Think twice before you sign up for ‘free’ digital service

[webfact]

Think twice before you sign up for ‘free’ digital service

By Korea Herald
Yang Sung-jin

 

 

Last week, Google announced it would change its storage policy for Google Photos, which is now being used by more than 1 billion people across the globe. Simply put, it will end its free unlimited photo storage service from June, 2021. To back up more photos, users have to sign up for a paid plan.

 

I was neither shocked nor disappointed. I had already seen Google and other big tech companies calling it quits on their “innovative” services overnight. They didn’t -- and never will -- care about whether their fickle decisions could shatter individual users’ cherished memories, now mostly saved in digital formats. What they care about is developing a business model that ensures more profits, which is, to be fair, legitimate and even encouraged in the business sector.

 

What is regrettable is the way Google has misled unsuspecting users. The US tech giant falsely promoted the idea that its Photos service would replace traditional backup options such as external hard disk drives.

 

“Free up space on your device,” Google says in its official Photos website. “You can use Google Photos to save space on your phone when you remove photos from your device that are safely backed up.”

 

Now that Google has announced its decision to get rid of its free, unlimited option, the promotional message should be changed as follows: “You can use Google Photos to save space on your phone when you remove photos from your device that are safely backed up as long as you pay for it every month, and depending on your storage size, you have to pay more.”

 

Many of my friends have been using Google Photos to free up space on their smartphones while backing up their photos automatically.

 

They might not be so concerned about Google using their photos to refine its face-recognition and machine learning algorithms. Now, they are suddenly required to weigh options for saving their photos and videos, but it seems unlikely that there will be a viable alternative service any time soon.

 

Earlier, Yahoo!, another US tech firm, introduced a free, unlimited photo storage in connection with Flickr photo service, but later scrapped the free option since it wasn’t sustainable.

 

For ordinary users, especially those who prefer saving their photos and videos in cloud services, Google’s latest move should be taken as a cautionary reminder that no service is truly free.

 

Big tech firms offer what they called “free” services in return for collecting and utilizing your personal data for research or advertising purposes. They gather and analyze your every digital move and use such information to sell more ads or products.

 

More importantly, popular digital services that are now storing an expanding collection of your writings, photos and videos might change their policies or go out of business one day.

 

Remember Cyworld? Years ago, Cyworld used to be Korea’s biggest social networking service, and a lot of Koreans put their photos on there. It is now out of business and there’s no way to recover those old photos.

 

In other words, what you post on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram could be gone in the future, since there’s no guarantee that they can safeguard your data against hacking or their own demise.

 

The implication of Google’s policy change for users is simple: Be prepared. Google said it would allow users to keep their photos uploaded until June of next year free of charge, but it may change its policy again.

 

Currently, Google allows users to upload as many YouTube videos as they want for free, but if the same logic is applied, Google might require heavy users to pay for their video storage. Who knows?

 

Worse, Google and other big tech companies make it extremely easy to upload text, photos and videos on their platforms, but do not provide fast, seamless and error-free tools to download them again -- in some cases, there is no download tool whatsoever.

 

Just imagine how long it will take if you want to copy every single post you have uploaded on Facebook over the years, and paste it onto your hard disk drive. Even if it’s technically possible, it is a time-consuming and frustrating task. And Google and big tech firms know that many users, dreadful of the tedious backup process, would opt for a paid plan.

 

This is a tactic that might be called “bait and charge” -- offering sweet free services that encourage users to upload their personal data, only to change the policy into a paid one, fully aware that users find it hard to move their data somewhere else.

 

My advice: Set up a data backup system before you sign up for a digital service, and take extra caution when the service is described as “free.”

 

Yang Sung-jin is the multimedia editor of The Korea Herald. -- Ed.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/edandtech/30398377

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-11-23

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[worgeordie]

Bait and switch, offer the service for free, get people to use your service,

then tell them after a while they have to pay,,,,,after all Google is in the

need for even more profit...????

regards Worgeordie

[gamb00ler]

To be fair, up until June 1, 2021 you can still upload unlimited photos and Google will store those files for free under the existing rules.  Only photos uploaded after that date will consume the 15GB currently allocated to all Gmail accounts.  After the policy change takes effect users will need to pay for storage in excess of their free allotment.

 

But... the handwriting is on the wall.  I doubt that these free allotments will remain free forever.  Start your plan B now.

[ExpatOilWorker]

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

To be fair, up until June 1, 2021 you can still upload unlimited photos and Google will store those files for free under the existing rules.  Only photos uploaded after that date will consume the 15GB currently allocated to all Gmail accounts.  After the policy change takes effect users will need to pay for storage in excess of their free allotment.

 

But... the handwriting is on the wall.  I doubt that these free allotments will remain free forever.  Start your plan B now.

 

It use to be that you could store unlimited photos at a reduced resolution.

