Google introduces Backup and Sync for Photos and Drive

The sad thing about Google Drive that I found annoying was that I was supposedly supposed to be able to drag and drop files from my desktop over the Chrome browser (which is a google program/product) and it was supposed to upload the files that way. Never really worked that well, despite being a Google program working with a Google service. That's the only annoying thing I didn't like about Drive, but obviously you can still manually just upload the files using the Upload links in the Drive website or use the Windows/mac desktop app. It was just odd that Google would tell you this woulid work, and it didn't (at least for me). I always got Upload errors. Not related to my internet connection because it would happen at work, at home, and sometimes at school, all using the latest version of Google chrome at the time.

Sep 13, 2017permalink

The only reason I use Google Drive is to backup documents from work that I need to work on at home (so I don't have to carry around a laptop or worry about copying them to a usb stick). never used Google Photos, and probably never (well, not now at least since it's being merged into the new system). it's also sad that 1TB costs you $10 per month, when you could get an Office 365 subscription, pay $7 per month and get 1TB free with your subscription (which is only about $96 per year vs. $120, not that the extra $24 is going to cause anyone financial hardship I don't think--I mean most people on here have hundreds or thousands of dollars of camera gear...)

Anyway, It does look like you can get 2TB for $20 per month, or up to 30TB for $300 per month (probably for businesses and large organizations, I couldn't see any single non-pro person paying that. Photo studio, maybe...). At least you have those options, which I guess with OneDrive, I think the most you can get is 5 or 10TB.

Sep 13, 2017*permalink

tabloid

Don't like when they say unlimited when there is a limit.
If you have been a photographer for a long time then you would (most probably) be creeping in the TB stage for storage. Im up to 4TB.
So where does that leave me.
Hmmm now how much was that 10TB backup drive (about $250)

Sep 9, 2017permalink

gjw2

I don't use Google's software to sync files on my Google Drive - I use AJC's Sync tool.
A little complicated to set up but once done it's worth the effort.
http://www.ajcsoft.com/sync-backup-to-google-cloud.htm
I found I had little control over Google's sync, and it would be doing stuff in the background (uploading/downloading/whatever) without a 'by-your-leave'. AJC Sync gives you a report beforehand of what it's going to copy either way (or delete if you do that).
Support queries are answered by someone who knows what they're talking about too. It's worth the few bucks just for that.
Disclaimer: I bought it.

Jul 17, 2017permalink

I found a simple tool recommended to me here on DPR called GoodSync. I use it mainly to sync my LR catalog and RAW files between my computer and my backup drives (I used to do this manually, but that usually consisted of me forgetting which folders I removed RAW files from, and having to simply remove the entire folder from the backup drive and recopy again from the PC to keep the backups updated). With GoodSync, it does the hard part so I can just start it and let it do its thing. Pretty easy to set up too.

Sep 13, 2017permalink

Has anyone had a chance to check out how this increases the performance of uploads?

One easy way to improve uploading is to increase the number of threads uploading but that can easily nuke my terrible upload connection.

Jul 17, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

The uploading speed increase trick did stop decade or two ago when majority of services stopped being designed for dial-up connections where every connection got capped, so using multiple connections allowed to have more bandwidth from the server.

Now the speeds are related to your bandwidth and doesn't help to have more connections (nor most often possible as how servers connections are designed).

Jul 17, 2017permalink

No this isn't true. Just last year or the year before I had to kill apple uploading from my computer because it was creating a ton of streams nuking my connection.

This has nothing to do with bandwidth caps imposed by ISP and everything to do with latency affecting the transfer of data of a TCPIP stream.

Quick explanation from google:

"With all that said, there is an indirect relationship between transfer speed and latency. For example, a packet takes time to travel from a server to the client, and there is a limited number of packets that can be sent (in a TCP/IP data transfer) before the server stops and awaits acknowledgement for already received packets in order to continue, so excessive latency can have a negative effect on transfer speed, especially with untweaked PCs on a broadband Internet connection."

Jul 19, 2017permalink

One "gotcha" for me with google photos is their spotty support for RAW files.

Ideally I'd like to just point the service at my photos directory and "set it and forget it" but unfortunately a large number of my RAW files are unsupported.

