[vore]

Store location history remotely: this is just a scheme to invade privacy and hoover up user data.

Store location history locally: this is just a scheme to cut down on storage costs.

There's no winning here, is there? Personally, I'm a fan of Google never giving the option to store location history remotely and this is a step in the right direction.

[ffpip]

Yes, because they are not promising to not use it for tracking. They are just offloading the storage costs to you.

[vore]

Do you actually want them to store everywhere you've ever been on their servers because they would be using their storage instead? Because I don't, and I don't care to guess what the actual reason might be, because I'm just glad they don't want to do it anymore because it's better for everyone – removing remote storage removes a whole host of privacy issues.

[ffpip]

I don't. I turned off location tracking long ago.