #160

nindalf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user of ente, I can say I’m pretty happy. It doesn’t have all the features that Google has but they’ve made a promising start. If the search feature becomes comparable, I’d move off Google photos permanently.

Can the search feature of ente become comparable to Google Photos? AFAIK, ente does E2E encryption, which means that unless they index the EXIF data on each single device, and also run the image recognition algorithms on device, the search is never going to be comparable to Google Photos.

I can't live without the face / object detection. It's been so useful

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#228

Post by twobitshifter » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

crossroadsguy wrote: post #31

willio58 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iCloud is great for a hands-off experience. But if you’re accessing photos professionally or even somewhat seriously, I totally agree.

iCloud sucks! I tell you what I was trying to do just now. Literally minutes ago. I have photos in "Library" (i.e. the first screen that loads) and I didn't want that. I wanted them in different albums and just stay there. So I added them to different albums. There's no way to "move". They will still show there. Now you can hide them from "Library" and they will vanish from the Library. Awesome, right? Nope! They van…

Sounds like albums are just tags, which is in general superior to folders.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#229

Post by taneq » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #226

kingosticks wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.

Doesn't "quite good" mean "great"? That was my impression, at least.

This is classic British understatement. It doesn't literally mean 'great', but depending on how it's said it can be interpreted as such.

Re: Ask HN: Alternatives to Google Photos?

#230

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Mon, May 31, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #226

kingosticks wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.

Doesn't "quite good" mean "great"? That was my impression, at least.

Not really, but it depends on context. The nuance is often difficult to detect when written. When spoken, a phrase like "quite extraordinary" or "quite brilliant" would usually be a superlative, as you suggest, but it would usually be indicated by emphasis on the "quite". And the adjective itself already has to be quite strong, so "quite good" will never really mean "great".