While this might be expected for old niche formats such as Pentax's .pef raws (serves me right for using pentax!) or my panasonic point and shoot camera it was a total surprise to find that my Sony NEX-3n (at one time one of the hottest selling consumer mirror-less cameras) is unsupported while every other RAW writing sony device released before and after the NEX-3n is supported. Now I have a partial backup of everything but my pentax/3n/panny pictures.

from google's list of supported RAW formats:
Sony
A7, A7R, A7S, A7 Mark II, A55, A58, A65, A77, A77 Mark II, A99, A700, A3000, A5000, A5100, A6000, QX1, NEX-5, NEX-5N, NEX-5R, NEX-6, NEX-7, NEX-C3, NEX-F3, RX1, RX1R, RX10, RX10 Mark II, RX100, RX100 Mark II, RX100 Mark III, RX100 Mark IV

Jul 17, 2017*permalink

zodiacfml

Finally. Google Drive and Photos app in a computer is redundant. I wonder if they will do this for mobile devices.

Jul 15, 2017permalink

ScanSpeak

Thanks Google but no way.

I'm not interested in having an ad company hold my data.

Jul 15, 2017permalink

Bryan M

Why do you care?

Sep 9, 2017permalink

ScanSpeak

If you have to ask I can't be bothered to answer.

Sep 11, 2017permalink

For this reason, I sort of wish that systems like Box and Dropbox would support RAW files and offer larger storage plans (like Google does, or at least up to 2TB or so for the photogrpahers). I think that would give Google and Microsoft some run for their money as people might opt for Box and/or Dropbox as they are not associated with advertising as part of their business. I agree.

Sep 13, 2017permalink

Bryan M

Brilliant position to take. Can'tSpeak

Sep 22, 2017permalink

The fact of the matter is that ad companies of all sorts have your data already. They don't need your physical files. And in many cases, they have far more "interesting" data, and you're files they probably don't really care about anyway. They want the other data, like your demographics, what you buy, etc. Just purchasing stuff on the Internet gives these ad companies pretty much what they need, and you don't have to even upload a single file. So to say that you won't use a service because you don't want want your files hosted by an ad company is a bit of a ridiculous reason to not want to use a service in my opinion. Almost all of the big sites you know and probably use are tied to advertising agencies in one way or another,

Sep 22, 2017permalink

@Bryan M: ScanSpeak has a point that you SHOULD care, but there are worse things to be worried about, like the Equifax hack (if you're living in the US). That bothers me more than Google having my data (files or web activity) because Google probably can't take out mortgages under my name because they don't have my credentials to do so, but some hacker who could have gotten my info from the hack, theoretically could. So, there are bigger things to worry about than some ad company storing your files.

Sep 22, 2017*permalink

sh10453

Google has demonstrated more than once that it cannot be trusted or relied on when it comes to image apps.
Picasa, and the NIK collection are just examples.

Besides, this is just a renaming of Google Drive.
Google Drive for desktop PC's has been out there for years, and it's similar to DropBox and other applications for cloud storage.
So beware. If you install this app, it will automatically uninstall and replace Google Drive from your PC

Jul 15, 2017permalink

Impulses

Actually the Drive client will self update to this, it's essentially just an update for the former with integration for Photos... And really poor branding on Google's part. The beta and release timing were kinda botched too, I'm glad to have the Photos integration but it seems there's quite a few bugs still present. They've never been great at keeping any desktop/x86 solutions current and relevant, never mind Linux.

Jul 15, 2017permalink

Photocounter

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content...This license continues even if you stop using our Services.

Jul 14, 2017permalink

Dr Blackjack

Really? Source?

Jul 14, 2017permalink

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

most of that is standard for any web service. To host/post your photos google has to do all of those things. The only worrisome part is that the license continues once you stop using google photos.

Jul 15, 2017permalink

Richard Murdey

That's a selective quote from the full Google TOS.
https://www.google.com/policies/terms/

"Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services."

The Google TOS is written very broadly to cover themselves from any legal action. Google never publicly displays a photo you haven't shared publicly &c or uses your photos for any purpose other than within the framework of Google photos service.

Jul 16, 2017permalink

Hachu21

Here the full paragraph from Google "terms of service" :

"Your Content in our Services
Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes
(...)
Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services."

So, yes, using Google services you accept to give them a full licence over your content.

Jul 17, 2017permalink

Before everyone goes off the deep end on this one:
"Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services. "

I would think that copyrighted items, such as photos you store, would fall under this category. Google cannot legally create derivatives of copyrighted by someone else. I think what they are referring to mostly is data that would otherwise be "publically" visible, such as a review left on Google, or perhaps public posts you make on Google+, or probably anything that you deem as public. Obviously, I don't think you're files you store on Google's cloud-based storage system are considered public and therefore I don't think Google can use your files for anything. That would break copyright law (if it's copyrighten especially) and probably several other laws too.

