11–20 of 62 posts
Good, more security and better controls means third-party apps cannot simply scrape all of my photos.
This isn’t more security, this is google attempting to squeeze more monetization.
Good, more security and better controls means third-party apps cannot simply scrape all of my photos.
Aren't the photo frame companies able to issue firmware updates? Since the devices are internet-connected, it seems like they ought to be able to. According to the article, the new API "can... access... albums through the new Google Photos Picker API". Or maybe they don't even need firmware updates, if it's all managed via the photo frame's website. API's change, and if you make a product that uses an API, you need t…
No one wants to manually add each photo to a slideshow. Google Photos has AI that automatically makes themed albums, it works great. I point my TV at my family photos, new pictures of my family are automatically added as I take them, and then shown on my TV. That is how it is supposed to work.
This new locked down API places all the security burden on the user, and a large % of users are not going to be able to figure out the new system, and the new system is so complicated that many products are just going to give up on working altogether.
The new system, even if well intentioned, should not be rolled out, it is a huge net loss for users.
Good, more security and better controls means third-party apps cannot simply scrape all of my photos.
It cuts both ways. It will probably make it ever harder for users to get a backup of their photos. I tried to build a product to help people get a physical backup out of Google Photos but their API had so many rate limits and random other errors it would take _days_ or more: https://www.clonecamel.com Now, I need to also look at how this will work with my personal backup system that uses rclone to an encrypted USB dr…
Good, more security and better controls means third-party apps cannot simply scrape all of my photos.
If I authorize an app to scrape an entire album, that’s a good thing. This isn’t more security, this is google attempting to squeeze more monetization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It cuts both ways. It will probably make it ever harder for users to get a backup of their photos. I tried to build a product to help people get a physical backup out of Google Photos but their API had so many rate limits and random other errors it would take _days_ or more: https://www.clonecamel.com Now, I need to also look at how this will work with my personal backup system that uses rclone to an encrypted USB dr…
Wouldn't using Google Takeout do that already? I thought that was the point, to take out your data?
What a terrible decision by Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't using Google Takeout do that already? I thought that was the point, to take out your data?
Have you ever used takeout? You get 33 1GB chunks in a link sent via _EMAIL_ that then I have to click on and authenticate in my browser. 33 clicks.
Aren't the photo frame companies able to issue firmware updates? Since the devices are internet-connected, it seems like they ought to be able to. According to the article, the new API "can... access... albums through the new Google Photos Picker API". Or maybe they don't even need firmware updates, if it's all managed via the photo frame's website. API's change, and if you make a product that uses an API, you need t…
The picker API limits access to selected photos. It doesn’t look like there is an API for “all current and future photos from an album”, which is the problem (from integrators’ perspective)
But from the official page it says [1]:
> For example, if your asking your users to share a specific album, you could include the following text on the same page your users connect to Google Photos: "Connect to Google Photos, then search for the album you want to share."
This suggests that users are able to share a specific album that shares all photos within, without having to individually select.
It's hard to see why Google would take away the ability to share all photos in an album, when that's such a common use case.
If they have removed that, it's incredibly dumb. I just don't see anything concrete that they have? I'd love to see proof one way or another. Does anyone have access to the picker interface itself? Does it allow you to select an album directly?
[1] https://developers.google.com/photos/picker/guides/picking-e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't using Google Takeout do that already? I thought that was the point, to take out your data?
Have you ever used takeout? You get 33 1GB chunks in a link sent via _EMAIL_ that then I have to click on and authenticate in my browser. 33 clicks.
It’s annoying in that it can take up to a week for the first mail to reply. And you can’t automate it, so no automatic backups.