Google allows the creation of a shared photo album within Google Photos. Here is a quick tutorial. Imagine a situation in which individuals visit the zoo and want to combine their best images into a collaborative album.
Step 1 – Someone needs to create the shared album. If this is you, here is what you do.
From your Google photos account, select the + icon
A drop down menu should appear and share album will be one of the options
Step 2 – make your initial contributions
You Photos collection will open and you can then select the images you want to add to the collaborative album. You should then select create (upper right-hand corner).
Step 3 – enter name for the shared album
Enter a title for the shared album and then select the three dot icon
Step 4 – Share and generate link
When the three dot icon is selected a dialog box appears with an address for the shared collection. You could provide this address to others if all you want to do is share your selections.
Step 5 – Return to your photos home page and select shared albums
This may seem a little strange, but the next step is to return to your photos home. From this location, access your shared album(s).
Step 6 – Select album you want designated for group contributions
Select the shared album you intend to be used for shared contributions.
You should now see a slider to allow others to contribute images (not just view what you have shared).
Send the link to others
Step 7 – Others connect with the link provided
At this point, your work is done and it is time for your collaborators. When someone uses the link you provided, they must first sign in.
They then join to add photos.
An icon should now appear allowing the selection of photos from their Google Photos.
The latest talking point in the Microsoft, Apple and Google competition seems to be focused on the issue of privacy. As a simplified version of what is happening. Microsoft and Apple make their money on hardware and software. Google makes its money on ads. One way to attack the popularity of Google is to complain that Google violates personal privacy in the way ads are selected for presentation. This position confuses issues related to ads and privacy.
If you use Google services and are concerned about privacy, the Google position on what information it gathers and why it gathers this information is easy to find.
If you still believe Google is invading your privacy, Google provides a pretty easy fix. Using the link I provide above, look for the link “Go to ad settings”. Near the bottom of the ad settings page, you will see these options:
If you do not agree with Google’s use of information about you, it is easy to opt out of targeted ads (called interest-based ads here). To be clear, this does not mean you will see no ads. This would seem unfair since you are using Google services at no expense to you. Showing ads rather than selling software/services is Google’s primary business model. Opting out of targeted ads means you will see ads that are not based on your data.
So, understand that you have options if you object to the use of your data being used to send you what Google hopes are relevant ads. Google does not make money unless you click on ads so Google has an interest in showing ads you will find useful.
What are you willing to share to get something in return? The answer to this question may be very relevant to the future of several companies – Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
Are you willing to share data derived from your online behavior? This seems to be shaping up as a dividing line newly promoted by these companies to differentiate themselves and attract users and their money. (The New Yorker offers their analysis).
Here is how the companies spin their positions. Google wants you to believe that it collects information about you to provide you better online experiences. The more Google knows, the more helpful it can be. Do you want random ads or do you want ads that address personal interests? (No open consideration of whether you want ads at all). Apple and Microsoft, in contrast, vow to protect your privacy. The use of data derived from your online behavior is described as a privacy issue.
I’m speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the most prominent and successful companies have built their businesses by lulling their customers into complacency about their personal information.
Guess who – Tim Cook
When I attempt to understand the decisions of technology companies, I ask myself “What are the business model?” We know what these companies offer. Microsoft sells software and some might argue services. Apple sells you hardware, some software, and access to content and services developed by other companies. Google sells a few services and access to other companies content and software, but mostly it sells ad impressions.
These companies do offer users some “no cost” incentives. Microsoft gives away some cross-platform services (One Note, Bing search). Apple gives away some software to Apple users (the OS and productivity apps), but is very limited in cross-platform opportunities. Google gives away many cross-platform services.
You are a user? What do you want? Do remember the Stones’ song – You can’t always get what you want (but if you try some time, you can get what you need)? This actually good advice and should be heeded in this situation. An acceptable answer to the question of what do you want should not be – I want stuff for free. A better answer might be – I want reasonably priced goods and services and not to be taken advantage of in order to obtain what I need.
Apple’s present gamble is that it can do locally on a device what Google does with machine learning and the Google cloud. Apple understands the importance of personalization, but intends to develop a different approach. Rather than collect information based on your behavior, store these data in the cloud and then personalize services based on what appear to be your priorities, Apple intends to keep your data on your device to convince you that your data are not being shared or used for other evil purposes. If developed by Apple using this approach, a service comparable to Google Now could offer useful information related to personal needs without sharing the personal priorities the system determined with Apple. I suppose Apple assumes you view ads as a nuisance you could do without and can search when you want information about a product or service. Apple also assumes you can do without free Google services and will find other services as a substitute. I also suppose it is possible Apple may believe it can offer similar free services if providing such services further reduced interest in what Google offers. This last possibility has yet to materialize as Apple has not been able to develop credible cloud services to this point.