Sep 13, 2017*permalink

Photocounter

...NEITHER GOOGLE NOR ITS SUPPLIERS OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE SERVICES...WE DON’T MAKE ANY COMMITMENTS ABOUT...THE SERVICES, THE SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE SERVICES, OR THEIR RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY...

SOME JURISDICTIONS PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN WARRANTIES...OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE...TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, WE EXCLUDE ALL WARRANTIES. WHEN PERMITTED BY LAW, GOOGLE...WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST PROFITS, REVENUES, OR DATA, FINANCIAL LOSSES OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF GOOGLE, AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, FOR ANY CLAIMS UNDER THESE TERMS, INCLUDING FOR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES, IS LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT YOU PAID US TO USE THE SERVICES (OR, IF WE CHOOSE, TO SUPPLYING YOU THE SERVICES AGAIN).

IN ALL CASES, GOOGLE, AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT IS NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE.

Jul 14, 2017permalink

The Name is Bond

That's pretty standard, not just to google.

Jul 15, 2017permalink

Gollan

You will find a similar disclaimer of liability for the hard drive or any other storage device you are using.

Jul 16, 2017permalink

This is pretty much standard boiler plate disclaimers, so that the company providing the product/service cannot be held liable for failure of their product. Plain and simple. My company sells ag equipment, and we even have these disclaimers in our manuals and warranty documentation and we don't even deal with digital information, just equipment, so this is just a standard disclaimer that almost all companies post to help protect themselves from lawsuits.

These disclaimers also allow companies to update, discontinue or change products/services pretty much whenever and how ever they want. The only exception to this might be a binding legal contract that explicitly outlines any guaranteed performance or maintenance/updates of a product/service

Sep 13, 2017*permalink

BLongborough

"You will need to restart your computer before you can use whatsitsname".

No, thanks, and please stop wasting my time. Can we have Picasa back?

Jul 13, 2017*permalink

WSLam

The old Google Photos Backup app (on MacOS) can backup network drives (e.g. NAS), but this new one will only backup local drives.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

PhotoUniverse

When is it going to be cancelled?

Jul 13, 2017permalink

OneLeggedCat

Don't worry. If it proves to be an awful product, they'll keep it around forever. If it proves to be a good product, they'll destroy it's functionality over time, and THEN cancel it. So you'll have sufficient warning to leave.

Jul 14, 2017permalink

docdelete

Darn it! It still doesn't handle nested folders. Not for me anyway - I have a top level folder named after my son, no photos in the first level, but inside are dozens of named folders (years, events etc) and the new app simply doesn't see any photos if I ask it to look at the only the top folder. I can't believe this is too much to ask.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

SnapperHed

Well well, always a catch eh? That unfortunatley makes it virtually worthless as few people just dogpile all their photos into a single folder.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

Satyaa

There may be a paid version coming soon that will address those shortcomings ;)

Jul 14, 2017permalink

docdelete

For a paid version I expect features to be added, not for a failing to be remedied. :(

Jul 14, 2017permalink

Google already had fast and powerful tool for syncing and uploading, called Picasa, but they just had to replace it with this cute and dumb pos.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

DMax82

Yes, this. I am still using Picasa 3 on my desktop because Google has yet to release anything nearly as good. Haven't used it for uploading recently, bit love the program.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

Upload still works, as long as you upload to an existing pre-Google photo folder/album.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

docdelete

I agree - Picasa had the ability to scan folders /totally/ like any self-respecting media management app. How is it that Google is happy to go backwards as far as dealing with nested folders is concerned? I mean, the work was already done, right?

Jul 13, 2017permalink

Barleyman

Still use Picasa. And yes, it is amazing for creating albums and sharing, as you don't have to share/sync everything int he folder. Really nice way to manage what you share, and how it is presented to folks online..

Jul 14, 2017permalink

And when Google makes a compressed copy of your photo it erases relevant EXIF data including when the original photo was taken. I used it briefly as iPhone photo backup but reverted to OneDrive backup as it doesn't change the original and makes it simple to archive on my home server.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

s1oth1ovechunk

No it doesn't...

Jul 13, 2017permalink

@s1oth1ovechunk: It most certainly does. Location information is removed too. Verified on over 400 iOS photos. Another half-baked Google product.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

Your settings are incorrect, you can choose to upload without compression.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

SnapperHed

@Suave It's nothing to do with settings. You must use google drive in order to store the original file (which counts against your storage). Everything stored in the google photos app is compressed (unlimited storage).

Jul 13, 2017permalink

@suave: without letting google compress your photos it counts against your Google Drive limit. It's easy to fill that 15GB between email, documents, video and photos.

Jul 13, 2017permalink

your Google Drive _free_ limit

Jul 13, 2017permalink