Free for 5Gb, $120/yr for 2TB. Google Photos offers unlimited storage for up to 16 Mpix.
As to your other stuff, I don't see the point in continuing since it's so subjective. On any feature which Apple clearly copied and improved, your answer is "whataboutism" to trace the lineage and claim long long ago, the seeds of it came from somewhere else. History for you is a long line of incremental, but uninteresting improvements, punctuated by Apple's adoption, which somehow defines a clearly new thing. When Apple makes an improvement, it is not diminished by the fact that other people had worked on something similar and that it's lineage can be traced as accumulated incremental improvements.
But somehow, for everyone else, history diminishes their achievement.
For me, the history of product development is one of hundreds or thousands of actors, researchers, and scientists making publishing incremental improvements that stack. People who diminish the work of others, try to hog all the credit by rebranding the achievements of others, and fail to give back are parasites.
And for the record, I am not an Apple hater. I have a maxed out Mac Pro on my desk, I've owned every Apple product you can think of, including standing in line for one of the very first iPhones sold. I have carried almost nothing but iPhones, and my primary mobile computer is a Macbook pro with touch bar.
CRITICIZING a company's magical reality marketing and the inability of its cult-like fans to admit criticism of it, does not amount to hate.
I love Apple products. I hate the way they are marketed.
> Free for 5Gb, $120/yr for 2TB. Google Photos offers unlimited storage for up to 16 Mpix.
No, Apple Photos is free. It's an app that's bundled with macOS and iOS. You don't pay for it. The prices you just listed appear to be iCloud storage. But you don't need iCloud Photo Library to take advantage of searching your images (because, remember, it's all local).
> As to your other stuff, I don't see the point in continuing since it's so subjective. On any feature which Apple clearly copied and improved, your answer is "whataboutism" to trace the lineage and claim long long ago, the seeds of it came from somewhere else. History for you is a long line of incremental, but uninteresting improvements, punctuated by Apple's adoption, which somehow defines a clearly new thing. When Apple makes an improvement, it is not diminished by the fact that other people had worked on something similar and that it's lineage can be traced as accumulated incremental improvements.
Is that really how you're reading this? No wonder your comments have been so off base.
I never claimed that Apple's improvements were somehow creating a "clearly new thing". You've made that up out of whole cloth. I said Apple improves stuff when they copy, yes, but that just means it's an improved version. By and large, Apple's versions of things are just improvements over previous iterations of the thing. Sometimes Apple does create uniquely brand new stuff, but those times aren't what we've been talking about.
But no, you have this narrative of Apple users being cult-like and as a result you're putting words into my mouth.
> People who diminish the work of others, try to hog all the credit by rebranding the achievements of others, and fail to give back are parasites.
You mean like people who try to claim that Apple isn't doing anything other than "blindly copy[ing]", dismissing the improvements Apple made to their implementations and trying to give all the credit to previous iterations, while meanwhile dismissing the idea that the previous iterations themselves didn't have a long history to draw from (such as the decades of machine learning research that happened before both Google and Apple were able to introduce photo library search)?
> And for the record, I am not an Apple hater
Then why did you reach for the cult metaphor and the "fanboy" label?
>No, Apple Photos is free. It's an app that's bundled with macOS and iOS. You don't pay for it. The prices you just listed appear to be iCloud storage. But you don't need iCloud Photo Library to take advantage of searching your images (because, remember, it's all local).
The whole point of Google Photos is that it is a a cloud backup service that indexes a lifetime of photos and manages them for you. Google Photos without the free, unlimited storage misses the whole point of liberating you from having to ever worry about managing photos again.
Saying Apple Photos, the app, is free is like saying email clients are free. Sure, you could store a lifetime of email on your phone, but the original value proposition of Gmail was that they gave you so much free storage at a time when services like Yahoo and Hotmail! charged you for more than 25mb. Most of the value is managing the storage for you, worry free.
Don't give you users shitwork, and having to manage your phone's storage, sweat over metered storage, and delete stuff to free up space, is needless, janitorial, shitwork. That's why the web is so amazing, because I don't care about what websites I visit, since I don't have to manage what's in my browser's cache, it is purged automatically if unused, and anything important I do online is persisted in the cloud.
Storage management is annoying and anti-user, and Google Photos is about peace of mind.
The whole point of Google Photos is that it convinces everybody to give all of their photos to Google, so Google can data-mine them.
Saying Google Photos is free is like saying that Gmail is free. Sure, you're not paying for the service itself, but you're paying with your privacy and access to the most intimate details of your personal life.
--
In any case, discussions about online storage of photos isn't relevant at all to this thread, especially when the context of Photos was in searching them, which has nothing to do with how they're stored or whether they're synced.
Free for 5Gb, $120/yr for 2TB. Google Photos offers unlimited storage for up to 16 Mpix.
As to your other stuff, I don't see the point in continuing since it's so subjective. On any feature which Apple clearly copied and improved, your answer is "whataboutism" to trace the lineage and claim long long ago, the seeds of it came from somewhere else. History for you is a long line of incremental, but uninteresting improvements, punctuated by Apple's adoption, which somehow defines a clearly new thing. When Apple makes an improvement, it is not diminished by the fact that other people had worked on something similar and that it's lineage can be traced as accumulated incremental improvements.
But somehow, for everyone else, history diminishes their achievement.
For me, the history of product development is one of hundreds or thousands of actors, researchers, and scientists making publishing incremental improvements that stack. People who diminish the work of others, try to hog all the credit by rebranding the achievements of others, and fail to give back are parasites.
And for the record, I am not an Apple hater. I have a maxed out Mac Pro on my desk, I've owned every Apple product you can think of, including standing in line for one of the very first iPhones sold. I have carried almost nothing but iPhones, and my primary mobile computer is a Macbook pro with touch bar.
CRITICIZING a company's magical reality marketing and the inability of its cult-like fans to admit criticism of it, does not amount to hate.
I love Apple products. I hate the way they are marketed.