What about Microsoft? A similar logic might apply. Microsoft now promotes its combination of free and paid services (and software) by assuming you are willing to pay for some things in compensation for not having to share personal information.
If you are willing to give up your Google services what is it you assume? I suggest you assume Apple will be able to actually create the device based “personal priority and needs” approach it claims to be developing and that Apple will get far better at cloud services.
The “nuclear option” for anti-Google companies is to build in default mechanisms for blocking ads. At present, if Google can show no ads it would not have enough alternative revenue streams to stay afloat. Customers taking advantage of this “privacy” opportunity and not understanding what they get in the trade for their information could possibly ruin Google. Of course, it is more complicated than just Google vs. Apple and Microsoft. Removing ads, also removes an incentive for many who offer content for free. Those offering content would need other incentives for doing so and the consequences of these other incentives are unclear.
Why do I care? While I understand the general motive of companies to acquire as much of the pie as possible, I do not see a system with few players as great for consumers. I think greater awareness of how companies make money is important. How you or I interpret these finance models is important? It is possible to spin whichever approach you choose to attack? Apple’s model involves overpricing locking users into software and services that may not be the best available. Apple supports blocking ads that were intended to appear by the authors of content. Google uses data about user behavior.
Google just announced a new photo service – now independent of Google+. The service is called Google Photos (confusing since Apple also calls their service Photos).
The service might be understood as consisting of three elements:
software (iOS, android and desktop) to upload photos
cloud image processing that attempts to identify what is in a photo
storage capacity – unlimited as long as the images and video are converted to Photo’s constraints (16 megapixel and 1080p)
The clincher for many users will be that the service costs you nothing.
Google does not require that you do all of the work in categorizing your photos and it is the machine learning capabilities of Google that generates some of the most intriguing results. The system will attempt to determine who is in a photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and the category to which a photo should be assigned (video, panorama, etc.). The system is not perfect but good enough to amaze.
Some examples:
1) Photos attempts to identify the individuals in photos. One capability I found amazing was the ability to track individuals as they age.
2) Google creates interesting photo stories from your images. This capability is not dependent on tags or annotations you have added.
3) One categorization method is based on location. Images do not have to be geotagged to be located (note most camera phones do not include GPS data in the exif).
4) Photos makes it easy to share groupings of photos as a URL – example.
It is worth exploring Google Photos from your desktop and your mobile device. The perspective is not exactly the same. For example, the zoom in and out methods of exploring your collection are not available on the desktop.
I was originally interested in Google Photos as a way to duplicate my Flickr account. When I have some time I may attempt to compare the features of these two services. I do see some differences but with Google Photos available at no cost, I see nothing wrong with using Photos as a backup. I see Apple as the loser in this situation.
I see today that ND EduTech has Office365 for K-12 working. Higher Ed in ND offers the same system. The release was described as offering students 21st Century Learning tools.
Just for the record, I regard Microsoft as lagging behind Google in developing cloud services (and Apple in developing hardware). Both Apple and Microsoft have been pushed toward cloud applications by the success of Google. Having used all of these systems, I would rank them Google, Microsoft, and then Apple.
It is interesting that Microsoft seems have to changed the company approach to pay attention to K-12. Apple used to have this focus with the logic that this emphasis might create future adult users. Apple seemed to back away from this focus as its hardware products became the industry leader is many categories. Microsoft may now be taking a similar approach. Note that the free/low cost to students is a way to get individuals invested in the platform. The “adult” version requires a purchase. Of course, Google apps are ad supported for adults. Will most adults purchase Microsoft products for themselves?
I find Google docs easier to use for peer collaborative writing and peer editing. Any system, Apple, Google, Microsoft has a way to collaborate, but I find the Google approach easier to use. I also see the total “suite” offered by Google better suited to education. To my knowledge, there are no Microsoft or Apple equivalents to Sites, YouTube, Hangouts, Forms or Blogger. I see these products important to developing the multimedia authoring and collaboration skills of students. Contrary to the notion of 21st Century skills, learning, etc., the Microsoft offerings are both dated and limited in scope. I give Microsoft an advantage for OneNote.
Google will no longer require that you use your real name on Google+. A comment from the company indicates that the change was in response to user requests.
How a blog, web page, or social account should be attributed is likely one of those issues for which there is no perfect answer. Those of us in education may see the issue as it relates to the use of social media by students.
However, it is useful to recognize that privacy protects both the good and the devious. What is that expression about a dog on the Internet? While I understand the privacy argument, I also would like to know when I should not assume I know who someone actually is. Perhaps the Google policy should allow pseudonyms, but require that such “names” be identified as such. We have the hashtag for a purpose. How about ~grabe?
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
You must be logged in to post a comment.