Google Photos: "Unlimited" yet again doesn't mean what you think

Vermillion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
4,183
The "unlimited" option for photo uploading on Google is apparently not "unlimited" according to what the Oxford English Dictionary teaches us:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...visible-data-cap-for-unlimited-photo-uploads/
For those who don't bother reading the article...

It doesn't appear to a cap on the amount of photos. It looks like there may be a soft cap on how much data you can push in a certain amount of time.

And if anybody wants to play semantics Google said "unlimited storage" not unlimited bandwidth to upload 3TB of photos in a single night. ;)
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
For those who don't bother reading the article...

It doesn't appear to a cap on the amount of photos. It looks like there may be a soft cap on how much data you can push in a certain amount of time.

And if anybody wants to play semantics Google said "unlimited storage" not unlimited bandwidth to upload 3TB of photos in a single night. ;)
True ;)

IIRC, Google caps Drive throughput usage to like 750MB to 1GB allotted per day for free accounts.
 

Vermillion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
4,183
True ;)

IIRC, Google caps Drive throughput usage to like 750MB to 1GB allotted per day for free accounts.
The issue here isn't the soft cap for bandwidth. It's that Google didn't warn anybody if this is meant to be there and not just a bug. They did merge a few services into Photos and some of those services did use soft cap uploads like this so we could be seeing a bug that affects some people.

My big question is how the hell do people have enough photos to even hit these soft caps? There are reports of people uploading over 110K photos in a night. Why? Do you really need all 110K photos?
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
The issue here isn't the soft cap for bandwidth. It's that Google didn't warn anybody if this is meant to be there and not just a bug. They did merge a few services into Photos and some of those services did use soft cap uploads like this so we could be seeing a bug that affects some people.

My big question is how the hell do people have enough photos to even hit these soft caps? There are reports of people uploading over 110K photos in a night. Why? Do you really need all 110K photos?
A typical smartphone has a what? 12-16megapixel shooter? Translates into what 3-5Megabyte per photo in jpeg? The Photos app for example (And G+ photos before it) auto-synced all the images in my /Camera folder on my Nexus. Setup Photos/Drive on a desktop to sync on a desktop will probably do the same.

5 megabyte files only takes 200 photos to hit the daily datacap for Drive. I shot 300 images on my last vacation (a week long), and I wasn't going too nuts either.

People uploading 100K photos...are probably doing the smart thing-backing everything up to an offsite provider and not being choosy. Call a service unlimited, and have an uptime record like Google tends to have and people will do it...especially if it is free.
 

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,610
I've got a few hundred Gigabytes of photos and I consider myself a moderate photo collector. I've seen pros with collections in the Terabytes. Though I wouldn't trust any online service with them of course. For the typical person though I can see how those services could be attractive.
 

Vermillion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
4,183
A typical smartphone has a what? 12-16megapixel shooter? Translates into what 3-5Megabyte per photo in jpeg? The Photos app for example (And G+ photos before it) auto-synced all the images in my /Camera folder on my Nexus. Setup Photos/Drive on a desktop to sync on a desktop will probably do the same.

5 megabyte files only takes 200 photos to hit the daily datacap for Drive. I shot 300 images on my last vacation (a week long), and I wasn't going too nuts either.

People uploading 100K photos...are probably doing the smart thing-backing everything up to an offsite provider and not being choosy. Call a service unlimited, and have an uptime record like Google tends to have and people will do it...especially if it is free.
Shooting 300 photos is one thing. Keeping all 300 is another to me. I guess I'm weird. If I shoot 300 photos while on vacation I go back and toss all the ones I don't want or didn't come out great.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
17,847
I just wish I could sort the photos on my phone. Google photos doesn't seem to think I should need or want to. I have everything grouped into folders and even named according to the date they were taken...and Google Photos just ignores most of it.
 

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,610
I just wish I could sort the photos on my phone. Google photos doesn't seem to think I should need or want to. I have everything grouped into folders and even named according to the date they were taken...and Google Photos just ignores most of it.
Amazon cloud photos organizes them by date taken.
 

Vermillion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
4,183
And according to Google this is no longer even an issue. :)

The update is on the original article posted in the OP.
 

mclld

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
77
Google Photos is great, they do need to let you edit titles, photo dates for sure but other than that I am happy.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,769
The "unlimited" option for photo uploading on Google is apparently not "unlimited" according to what the Oxford English Dictionary teaches us:

http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/0...visible-data-cap-for-unlimited-photo-uploads/
For those who don't bother reading the article...

It doesn't appear to a cap on the amount of photos. It looks like there may be a soft cap on how much data you can push in a certain amount of time.

And if anybody wants to play semantics Google said "unlimited storage" not unlimited bandwidth to upload 3TB of photos in a single night. ;)
Yet again, a thread with a linkbait title that just links and does not summarize or explain the point of the thread, so you know whether you want to waste your time or not.

Thank you Vermillion, for doing what the OP did not.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,326
Because I don't use Android, this only affects my usage of Google+.

So far I dislike photos. I definitely prefer G+ implementation versus photos. Hopefully it will change to a more user manageable model.

In G+ I can create albums and titles and organize like crazy. I feel like I can't in photos. It's a step back. Everything is just chronological. It ignores albums. Maybe I'm missing something. I switch back to G+ every time, almost instantly.
 
Top