Huge pet peeve of Google... Develop a great little application/product that pulls you in and develops a decent user base only to have it disappear. I get that in a normal company, the finances might in fact dictate that the company can no longer support the user base with the revenue collected. With Google.. these free services seem to disappear with little warning. (to be fair: 4 years of not updating the official Blog was a big clue...)
All that said... just as I was getting used to Wave... poof
Just as I was getting used to GOOG-411... poof
Google Talk...
Don't mind the innovation, but it seems that rather than releasing new versions of existing products to introduce new features and help folks migrate, you get an entire new product to learn/adopt. I can't believe I'm saying this but... I prefer Microsoft's approach to improving their product lines. (sigh)
Picasa web albums has hardly disappeared. It was replaced by Google Photos (then Google+ photos) a couple years ago. They left the old interface around for years to allow people to transition over at their own pace, you can't really expect a better migration path than that.
Your comment about the blog prompted me to go check the Google Voice blog...nothing since May 2013. Crap. I've been using, loving, and recommending GV since I started using it in 2010 when I got my first smartphone...one day they're just gonna up and shut down GV and not only will I lose a service I'm extremely fond of but I also won't get, you know, phone calls, because that's the number I've handed out for the last five years.
I rarely put much stock in Google products. Their approach seems to be to get a decent idea off the ground, then turn it over to the masses to use and figure out and suggest how they can make it better.
This usually means no support whatsoever. While I can appreciate the whole, "Post something in our forum!" approach to customer service, I can't tell you how many times I've posted a question about a product or a bug and get fucking crickets for MONTHS. I gave up a long time ago thinking it was going to get better.
When I see a new product they release, I'll kick the tires and test drive it, but no way am I even remotely putting enough confidence in it to use it on any of my projects. It's just too risky.
"Develop a great little application/product that pulls you in and develops a decent user base only to have it disappear"
The worst part is when they do this with acquisitions (which Picasa was, though admittedly it was acquired quite a long time ago).
Also, even when they don't outright kill apps/services, it is painful when they basically let them wither on the vine (see: Google Voice, another acquisition of a promising product that Google snapped up and then basically put into hibernation soon after).
None of the shutdowns have really impacted me, but they definitely impacted how I approach Google's offerings. It's not that long ago that I would (at the very least) try out pretty much anything Google put out (e.g. Wave/Reader/Desktop/Drive). Now there's always a nagging feeling of "When (not if) will this be trashed?"
My expectation of Google Voice going away has kept me from doing more with it or many other Google products; what's funny is that by showing even token effort they could easily turn me into a $5-10/month paying customer instead of one who actively avoids depending on anything Google.
As it is I'll keep paying my money to my lightly used long term online fax service and perhaps at some point I'll switch over to a paid SIP provider.
As for GOOG-411 isn't it pretty widely accepted that it was free to build up a large pool of voice data without the privacy concerns of using Google Voice customer voicemail? Its end was guaranteed once they had enough training data for minimum viable voice recognition - on the same kind of phone microphones even.
> I get that in a normal company, the finances might in fact dictate that the company can no longer support the user base with the revenue collected.
Although I never really used Picasa, Dropbox's decision to shutdown Mailbox and, to a lesser extent, Carousel, was particularly upsetting for me. Although in the case of Mailbox it was more due to a decline in acquiring new users after the buyout [1].
I'm not too bummed about it now as I've found better alternatives.
Ah, the fun (irony here). Before user-end computing can regain a semblance of sensibility we will need to move towards guaranteed secure sandbox environments for apps that allow historical re-use of earlier versions.
What is happening at the moment is that IMMENSE quantities of skill development and time is continually flushed away everytime Google/Microsoft/Take-your-pick-software-company decides to retire or dramatically rewrite an app. The situation is even wilder in the closed gardens (Android/IOS) and cloud/web-only where perfectly fine software disappears overnight and then.. that's it. Wake up, we're throwing our mental resources down the drain on a completely unprecedented scale because no systemic solution to this issue exists!!
