This is just an ad for their photo service. Which presumably has terrible search features, if it doesn't use AI to analyse them. That's one of the best features in Google Photos!
Embeddings (and other derived metadata) will sync across all your devices e2ee. So you could use our desktop app[1] to import and index your existing library. Newer photos will get indexed during upload on respective clients.
Search is yet to be implemented on web and indexing is turned off by default on devices with < 4gb of RAM. You can opt-in from Settings > General > Advanced > Machine learning.
I can’t see any evidence of encryption on their front page. I can see evidence of storing your data in multiple third party clouds (this is advertised as a feature, data redundancy).
Wow, 1TB of photos? This is just astonishing to me. What is the use of so many images? As an ex semi-pro photographer, one of the things I realized is that what makes photographs special to people, even family photographs, is the rarity of them.
So I just cannot understand taking and holding on to this many images. I would find just managing the images would take away time and money from my family.
A combination of taking photos for just any purpose (from memos to remember posters, events, or even store prices, to notes) for 2 decades now, enough interest in photography to have played with raw for while and still keep a bunch of them for my favorites, to our kid happening, and a lot of traveling around, which meant additional deluges of pictures.
Google Photos makes it a no-brainer to manage, which largely contributed to the size inflation (which is also why searching and indexing have become critical to us)
PS: I declared bankruptcy on photo management a long time ago. Reducing my library to a decent size is totally possible but would take months of sifting through near duplicates.
For me the problem is that I'm not a great photographer. I take loads of bad photos. It would take me far too much time to go through all of them and decide which ones to keep.
Also, my wife and I sometimes look at old photos for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the photo or even with reminiscing. Instead, we may look for some specific fact (mole, dental issue, dress, haircut, domestic repairs, flooded footpaths, etc). The more photos we keep, the more likely it is that we can find what we're looking for.
In this day and age, dealing with that amount of data even to archival standards may well be cheaper than you’d rate your labor to sort all the wheat from the chaff…
Thanks. I would gladly take away the "convenience of AI search" for the privacy that your service provides.
I used Ente once, and it was great, but I am poor, so I just store my images locally now. Not that your service is expensive or not worth it because I think it is.
I work on a similar product, and honestly the AI parts dont really matter wrt privacy. Its uninteresting. The EXIF information is way more private and useful, but exif data is also what makes the product usable. If you strip exif, you might as well chuck all your photos in a single folder and call it a day. We also dont sell your data to anyone and we dont run analysis on your data
Terrible search without AI is a bit of a stretch. Also Google does not have a monopoly on object/face recognition in photos. There are self-hosted solutions that readily provide you with that without feeding a faceless AI with your photos while boiling the ocean.
> Terrible search without AI is a bit of a stretch.
How so? I was looking for a photo of a grave I took some years ago. In Google photos I just searched for "grave" and if found 2 photos, including the one I wanted.
Without AI I would have to search all my photos. Maybe I could narrow it down by date and location but it would take a lot longer.
I've been playing with LLama 3.2 Vision 8B for such a use-case, and found it does a good job at providing image descriptions which could be indexed, along with transcription of any text in the image, such as the name on the grave in this case.
So should be possible to have a similar capability locally now.
Syncthing, python face_recognition [1], a static gallery (sigal [2]), and a few lines of bash and its fully automatic. I can even share links with family.
The service is end to end encrypted with local AI for indexing.
I tried it a few months ago however and the upload/encryption was so slow from their desktop app it would have taken weeks to migrate my photos to the service.
Apple Photos in iCloud can also be E2E encrypted (though not by default: you have to explicitly enable that), are indexed locally, and Apple's pricing for storage is about half of this service.
That phrasing raises my weasel-word hackles… first of all, it’s unclear what it would mean to “use your photos and videos for advertising.” That sounds to me like reprinting your photos to advertise something—which nobody accused them of doing.
Perhaps more importantly, it only mentions the photos and videos themselves in relation to the advertising. Analyzing the photos (as per the demo in TFA) isn’t “advertising,” and neither is building a user profile.
Then later on, when they use that user profile to allow others to advertise to the user—that’s not “using your photos or videos for advertising” either. Nor is it “selling your personal information to anyone,” since what they’re selling is access to you instead of selling specific personal dossiers.
From where I’m sitting, that still seems to leave the door open to Google itself using what it gleans from your photos to build out your profile, use those insights across their whole company, and target ads at you. It also seems to leave the door open to selling “depersonalized” analyses to third parties, not to mention giving free access to whoever it might see fit (research groups, state actors,…), no?
There’s also a big difference between “doesn’t” and “will never.” Once an analysis with value exists, it seems counter to the forces of nature and commerce for it not to find its way out eventually. Just as the consumer DNA-sequencing firms pinky-swore everything was private, then gradually started spreading people’s genomes farther and wider.
It’s as weaselly as the wording where they say things like “we use your data to improve our services, eg. personalised advertising. To opt out of personalised advertising […]”
It feels just as weaselly to me when, by use of confidence-inspiring “plain language,” firms manage to pass off the impression that they’re making Solemn Categorical Pledges foreswearing the bad behavior that made users nervous—while preserving almost entirely the substance of the bad behavior.
Google seems especially invested in that kind of stunt. Remember their “ad privacy” consent screens for Chrome—which, ridiculously, framed consent to additional tracking as a “privacy” measure? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37427227; Aug 2023 / 974 points / 557 comments)
More to the point, when Google sought approval to buy DoubleClick, they testified before congress that they would not merge information gleaned from your use of Google services with your advertising profile.
If their CEO's congressional testimony on this point isn't considered binding at Google, verbiage on their website certainly isn't.
> To assuage concerns, Google told Congress and the FTC that it would not combine the user data it got from assets in search, e-mail, or GPS maps with information from DoubleClick about which consumers visited which publications. And so, the acquisition was greenlighted. Ten years later, though, Google did not hesitate to break its promise.
Google has been caught multiple times violating their own rules and the law to use all the information they have on you for advertising purposes.
The only opt out is to stop using their services.
Somehow, neither Google, nor Microsoft, nor Samsung, nor (probably) any other big tech company, can usefully extract data from photos anymore. Face recognition in particular works like one of those Shabbat-compatible appliances: something gets extracted at some point, eventually, but infrequently, and only when you're not looking - and, most importantly, it's not possible for you to control or advise the process. The AI processing runs autonomously in such a way that you may start doubting whether it's happening at all!
I assume that this is the vendors' workaround around GDPR and such in relevant jurisdictions, but this also makes face search/grouping nearly useless. Don't get me wrong - I'm very much with the EU on data protection and privacy, but getting gaslighted by the apps themselves about the extents of and reasons for ML limitations in those apps, that's just annoying.
