I don't get how a pro photo app is supposed to be mobile-only and subscription-gated. One of the greatest things about flickr is that I can embed it almost anywhere, even hotlinking on my blog or on forums, and anyone, anywhere can see it on any device. (And if I pay, they can see a 6k version, served on the web, not through a download link.) I am really, really into photography but I do not have any interest in viewing image galleries on my phone when I have a 27" iMac 5k and Flickr shows me over a decade of photos collected from every type of photography enthusiast.
> promise of composability and interoperability in the early web. I miss it.
Then avoiding embeds altogether and choosing hyperlinks is the way to go. Came to this realization after having to remove embeds from what was a cool platform to begin with and later turning out to be soul sucking privacy nightmare.
Why would I do that? Flickr embeds still work fine after almost 20 years and did even when Yahoo owned it. They're now owned by a company that sells real, actual things in service to paying customers and has for a long time (older than Flickr), so I don't see any reason they would go the route most widget/embeds did and pile trackers in.
Incentives are the key. AdTech took over most things, but this is a rare oasis of that lost web.
My comment was neither specific to Flickr nor whether embeds technically work but on the issue of privacy, security and performance of a website especially since the notion of 'early web' was invoked.
It's wise to launch on only one platform to start, focus on there, learn, and then launch on alternative platforms. Particularly if you're developing everything native.
Are there any non-Apple created apps with large user base that are truly iOS only? There probably are, but as an android user, I don't know.
> It's wise to launch on only one platform to start, focus on there, learn, and then launch on alternative platforms. Particularly if you're developing everything native.
Particularly when the app in question is more technically demanding and has greater need to use platform facilities.
If it's a bog standard CRUD app, that might be reasonable to take multiplatform on launch day, but on the other hand something like touch friendly version of Final Cut Pro would be much more challenging to have both iOS and Android versions of right out of the gate.
Android has a larger user base, and it's not like Apple bribes developers to be iOS-only. I'm curious what kind of regulations are needed here. Is the idea that developers should be forced to launch on at least two mobile platforms? If so, that would kind of suck for hobbyist and independent developers who may not have the skills to launch on Android.
You don't need to bribe devs if you can wall in the customers.
Regulation should be more on punishing lock-in past a threshold of customer harm. Basically forcing the opening of iMessage to other platforms and perhaps portability for iTunes content?
It'll be people voting with their money/download. As an example, I will not be using Clubhouse when it launches on Android, they had a long time to launch and took their sweet time.
Nobody uses Clubhouse on any platform. Being forced to listen to long-form narrations of bullshit LinkedIn wall posts is an excruciating form of torture.
Regulations on whom? If I don't want to make an Android app, I won't. Last I checked, Apple's App Store brings in more money with a smaller user base (unsure if this still holds). Maybe Android could try making the experience better or more lucrative for developers?
Maybe the actual target audience is people who think they're pros when they aren't? Sounds about right for both photographers and consumer electronics enthusiasts.
Insert an obvious and oft-repeated lament that Flickr could have thrived if they had been managed properly.
But gosh, Flickr was and is so good. (At least on desktop.) The simple fact I can link to a photo with an obvious download button and it shows up as a real webpage and not a lightbox or something is sadly remarkable.
Does it interact with the open web? Are there examples of public-facing profiles one might see?
As Instagram closes down its interoperability with the open web even further (try visiting pages in an Incognito window -- sign-in is rapidly required), it opens the door to photo-sharing sites that are better net-citizens.
When I take purposeful pictures I use a camera. I use my phone for a number of things, but serious photography ain't one of them. (I like the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, big glass, small f, long focal lengths, tripod mounts, special-purpose filters, etc.)
When I edit photos and organize them I use a computer because it has a big screen. Again my phone isn't involved.
Why then do they require an app? It doesn't bother me that they have an app, but requiring one tells me they're just reinventing Instagram. Serious photography web sites should work on the web. And I can't believe I had to write that sentence.
