Google Takes on Flickr
Launched today, Picasa Web Albums, seems to be Google’s attempt to dismount Flickr from the photo-sharing throne. With a free account, users get a sleek online interface and 250MB storage space. Similar to Flickr’s offerings, there is a subscription service at $25/year that provides 6GB of photo storage. Now if only the Picasa client was available for Macs.
I’m sure there will be an iPhoto plugin for the Picasa Web Albums, similar to the Flickr plugin allowing you to upload you images within iPhoto.
you must agree that this is a fairly weak attempt to dismount flickr… i was hoping google was going to setup something that allows us to upload from a web browser, or maybe even iphoto. does everyone that puts their photos up really going to need or desire what ever the H picasa does? well not me at all, and being that i’m a mac user its okay because i can’t.
whatever.
i think google might be loosing its steam. i hear too many free lunches will do that to you.
it doesn’t work with flock either.
Flickr + iPhoto Flickr Export plugin = Deadly combo.
It’s just far too easy to upload and tag pictures to flickr that I just dumped from my digital camera to Flickr from iPhoto.
I wouldn’t call it a “take on flickr”, since this is looks like a very basic product. (Plus, there are no tags!).
For those of you who’d like to see an example of a Picasa Web Album, here’s a link to one I uploaded as a test.
Having used Picasa for the last couple of years I’d say this looks like fun, and maybe something for sharing with family and friends but I see years before they reach flickr with the API/plugin realm. I’m actually working on a couple really cool things with a textpattern/flickr combo! The big downside I see right away is that a person HAS to download and install picasa before they can use the online web app. That’s rotten.
I think it’s more aimed at Yahoo! Photos (beta being finalised atm) than flickr (although both are owned by Yahoo!)
I have tried Picasa out a few times on my Windows machine and it didnt really do anything for me and like Natalie said its required right now. I will stick with Flickr.
As a Mac user, it’s pretty useless at this point. I’ve seen the interface of the album and photo pages, I remain unimpressed - there’s not really anything that sets it apart, other than it uploads directly from Picassa. Flickr remains the winner at ths point.
After using Google’s Web Albumn, I must say i’m not impressed.
I know how most people who read this blog are partial to Flickr but personally I’m not that impressed with the service. The only online photo albumn that has impressed me has been Riya, http://www.riya.com for several reasons.
Face Recognition (That Works)
No limit to the number of photos you can add to Riya photo search.
No bandwidth limit.
No serving limit.
API Integration
It’s still in Beta, but I think it works well and seems to have a ambition group of people backing the software.
Does anyone know if Flickr has face recognition plans in the future?
I wonder if Google has plans on acquiring Riya, I think I’ve heard about it before.
Google and Flock - don’t hold your breath. Flock uses flickr (owned by yahoo), uses del.ico.us (owned by yahoo) and has a default search to yahoo. Google has Firefox (default search and homepage) and has no reason to push or support Flock.
Picasa is a really good tool for managing photos - hopefully soon they will add RAW support for my FujiFilm FinePix camera (they already support many RAW types) if for other reason than I could stop using the (awful) software provided with the camera.
I signed up for the Picasa Web Beta, but I can’t see ditching it over flickr. I use flickr’s private options for friend and family only photos, and google doesn’t have that. Also, noted above, no flickr like api, tags and the interface is too basic.
Flickr’s recent upgrade really impressed me - I am worried though that yahoo has flickr yet is pusing their own service. Why is yahoo photo on my TiVo and not flickr?
The Picasa Web Albums do have an option to upload from the web. Whether it does it adequately is not for me to judge, having never used the other programs/websites, but I thought your readers might like to know.
Google should have quit with search, maps, and adsense. All this other stuff is just fluff.
Check in on a bug report for the new Picasa Web Albums at my site. Images are resized in the main view and the resolution is keyrap. Why do this?
Why won’t Google release Picasa for Mac? They released it for Linux.
i am very happy using gallery2 on my webserver. Felipe, i hear ya, i would love picasa for my mac
Picasa in my experiance is fantastic and is my staple and I have used alot of programs (iPhoto, adobe bridge, canon zoom browser, f-stop, infranview…) for organising and basic post processing. It catalogs my current collection of 13000+ images (20gb+) without a hitch, never even falters loading thumbnails due to the graphics engine. It uses the computers 3d hardware to speed up the processing(this matters HEAPS) and has great integration with other google tools like gmail and web albums. Its search feature is fantastic for sifting through photos and has colour based search. A windoze user must have. Runs under wine on linux but at a performance hit. As for the web albums they are simple and no fuss which is a strength of all googles apps. Although not everything google makes is great, these two both are. Picasa can be used to load images onto flikr via email and takes care of resizing(as you desire) for you too.
There are interface apps for Picasa WebAlbums and the Mac…
http://picasa.google.com/web/mac_tools.html
I especially like the iPhoto integration.
No need for Picasa with iPhoto on the Mac.