Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
paid subscription requirement.

Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.

Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.

FWIW, I think there is a way to get an iCloud account which exceeds 2TB,
think it has something to do with linking in a family account? In any event,
just 2TB is $20/month, so if there is a solution it would cost even more.

-hh

On Saturday, June 24, 2023 at 7:44:16 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
> alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
> paid subscription requirement.
>
> Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.
>
> Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.
>
> FWIW, I think there is a way to get an iCloud account which exceeds 2TB,
> think it has something to do with linking in a family account? In any event,

Correction: $10/month
> just 2TB is $20/month, so if there is a solution it would cost even more.
>
> -hh

-hh

On 2023-06-24 16:44, -hh wrote:
> Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
> alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
> paid subscription requirement.
>
> Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.
>
> Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.
>
> FWIW, I think there is a way to get an iCloud account which exceeds 2TB,
> think it has something to do with linking in a family account? In any event,
> just 2TB is $20/month, so if there is a solution it would cost even more.
>
> -hh

Yeah, it's a loss that's for certain.

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
> alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
> paid subscription requirement.

Only if you have a lot of photos that you want to keep online. $1 a month
for 50GB is cheap anyway.
> Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.

Just continue to use iCloud. It does not get any easier.
> Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.

Why? Feeling nostalgic for 1998?

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 6:41:13 PM UTC-4, Bob Campbell wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
> > alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
> > paid subscription requirement.
>
> Only if you have a lot of photos that you want to keep online.

And how does one configure for that? Apple’s recommended solution
is an “all or nothing”.

>>$1 a month for 50GB is cheap anyway.

It is, but it’s also a “slippery slope” upsell with low friction (by design).

> > Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.
>
> Just continue to use iCloud. It does not get any easier.

Can’t. I already exceed Apple’s largest subscription is just 2TB.

> > Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.
>
> Why? Feeling nostalgic for 1998?

Nope. It’s necessary due to Apple terminating the Photo Stream service,
with iCloud not being capable enough to be an option for repositories > 2TB..

-hh

On 2023-06-25 15:41, Bob Campbell wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
>> alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
>> paid subscription requirement.
>
> Only if you have a lot of photos that you want to keep online. $1 a month
> for 50GB is cheap anyway.
>
>> Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.
>
> Just continue to use iCloud. It does not get any easier.

Because for him, 2TB of storage isn't enough.

And there's really no reason that Apple couldn't offer more.

>
>> Seems we’ll be going back to plug-in in our iOS devices to transfer pics.
>
> Why? Feeling nostalgic for 1998?
>
>
>
>

On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 2:38:19 AM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-06-25 15:41, Bob Campbell wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >> Looks like the end of a longstanding free service, with the promoted
> >> alternative solution being to use iCloud, which quickly becomes a
> >> paid subscription requirement.
> >
> > Only if you have a lot of photos that you want to keep online. $1 a month
> > for 50GB is cheap anyway.
> >
> >> Instructions from Apple on any other alternatives is severely lacking.
> >
> > Just continue to use iCloud. It does not get any easier.
>
> Because for him, 2TB of storage isn't enough.

Yup, and Apple doesn’t clearly offer any ‘hybrid’ solution to let me have
part of Photos local and part ‘clouded’.

> And there's really no reason that Apple couldn't offer more.

Even so, that’s only half of what I’m bitching about. The other half is
that Apple’s pushed documentation for what the customer’s options
aresuck**: it is “iCloud only”, with no other alternatives listed. A customer
shouldn’t be forced to dig into deep tech notes to find the other options.

BLUF: an Apple upsell attempt for building recurring subscription revenue
stream for their revenue benefit more so than it is to delight the customer..

And this is all before even comparison shopping on rates: for example, for
the same $10/mo (or $100/yr), MS’s 365 provides 6TB of storage.

In the meantime, Apple just bumped up their iCloud rates ex-USA, so it’s only
a matter of time until rates increase here too…despite how tech drops costs
(case in point, I recently picked up some new 14TB drives for just ~$200 each).