Is that the service they are canceling now?

[Emdog]

"No such thing as a free lunch". You get what you pay for: pay nothing, get nothing.

[gamb00ler]

22 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

It use to be that you could store unlimited photos at a reduced resolution.

Is that the service they are canceling now?

No, they're not yet cancelling or indicating that they will begin charging to store your already uploaded photos. 

 

Details @ https://blog.google/products/photos/storage-policy-update/

[Bangyai]

Just store photos and files to a flash drive ..... sorted.

[Katipo]

I am a Pixel user, so get unlimited storage of full resolution photos anyway. Although should I stop using a Pixel, this 'privilege' will be taken away from me even if the photos using the memory are from a Pixel phone. So while not entirely happy with this, I decided a few years back to spend 700 baht per year for the piece of mind that having 100+ gb of cloud storage gives me. I don't mind paying for digital services, but yes, I do not like bait and switches or misleading offers.

[Antonymous]

Clearly, soon you will have to pay for Google (and Facebook et.al) to spy on you, instead of sharing all your private data with them for free.

 

I have always found it horrifying that anyone is prepared to do this, yet 1 billion people around the globe are doing so already, apparently. Presumably they have absolutely no concern for privacy, or that their information can one day be retrieved easily and possibly used against them.

 

I have never used a cloud service of any description and apart from TV, no social media. My entire collection of photos and even more important for me, all that I have ever written, is stored and catalogued permanently offline on a device that has no internet connectivity. Very quick and easy to do and I can rest assured that the intimate detail of my private life remain just that, private. Oh and before anyone makes any unwelcome assertions - there is nothing criminal in that.

 

 

[George Aylesham]

3 hours ago, Emdog said:

"No such thing as a free lunch". You get what you pay for: pay nothing, get nothing.

I won't use Google photos because of the way it takes over your collection as it thinks fit. Not stopping the company repeated asking me to join up.

[gamb00ler]

22 minutes ago, George Aylesham said:

I won't use Google photos because of the way it takes over your collection as it thinks fit. Not stopping the company repeated asking me to join up.

I don't consider that Google displaying my pictures in chronological order, or grouped automatically according to persons portrayed as "taking over" my collection.  Nothing about my collection has changed other than the presentation method.

 

My biggest complaint is that I have been unable to use Google's metadata editing abilities to reliably change the dates used to sort the images.  Often I've had to resort to deleting a photo, using operating system tools to change the date of creation and then re-uploading to Google Photos.  This problem occurs when I'm uploading scanned images of pre digital era photos.

[Peterphuket]

4 hours ago, Antonymous said:

Clearly, soon you will have to pay for Google (and Facebook et.al) to spy on you, instead of sharing all your private data with them for free.

 

I have always found it horrifying that anyone is prepared to do this, yet 1 billion people around the globe are doing so already, apparently. Presumably they have absolutely no concern for privacy, or that their information can one day be retrieved easily and possibly used against them.

 

I have never used a cloud service of any description and apart from TV, no social media. My entire collection of photos and even more important for me, all that I have ever written, is stored and catalogued permanently offline on a device that has no internet connectivity. Very quick and easy to do and I can rest assured that the intimate detail of my private life remain just that, private. Oh and before anyone makes any unwelcome assertions - there is nothing criminal in that.

 

 

I agree with you 100%

[Tyler Visan]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Just imagine how long it will take if you want to copy every single post you have uploaded on Facebook over the years

Why the hell would you want to do that?

[Tyler Visan]

56 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I don't consider that Google displaying my pictures in chronological order, or grouped automatically according to persons portrayed as "taking over" my collection.  Nothing about my collection has changed other than the presentation method.

 

My biggest complaint is that I have been unable to use Google's metadata editing abilities to reliably change the dates used to sort the images.  Often I've had to resort to deleting a photo, using operating system tools to change the date of creation and then re-uploading to Google Photos.  This problem occurs when I'm uploading scanned images of pre digital era photos.

Of course, the date on a scanned photo is the date that operation was done.

I do remember when Max Spielman or Boots would print a date on the photos if you asked for it.

[Tyler Visan]

4 hours ago, Bangyai said:

Just store photos and files to a flash drive ..... sorted.

And every so often go through them and see how many you looked at in the past year or two.

Most photos taken with phones these days are viewed ONCE, that is about 10 seconds after it has been taken. Then it, and usually several very similar photos, are uploaded to Farcebook or whatever.

[gamb00ler]

15 minutes ago, Tyler Visan said:

Of course, the date on a scanned photo is the date that operation was done.

I do remember when Max Spielman or Boots would print a date on the photos if you asked for it.

My point was that Google supposedly provides tools to edit the metadata.  But, those tools regularly fail.  They allow the dates to be edited and they appear to save the edited information.  The result is some date that doesn't match the file created date and or the new date I wished to use.