Isn't this why standards exist? We have standard image formats (jpg, dng). Even standard metadata formats (xmp, exif).
Why can't we have a standard for image libraries, albums, and storage that can work on a smartphone or desktop? It sure would make it easier to roll your own imports, exports, backups. It would be easier to move your stuff when Apple shuts down Aperture, Google shuts down Picasa, you switch smartphone OSs, you decide to quit Facebook, etc. Some XML or some JSON amirite?
If 1 or 2 big players got on board, I feel like others would follow. But I'm probably wrong.
Microsoft seems much better at this than the others you mentioned (or Linux).
Compatability seems like something that the Qubes model could help with quite a bit. Rump kernels can also help by simplifying the OS level interface to where effective sandboxing is possible. Getting safe and convient access to the data an app actually needs is still a difficult issue.
Minus the sandboxing, some package managers are better at this than others, particularly Nix or OpenPandora's PND packages. However, that only helps as long as the OS provides binary compatability.
Even with sandboxing, applications that require network access can be a major security issue. It is no consolation to the rest of the network if your botnet node is nicely isolated from the rest of your system. To fix this, applications need to not directly interact with the network but with other system components that do so and can be updated separately.
OTOH, often the compatibility loss is independent of the application, either communications standards change or expected features change, so being able to run old applications only gets you so much. In those cases, open source can have a major advantage.
Desktop Picasa is also going away and it is what I use for organizing my photos. I understand the backend of Picasa Web is replaced by Google Photos, no problem.
My problem is with the desktop organization. Desktop Picasa allows for one feature no other alternative I have seen allows ... tagging of multiple photos.
Does anyone have a web or desktop alternative that supports tagging on individual and multiple photos? Google seems to have forgotten about this feature in Google Photos.
Really hoping they'll open source the Picasa application or something, it was really the best in the business - I still recommend it to people regularly. Managing digital photos any other way I've seen is just too complicated for average users.
Other than that I can only recommend they go to Lightroom or one of several open source applications which are at varying stages of completion and usability (I haven't played with any recently so if anyone knows a particularly polished one that runs on Windows let me know). All of the alternatives are more difficult to use than Picasa. This really sucks.
I mean it's going away insofar as they are no longer supporting it. However they haven't put out features in years. If it works for you, keep using it. It's what I do.
Unless it's sync functionality stops working with Google Photos, I guess, which would be undesireable...
I use Picasa on the desktop to organize my photos as well. While they are not going to develop it any more, it should still work if you have it installed right?
I also would like to know if others have suggestions. I've tired Apple Photo/iPhoto/Aperture and Capture One. I find they have severe performance or usability issues.
I was a Picasa user for several years and I really liked it, but after Google Photos was announced and I saw the handwriting on the wall and completely switched (with much consternation) to Google Photos and have had a great experience. I uploaded over 17,000 to the Google-free tier and applaud all the automation they have built around auto-panorama-stitching, auto-animations, auto-face-tagging, auto-object, and auto-location. I've found that I share my photos much more now, and I also really enjoy having a single stream for my DLSR and smartphone photos (my workflow is to backup uncompressed DSLR photos then upload to Google.)
Having an "AI" organize, edit and tag my photos frees up a lot of time. Part of the transition is learning to let go of the way I used to manage photos.
I still want the right to take all my stuff with me - but I think Google has done a reasonable job of ensuring that happens.
Man this is annoying. I've used Picasa desktop for probably 10 years now. It's not perfect but for keeping my family photos organized and doing quick edits before printing them or uploading them to our family blog it's great. That Google would suggest the Photos desktop uploader is an adequate substitute is a joke.
FWIW I also use Lightroom for more advanced editing but for regular people LR is overkill and complex.
I'd be perfectly willing to pay for an easy-to-use photo organizer but megacorps like Google & FB are killing off the market for paid software by using free software & services as a trojan horse to lure users to upload their data to the cloud where it can be mined for all its worth.