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> Yup, and Apple doesn’t clearly offer any ‘hybrid’ solution to let me have
> part of Photos local and part ‘clouded’.

Huh? I have ALL of my photos local and part in iCloud. Been doing this
for many years.

There is no need to have 2TB of cloud storage when you have unlimited
storage at home.

On 2023-06-30 20:37, Bob Campbell wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup, and Apple doesn’t clearly offer any ‘hybrid’ solution to let me have
>> part of Photos local and part ‘clouded’.
>
> Huh? I have ALL of my photos local and part in iCloud. Been doing this
> for many years.
>
> There is no need to have 2TB of cloud storage when you have unlimited
> storage at home.

There is if you want to share photos across multiple devices.

On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 6:38:13 AM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-06-30 20:37, Bob Campbell wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >
> >> Yup, and Apple doesn’t clearly offer any ‘hybrid’ solution to let me have
> >> part of Photos local and part ‘clouded’.
> >
> > Huh? I have ALL of my photos local and part in iCloud. Been doing this
> > for many years.
> >
> > There is no need to have 2TB of cloud storage when you have unlimited
> > storage at home.

Kindly explain precisely how.

Include with that how the user is able to confirm that their “master” (original)
stored back on the home desktop is 100% confirmed as protected from never
being deleted by a local copy delete on an iOS device.

Because when I’ve I enabled iCloud as per Apple instructions, it gives me a
“Nope!” Too big to support.

> There is if you want to share photos across multiple devices.

What was nice about Photo Stream was the automatic wireless moving from iOS
camera device to the home repository (& other iOS devices) of recent stuff, while
with zero risk of any iOS mobile action being able to delete in the master repository.
With iCloud, it appears that a “delete” anywhere becomes a “delete everywhere”.

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Kindly explain precisely how.

Itunes/iCloud on a Windows PC. Every picture/video I take on iOS is
automatically downloaded to Windows PCs. From there its a simple matter to
back them up.

Also, when you delete photos from iPhones/iPads/iCloud, they do NOT get
deleted from the Windows PCs.
> Include with that how the user is able to confirm that their “master” (original)
> stored back on the home desktop is 100% confirmed as protected from never
> being deleted by a local copy delete on an iOS device.

All photos everywhere are “masters”. Being digital copies, they are all
identical.

So 50GB of iCloud space is more than enough for me. Older pics - like 3
years ago or so - can safely be deleted from iCloud/iOS to make room for
new pics. All of my pics are on multiple Windows PCs and backed up to
external hard drives.

If there are old pics that I need to share again, it is a simple matter to
copy them to the iCloud upload folder on any PC. In seconds they are
available again on all iOS devices.

I assume all of this can be done on a Mac. I just use Windows because
that’s where I have tons of storage.

I don’t think of iCloud photos as “permanent storage”. Its more like an X
drive (transfer drive). Its just an easy way to move files around,
wirelessly. So get a Mac or a Windows PC involved, and you never have to
worry about pictures again.

On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 4:59:59 PM UTC+1, Bob Campbell wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > Kindly explain precisely how.
>
> Itunes/iCloud on a Windows PC. Every picture/video I take on iOS is
> automatically downloaded to Windows PCs. From there its a simple matter to
> back them up.

That’s the old Photo Steam behavior that’s being discontinued.

> Also, when you delete photos from iPhones/iPads/iCloud, they do NOT get
> deleted from the Windows PCs.

Same…Photo Stream.

> > Include with that how the user is able to confirm that their “master” (original)
> > stored back on the home desktop is 100% confirmed as protected from never
> > being deleted by a local copy delete on an iOS device.
>
> All photos everywhere are “masters”. Being digital copies, they are all
> identical.

And therein lies the documentation rub: just like MS-Teams, Apple fails to
clearly articulate the logic of what happens when one device deletes.
In the case of Teams, it’s a “delete everywhere”.