Edited November 23, 2020 by gamb00ler

[Grusa]

4 hours ago, Bangyai said:

Just store photos and files to a flash drive ..... sorted.

I have a box full of failed flash drives, of various sorts. No digital storage can be trusted. 

Never mind the backward compatability issues!

Even my collection of classical music on commercial cds is rotting in the climate here! I won't even mention the box of dead hard disk drives that would not revive.

 

[Bangyai]

15 hours ago, Tyler Visan said:

And every so often go through them and see how many you looked at in the past year or two.

Most photos taken with phones these days are viewed ONCE, that is about 10 seconds after it has been taken. Then it, and usually several very similar photos, are uploaded to Farcebook or whatever.

 

I do that about once a year. Go through those I've taken, pick out the 10 % that are really good and have them printed into two sets, one for my collection and one for wifes. As you say....most pictures taken rarely get looked at more than a few times.

 

A lot of my real favorites are also imbedded in various online accounts. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

As for flash drives , they can go off over time so download every now and then then upload to a new flash. Not had any of mine go yet but they are always stored somewhere cool.

[ExpatOilWorker]

5 hours ago, Emdog said:

"No such thing as a free lunch". You get what you pay for: pay nothing, get nothing.

That is very conventional valuation have been turned on its head. If you don't pay for a product, you are the product.

Facebook is a clear example of this new value equation. 

[ExpatOilWorker]

4 hours ago, Antonymous said:

Clearly, soon you will have to pay for Google (and Facebook et.al) to spy on you, instead of sharing all your private data with them for free.

 

I have always found it horrifying that anyone is prepared to do this, yet 1 billion people around the globe are doing so already, apparently. Presumably they have absolutely no concern for privacy, or that their information can one day be retrieved easily and possibly used against them.

 

I have never used a cloud service of any description and apart from TV, no social media. My entire collection of photos and even more important for me, all that I have ever written, is stored and catalogued permanently offline on a device that has no internet connectivity. Very quick and easy to do and I can rest assured that the intimate detail of my private life remain just that, private. Oh and before anyone makes any unwelcome assertions - there is nothing criminal in that.

 

 

I guess it is safe to assume that you don't have a Facebook account, but the scary part is that Facebook have an account on you!

Each time a friend,  relative or classmate do a search for you (you name) on Facebook,  they of course come up with nothing, but Facebook is keeping this record about you.

If you then one day sign up for an account, Facebook will suggest all these old searches as friends for you.

[Tyler Visan]

1 hour ago, Grusa said:

I have a box full of failed flash drives, of various sorts. No digital storage can be trusted. 

Never mind the backward compatability issues!

Even my collection of classical music on commercial cds is rotting in the climate here! I won't even mention the box of dead hard disk drives that would not revive.

 

I have CDs which are over 25 years old still working perfectly, and hard drives, now redundant, which have been in my tower for 10 years or so. What are you doing with yours?

[Grusa]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Visan said:

I have CDs which are over 25 years old still working perfectly, and hard drives, now redundant, which have been in my tower for 10 years or so. What are you doing with yours?

The CDs develop some kind of mould which eats the surface. Catch it early and they recover, but if left too long it seems to eat through and destroy the reflective layer.

 

Hard disks, they start developing bad sectors. Probably due to power surges.

[Tyler Visan]

6 minutes ago, Grusa said:

The CDs develop some kind of mould which eats the surface. Catch it early and they recover, but if left too long it seems to eat through and destroy the reflective layer.

 

Hard disks, they start developing bad sectors. Probably due to power surges.

I must be living in a mould and surge free world!    LOL

But I do know that the hard drives run off a low DC voltage produced by the power supply in your tower, and this is smoothed and regulated. Surges?

Edited November 23, 2020 by Tyler Visan

[Emdog]

18 hours ago, Grusa said:

I have a box full of failed flash drives, of various sorts. No digital storage can be trusted. 

Never mind the backward compatability issues!

Even my collection of classical music on commercial cds is rotting in the climate here! I won't even mention the box of dead hard disk drives that would not revive.

 

I have CDs which are over 25 years old still working perfectly, and hard drives, now redundant, which have been in my tower for 10 years or so. What are you doing with yours?"

*****

Used to be called "laser rot" (remember laser discs?). In '83 I bought a Kate Bush at Hammersmith laser disc in Japan. I didn't have player, but friend did, so transferred to VHS. Pits developed in aluminum info carrying section sandwiched in plastic, as I found when I finally got a player...

CDs & DVDs have same problem here. The DVD 5.1 Beatles "Love" unplayable (superb album, btw). Many of my CDs (keep them in a case). Seems to strike CDs I play more often... does motion and/or slight heat somehow encourage the destruction?

Here's a photo of a mild yet still fatal example. It is "Love" was kept in original plastic container.