Every time this happens, people act surprised. Every single time. It happens like clockwork, every 3 months.
People should realize by now that Google is a company that makes money through surveillance advertising, and _every single other thing they do_ is basically part of a PR campaign.
If you don't want this to happen to you, don't use Google. Use something that you have control over.
The shocking thing is that even companies like Microsoft are no better today. The user and his data are the product with their recent products like Win10, Office365. Adobe and Autodesk are on the same bandwagon with their subscription software, but not as mean and dirty as MSFT.
Only Apple is still 1990s-style (traditional) and at least let's you deactivate their cloud stuff with a few simple options. We definitely need more good companies that respect the consumer.
The Picasa desktop app for Windows had one of the nicest image viewers -- it was my default until I wiped my Windows 7 box. Thanks to the Picasa team for a great service over so many these years!
I have a question. I'm wondering why big companies buy smaller companies but don't keep their branding. For instance, if Google bought Picaza, why not just make Picaza the de-facto image storage app? They'd replace their Photos app with Picaza, and call it a day. Something similar happened recently with Songza.
Is there any reason in particular why small companies are bought out by big companies and their brands are dissolved rather than building on top of their initial branding?
I hate how google just changes things on a whim. It took me a few years to educate my parents how to use picasa to manage their pictures efficiently.
They used to access all online albums by going to plus.google.com then clicking on the panel on the left then pictures. Until one day...it was just gone. No indication where to go now. Unless of course you follow tech news and know that you have to go to photos.google.com now.
Now they are retiring picasa in favour of Google Photos which are an absolute nightmare to navigate interface wise. What is the difference between albums, collections and shared collections? When uploading photos I can choose any of those and I have no idea what the difference is. I also learned the hard way that deleting something from your album does not delete it from your photos like it did in Picasa.
Anyone knows a good desktop app to organize photo like Picasa that works for Windows/Linux/OSX?
Specifically there are a few things I like from Picasa:
1. Import files to folder based on picture dates
e.g.: c:\pictures\2016-02-12\P0221314.jpg
2. Import videos from mobile devices and display in the right orientation
for example: I have mobile devices and I take movies in different orientation: vertical or horizontal, while the actual file's metadata is left unchanged, Picasa knows the _right_ orientation and will adjust the playback accordingly.
3. Handles upload from different devices
I have a Lumix GF1 and iPod. Importing pictures to Picasa is super easy without any 3rd-party integration/interruption (e.g.: doesn't have to copy from device to a temporary folder first but instead import directly from the device to the dated folder).
So now we only have Lightroom? I ask myself if I'm the only one who recognized that Picasa is way faster than Lightroom in indexing and face recognition? It feels way faster for viewing and managing.
Actually Picasa is very optimized for desktop usage. I don't understand why to throw a good product away... it should go open source or it should be supported by another company for the future.
It's kind of ironic seeing all the people on 'hacker news' wanting someone else to provide a service. Why not hack the good hack and make your own system to do what you need from Picasa?
Google Photos is OK so I don't mind Picasa going away (I hadn't used the desktop app in years).
While having services cancelled is troublesome, for photos I have my smartphone backup up everything to Google Photos, Microsoft Azure, and Dropbox. Copy the eggs and store in three different baskets.
Google Photos is still missing a lot of functionality of Picasa. For year I've been uploading pictures to an album named with the current year. My parents and in-laws can check the pictures of the kids when they like. The Photos upload activity on Android doesn't have a selector for the album like the Picasa upload did.
There still doesn't seem to be a way to interact with Google Photos through scripts. Search for "google photos api" and the first link is still the Picasa Web Albums Data API...
Where do you get the impression that "a gazillion URLs" broke?
Picasa Web Albums will continue working until the album archive view is ready.
Also, all of the photo from PWA are hosted in Google Photos Backend - and will continue to be hosted there. There are accessible in Google Photos and the URLs will continue to work.
I mainly used Picasa Web Albums because of its seamless integration with the Picasa Desktop Application. I guess the integration will not work with Photos.