> So 50GB of iCloud space is more than enough for me.

It’s not for me, and you’re trying to claim that I’m wrong.

> If there are old pics that I need to share again, it is a simple matter to
> copy them to the iCloud upload folder on any PC. In seconds they are
> available again on all iOS devices.
>
> I assume all of this can be done on a Mac.

Keyword being “assume”: what does the RTFM say?

> I don’t think of iCloud photos as “permanent storage”.

Yet permanent is how Apple is now pitching it.

> Its more like an X
> drive (transfer drive). Its just an easy way to move files around,
> wirelessly.

That’s not how Apple has been presenting their cloud product for years.
On my old MBP, its “Documents” folder is a cloud folder, and it’s not
obvious enough for what’s local vs not - one brute force method is to not use
the MacOS /user/documents/ folder at all, and store documents in a differently
named subdirectory .. because that name is reserved.

> So get a Mac or a Windows PC involved, and you never have to
> worry about pictures again.

I already have mentioned that there’s a Mac involved as the Master repository.

Now what, Batman? Pretend that I don’t get a “too large” error from MacOS
when I try to follow Apple’s set of railroaded-to-iCloud-only instructions?

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> Now what, Batman?

I don’t know, Robin. You asked me to explain how I am doing what I am
doing. I did. That you don’t like it is not my problem.

On 2023-07-02 21:04, Bob Campbell wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>> Now what, Batman?
>
> I don’t know, Robin. You asked me to explain how I am doing what I am
> doing. I did. That you don’t like it is not my problem.
>
>

But what you implied is that your way is adequate for everyone...

....which it isn't.

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:12:01 AM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-07-02 21:04, Bob Campbell wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >
> >> Now what, Batman?
> >
> > I don’t know, Robin. You asked me to explain how I am doing what I am
> > doing. I did.

No, that is false. I specifically asked about a “large collection” question and you
volunteered that you didn’t have a large collection, which is irrelevant.

> > That you don’t like it is not my problem.
> >
> But what you implied is that your way is adequate for everyone...
>
> ...which it isn't.

That too.

-hh

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 7:13:39 AM UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:12:01 AM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
> > On 2023-07-02 21:04, Bob Campbell wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >
> > >> Now what, Batman?
> > >
> > > I don’t know, Robin. You asked me to explain how I am doing what I am
> > > doing. I did.
> No, that is false. I specifically asked about a “large collection” question and you
> volunteered that you didn’t have a large collection, which is irrelevant.
> > > That you don’t like it is not my problem.
> > >
> > But what you implied is that your way is adequate for everyone...
> >
> > ...which it isn't.
> That too.
>
> -hh

FWIW, saw this comment on Elon Musk’s change on tweetdeck:

“Forcing people to pay for features that were previously free. People don’t
want to pay for Blue unless you create value. Paywalling previously free
features isn’t adding value, it will just drive people off the platform”

Seems that that same principle applies here to Apple.

-hh

On 2023-07-03 20:26, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 7:13:39 AM UTC+1, -hh wrote:
>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 5:12:01 AM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-07-02 21:04, Bob Campbell wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now what, Batman?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know, Robin. You asked me to explain how I am doing what I am
>>>> doing. I did.
>> No, that is false. I specifically asked about a “large collection” question and you
>> volunteered that you didn’t have a large collection, which is irrelevant.
>>>> That you don’t like it is not my problem.
>>>>
>>> But what you implied is that your way is adequate for everyone...
>>>
>>> ...which it isn't.
>> That too.
>>
>> -hh
>
> FWIW, saw this comment on Elon Musk’s change on tweetdeck:
>
> “Forcing people to pay for features that were previously free. People don’t
> want to pay for Blue unless you create value. Paywalling previously free
> features isn’t adding value, it will just drive people off the platform”
>
> Seems that that same principle applies here to Apple.

I'd agree.

There is a difference between never offering a feature or service, and
shutting one down that's working well, and can't be costing you (Apple)
very much.