Download Picasa for Free - Thanks to Google

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.picasa.com/google/?promo-hpp1intl' target='_blank'>http://www.picasa.com/google/?promo-hpp1intl</a><br /><br /></div>Have you always wanted to use Picasa, but didn't want to pay for it. Well thanks to the purchase by Google, Picasa version 1.6 can now be download for free. That didn't take very long, did it now? :D <br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/picasa_logo.gif" />

[Kent Pribbernow]

I fear this acquisition. In the back of my mind I have this terrible impression that Google is going to ruin a wonderful photo app.

[Bob S]

I have the same wierd feeling too.

Did you notice that the forum links dissapeared?

But you can get to them through the Hello website. Guess google forgot about that

[Godsongz]

so 1.6 is now free, ok... what does this do to version 2 pricing for those of us that recently paid for version 1.6?

[Jason Dunn]

I fear this acquisition. In the back of my mind I have this terrible impression that Google is going to ruin a wonderful photo app.

Trust in the Google. The Google is good. Except when they kicked me out of their AdWords program and took $900 USD of my money...but other than that, and the fact that we had to IP-block their spider because it was hitting SPT and DMT 90,000+ times a day and kiling our server, oh yes, The Google is good. Or at least it tries to be. :lol:

[Jason Dunn]

so 1.6 is now free, ok... what does this do to version 2 pricing for those of us that recently paid for version 1.6?

Probably nothing. The release of 2.0 seems to be quite close, so I think this is just a play by Google to give 1.6 away then rapidly follow up with the upgrade, which will not be free. One would hope that they'd have an upgrade price for people that bought version 1.x, and people who got it for free would have to pay the full 2.0 price.

[James Fee]

Probably nothing. The release of 2.0 seems to be quite close, so I think this is just a play by Google to give 1.6 away then rapidly follow up with the upgrade, which will not be free.
You sure about that? Look what happened to Blogger. Those who paid for the "pro" version were just out of luck.

[Jason Dunn]

Those who paid for the "pro" version were just out of luck.

Hmm. I was one of those people who paid for the pro version, but really, it was mostly a matter of helping Blogger out and getting put on a server that wasn't overloaded with 50,000 free Blogs. I paid, what, $15 or something? So I don't feel particularly ripped off. ;-)

[James Fee]

Hmm. I was one of those people who paid for the pro version, but really, it was mostly a matter of helping Blogger out and getting put on a server that wasn't overloaded with 50,000 free Blogs. I paid, what, $15 or something? So I don't feel particularly ripped off. ;-)
Well, I paid it too and I was happy to do it, but then Google buys them and their money troubles go away. Where did that leave us with Pro accounts? I'm not bitter because I moved on to what I though was better blog software, but the Google business model isn't to sell software to consumers, it is to sell ads that the consumers see. I wonder how this will be integreated into later versions of Picasa?

[Jason Dunn]

...the Google business model isn't to sell software to consumers, it is to sell ads that the consumers see. I wonder how this will be integreated into later versions of Picasa?

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, if Picasa 2.0 is free but has text ads in it, man, that would suck.

[rzanology]

oooor we could put it in MAC OS 10...call it a new feature....and charge $134.



lol sorry jason...this one was too easy...i'll stop...i promise!!!! :twisted:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, if Picasa 2.0 is free but has text ads in it, man, that would suck.

Or worse, they scan your photos and add it to the Google Images database. =P

[klinux]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, if Picasa 2.0 is free but has text ads in it, man, that would suck.

Or worse, they scan your photos and add it to the Google Images database. =P

Ooo, interesting idea. Some people may WANT that feature.

Google is now more and more like Yahoo.

[Jonathon Watkins]

So, how good is Picasa then?

[Jason Dunn]

So, how good is Picasa then?

Um, really good? :D It's free, take it for a spin - I use it as my primary tool for organizing my photos.

[Jonathon Watkins]

So, how good is Picasa then?

Um, really good? :D It's free, take it for a spin - I use it as my primary tool for organizing my photos.

Good enough recommendation. I'd just not really heard anyone particularly recommending it before and life is too busy to just test random software. Downloading now......

[dean_shan]

I just tried it out. I love this thing. So many nice features. So easy to find what you want. Bring on a Mac OS X version.

[Bob S]

Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, if Picasa 2.0 is free but has text ads in it, man, that would suck.

Or worse, they scan your photos and add it to the Google Images database. =P

Ooo, interesting idea. Some people may WANT that feature.

Google is now more and more like Yahoo.

Just in case you want to see the bad side of all of this. Do you know where your pictures are? :twisted:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22index+of%22+%2F+picasa.ini+&btnG=Google+Search

8O

[Jonathon Watkins]

Just in case you want to see the bad side of all of this. Do you know where your pictures are? :twisted:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22index+of%22+%2F+picasa.ini+&btnG=Google+Search

Welcome Bob S. I do hope you are not suggesting that Google will add personal photos to their database without the user's consent?

[Bob S]

That's exactly what concerns me.

Did all of those people want their pictures there for everyone to see?

[ctmagnus]

So login to your webspace and delete the Picasa.ini. afaict, that's the only way to tell if the contents of a directory have been modified by Picasa.

[Jason Dunn]

Did all of those people want their pictures there for everyone to see?

Let's see here. The photos are:

1) up on a Web server
2) not password protected
3) there isn't an index.html file
4) directory browsing is allowed

So, yeah, I do think they want everyone to see their pictures. ;-)