Photos is mobile-oriented to the point that is almost useless on desktop. My photos were moved, but I have no idea if the permissions were kept. All the albums moved to "collections" have a "shared" label in the list, but then when I go to the specific collection and press "Sharing options" the "anyone with the link" is not selected; does this means they made all my photos public? Also, I have no idea how to give somebody a link to my "Photos" page (all collections).
Also seems that having the link to the "shared" collection empowers anyone to download the full photos at the uploaded resolution. This was available in Picasa only as a per-album option (and the user needed to have the Picasa browser extension to do so).
Well, this means I don't have to pay Google for storage anymore. Also that I have to find a new place for my photos and a way to integrate it with (a) desktop application.
The whole Google Photo infrastructure has other weirdnesses. Photos/images that I share with Hangouts don't show up in Google Photos. Previously I could remove them with Google+ Photos, but since that was shut down, I used Picasa web albums to remove Hangouts images.
Another interesting thing that I noticed is that some photos are not added to Google Drive if you upload them to Google Photos and have the Google Drive functionality enabled. Turns out it's exactly the photos that I already shared with Hangouts.
You can't view or create "specific content", such as tags, captions or comments in Google Photos. If you find them important for your photo organization, all your work to date will be lost.
Hope they will allow 3rd party apps to upload to Google Photos.
Hope they will someday publish an uploader for Linux desktops. Even Google Music has one.
I had assumed Google Photos was the Picassa code rebranded. Since Picassa was the engine for photos in G+, and then G+ photos moved to Google Photos, it never dawned on me that Picassa was still running as its own separate thing. I wonder why they felt compelled to redo photos?
[+] [-] al_biglan|10 years ago|reply
All that said... just as I was getting used to Wave... poof
Just as I was getting used to GOOG-411... poof
Google Talk...
Don't mind the innovation, but it seems that rather than releasing new versions of existing products to introduce new features and help folks migrate, you get an entire new product to learn/adopt. I can't believe I'm saying this but... I prefer Microsoft's approach to improving their product lines. (sigh)
[+] [-] notatoad|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoonmoose|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sk8ingdom|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|10 years ago|reply
This usually means no support whatsoever. While I can appreciate the whole, "Post something in our forum!" approach to customer service, I can't tell you how many times I've posted a question about a product or a bug and get fucking crickets for MONTHS. I gave up a long time ago thinking it was going to get better.
When I see a new product they release, I'll kick the tires and test drive it, but no way am I even remotely putting enough confidence in it to use it on any of my projects. It's just too risky.
[+] [-] georgemcbay|10 years ago|reply
The worst part is when they do this with acquisitions (which Picasa was, though admittedly it was acquired quite a long time ago).
Also, even when they don't outright kill apps/services, it is painful when they basically let them wither on the vine (see: Google Voice, another acquisition of a promising product that Google snapped up and then basically put into hibernation soon after).
[+] [-] stordoff|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fencepost|10 years ago|reply
As it is I'll keep paying my money to my lightly used long term online fax service and perhaps at some point I'll switch over to a paid SIP provider.
As for GOOG-411 isn't it pretty widely accepted that it was free to build up a large pool of voice data without the privacy concerns of using Google Voice customer voicemail? Its end was guaranteed once they had enough training data for minimum viable voice recognition - on the same kind of phone microphones even.
[+] [-] snake117|10 years ago|reply
Although I never really used Picasa, Dropbox's decision to shutdown Mailbox and, to a lesser extent, Carousel, was particularly upsetting for me. Although in the case of Mailbox it was more due to a decline in acquiring new users after the buyout [1].
I'm not too bummed about it now as I've found better alternatives.
[1]: http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/8/9873268/why-dropbox-mailbo...
[+] [-] Numberwang|10 years ago|reply
I have 20 ideas at least of cool features, but as we only have skype this type of product will stagnate.
[+] [-] dingdingdang|10 years ago|reply
What is happening at the moment is that IMMENSE quantities of skill development and time is continually flushed away everytime Google/Microsoft/Take-your-pick-software-company decides to retire or dramatically rewrite an app. The situation is even wilder in the closed gardens (Android/IOS) and cloud/web-only where perfectly fine software disappears overnight and then.. that's it. Wake up, we're throwing our mental resources down the drain on a completely unprecedented scale because no systemic solution to this issue exists!!
[+] [-] pjc50|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] callmeed|10 years ago|reply
Why can't we have a standard for image libraries, albums, and storage that can work on a smartphone or desktop? It sure would make it easier to roll your own imports, exports, backups. It would be easier to move your stuff when Apple shuts down Aperture, Google shuts down Picasa, you switch smartphone OSs, you decide to quit Facebook, etc. Some XML or some JSON amirite?
If 1 or 2 big players got on board, I feel like others would follow. But I'm probably wrong.
[+] [-] o_____________o|10 years ago|reply
melt in the sea
eventually
[+] [-] joveian|10 years ago|reply
Compatability seems like something that the Qubes model could help with quite a bit. Rump kernels can also help by simplifying the OS level interface to where effective sandboxing is possible. Getting safe and convient access to the data an app actually needs is still a difficult issue.
Minus the sandboxing, some package managers are better at this than others, particularly Nix or OpenPandora's PND packages. However, that only helps as long as the OS provides binary compatability.
Even with sandboxing, applications that require network access can be a major security issue. It is no consolation to the rest of the network if your botnet node is nicely isolated from the rest of your system. To fix this, applications need to not directly interact with the network but with other system components that do so and can be updated separately.
OTOH, often the compatibility loss is independent of the application, either communications standards change or expected features change, so being able to run old applications only gets you so much. In those cases, open source can have a major advantage.
[+] [-] pgrote|10 years ago|reply
Desktop Picasa is also going away and it is what I use for organizing my photos. I understand the backend of Picasa Web is replaced by Google Photos, no problem.
My problem is with the desktop organization. Desktop Picasa allows for one feature no other alternative I have seen allows ... tagging of multiple photos.
Does anyone have a web or desktop alternative that supports tagging on individual and multiple photos? Google seems to have forgotten about this feature in Google Photos.
Thanks!
[+] [-] ultramancool|10 years ago|reply
Other than that I can only recommend they go to Lightroom or one of several open source applications which are at varying stages of completion and usability (I haven't played with any recently so if anyone knows a particularly polished one that runs on Windows let me know). All of the alternatives are more difficult to use than Picasa. This really sucks.
[+] [-] _yp|10 years ago|reply
> Does anyone have a web or desktop alternative that supports tagging on individual and multiple photos?
DigiKam!
[+] [-] deanCommie|10 years ago|reply
Unless it's sync functionality stops working with Google Photos, I guess, which would be undesireable...
[+] [-] stevesearer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patorjk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GBond|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmc31|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb0|10 years ago|reply
and if you're still not using Debian as your default os, get ready to ask for X-alternative all your life.
[+] [-] nattaylor|10 years ago|reply
Picasa served me well, but I've moved on as well.
[+] [-] wstrange|10 years ago|reply
Having an "AI" organize, edit and tag my photos frees up a lot of time. Part of the transition is learning to let go of the way I used to manage photos.
I still want the right to take all my stuff with me - but I think Google has done a reasonable job of ensuring that happens.
[+] [-] rocky1138|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbarham|10 years ago|reply
FWIW I also use Lightroom for more advanced editing but for regular people LR is overkill and complex.
I'd be perfectly willing to pay for an easy-to-use photo organizer but megacorps like Google & FB are killing off the market for paid software by using free software & services as a trojan horse to lure users to upload their data to the cloud where it can be mined for all its worth.
[+] [-] Mizza|10 years ago|reply
People should realize by now that Google is a company that makes money through surveillance advertising, and _every single other thing they do_ is basically part of a PR campaign.
If you don't want this to happen to you, don't use Google. Use something that you have control over.
[+] [-] frik|10 years ago|reply
Only Apple is still 1990s-style (traditional) and at least let's you deactivate their cloud stuff with a few simple options. We definitely need more good companies that respect the consumer.
[+] [-] signal11|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimgl|10 years ago|reply
Is there any reason in particular why small companies are bought out by big companies and their brands are dissolved rather than building on top of their initial branding?
[+] [-] gambiting|10 years ago|reply
They used to access all online albums by going to plus.google.com then clicking on the panel on the left then pictures. Until one day...it was just gone. No indication where to go now. Unless of course you follow tech news and know that you have to go to photos.google.com now.
Now they are retiring picasa in favour of Google Photos which are an absolute nightmare to navigate interface wise. What is the difference between albums, collections and shared collections? When uploading photos I can choose any of those and I have no idea what the difference is. I also learned the hard way that deleting something from your album does not delete it from your photos like it did in Picasa.
[+] [-] edwinnathaniel|10 years ago|reply
Specifically there are a few things I like from Picasa:
1. Import files to folder based on picture dates
e.g.: c:\pictures\2016-02-12\P0221314.jpg
2. Import videos from mobile devices and display in the right orientation
for example: I have mobile devices and I take movies in different orientation: vertical or horizontal, while the actual file's metadata is left unchanged, Picasa knows the _right_ orientation and will adjust the playback accordingly.
3. Handles upload from different devices
I have a Lumix GF1 and iPod. Importing pictures to Picasa is super easy without any 3rd-party integration/interruption (e.g.: doesn't have to copy from device to a temporary folder first but instead import directly from the device to the dated folder).
[+] [-] therealmarv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pnathan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NathanKP|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvgoogler|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|10 years ago|reply
While having services cancelled is troublesome, for photos I have my smartphone backup up everything to Google Photos, Microsoft Azure, and Dropbox. Copy the eggs and store in three different baskets.
[+] [-] monkbroc|10 years ago|reply
There still doesn't seem to be a way to interact with Google Photos through scripts. Search for "google photos api" and the first link is still the Picasa Web Albums Data API...
[+] [-] CSDude|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nikolay|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvgoogler|10 years ago|reply
Picasa Web Albums will continue working until the album archive view is ready.
Also, all of the photo from PWA are hosted in Google Photos Backend - and will continue to be hosted there. There are accessible in Google Photos and the URLs will continue to work.
If you haven't seen it, the original blog post has better information than the linked article: http://googlephotos.blogspot.com/2016/02/moving-on-from-pica...
[+] [-] enf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miahi|10 years ago|reply
I mainly used Picasa Web Albums because of its seamless integration with the Picasa Desktop Application. I guess the integration will not work with Photos.
Photos is mobile-oriented to the point that is almost useless on desktop. My photos were moved, but I have no idea if the permissions were kept. All the albums moved to "collections" have a "shared" label in the list, but then when I go to the specific collection and press "Sharing options" the "anyone with the link" is not selected; does this means they made all my photos public? Also, I have no idea how to give somebody a link to my "Photos" page (all collections).
Also seems that having the link to the "shared" collection empowers anyone to download the full photos at the uploaded resolution. This was available in Picasa only as a per-album option (and the user needed to have the Picasa browser extension to do so).
Well, this means I don't have to pay Google for storage anymore. Also that I have to find a new place for my photos and a way to integrate it with (a) desktop application.
[+] [-] microtonal|10 years ago|reply
Another interesting thing that I noticed is that some photos are not added to Google Drive if you upload them to Google Photos and have the Google Drive functionality enabled. Turns out it's exactly the photos that I already shared with Hangouts.
Their whole photo story is a mess.
[+] [-] neves|10 years ago|reply
Hope they will allow 3rd party apps to upload to Google Photos.
Hope they will someday publish an uploader for Linux desktops. Even Google Music has one.
[+] [-] amykhar|10 years ago|reply