FWIW, I have a DSLR (used to be semi-pro, now just a hobbyist). I use Lightroom and Photoshop on my iPad. I never touch my desktop anymore. Clearly, your workflow may require desktop software. But I believe it's possible to create high-quality work without a desktop these days.
Where do you keep your raw files? That would fill up an iPad fast. I know Adobe has cloud storage with their photography plans, but I can't imagine ever not having a local copy.
I only keep the RAW files for the final photos. Usually this is one or two files per “shoot.” So my cloud storage costs aren’t that high. Obviously this doesn’t work for everyone as there are lots of cases where you need to archive everything.
Not previous commenter, but I offload raws from my camera to my desktop, where they're backed up. I upload another copy to Lightroom (cuz more backups is always better). Then I edit from my iPad using their cloud storage.
And iirc, I have Lightroom set up to export a JPEG of the last edit for the photo to a directory. So I back up the edits too.
It's really a pretty nice experience. The new lightroom moved a bunch of stuff around and some of the more advanced stuff is hidden, but it's a lot easier to make quick, rough edits. I like hitting the auto-edit button when I'm filtering out photos that are trash, because sometimes photos I think I hate look a ton better with rough editing.
I don't think reinventing Instagram (as it originally was) is a terrible idea. Instagram with a different culture from the Instagram of today, with a highly-polished experience focused on amateur photography (today's phones have incredible cameras) instead of just being "Facebook, but the images are really big". It would be niche, but I think we need more niche and specialized apps/services these days.
Not that it shouldn't expand to Android and the web, but I think for this kind of premium and niche experience you can justify handwriting your MVP for iOS instead of starting with the web and/or React Native
I think Instagram has already trained a lot of serious photographers to work in this world. At least until recently, the only way to post to Instagram was via mobile (or some Lightroom plugins or spoofing your desktop browser as a mobile browser). Many photographers were going through the workflow you described and then sending the edited file to their phone for posting.
That being said... this seems like a poor move because photographers are willing to do that to get the audience reach Instagram provides. Glass, on the other hand, requires a subscription and doesn't seem worth the effort yet.
Although I’m not in the industry, I’ve witnessed professional photographers taking photos and sharing them using iPhones. There was a brief anecdote of a photographer that took pictures of a model on an iPhone for Vogue (or some other magazine). It had more depth to it (something to do about doing it remotely), but in general, I wouldn’t count off phone’s photo quality.
You’re definitely right about post-processing and all the other jazz that comes into the play after the picture has been taken though.
Disclaimer: not a photographer, and have close to 0 artistic abilities, so I might be completely wrong.
It’s kinda disappointing to hit a subscription screen right after sign up, wasn’t expecting that. I definitely would not try out a social network with a subscription fee without lots of experimenting first.
I kinda expected that -- they promise no ads, and they're going to host lots of big photos. How could they possibly offer that for free? I agree though, the subscription model should be clear before signup, without offering a few months for free, they're going to miss a lot of conversions.
At the beginning it can be better to focus on the people willing to pay up front. It allows you to test the market and to focus on the feedback of paying customers.
You can add free trials and optimize for revenue later.
Sure that can't be free - maybe allow free accounts with restricted uploads in size/number? Or even a free trail without the subscription signup that locks the account instead. I'm pretty leery of trails that autoconvert to subscriptions, though using an iPhone makes this less awful.
I've been using Glass for a couple of months now and it's really a breath of fresh air compared to Instagram. The focus is on the photography instead of sharing your lifestyle or whatever Instagram is meant to be these days.
I hope they can gather enough paying members to make it a sustainable business
This falls uneasily between two stools for me. For a photography-focused space, it doesn't have anything like the wealth of photography tools and data that Flickr does (or even just EXIF). For a community space, it doesn't have bookmarking or nudging or sufficient interaction beyond comments to make that work for me either.
Both those things can be secondary if it's exposing you to great new work and new trends in photography, but the onboarding didn't bode well on that front: of all the photographers it suggested I follow there was one woman and one non-white person in the mix. That's not a slam dunk on their work but it did turn out (from what I can see) to all be in a very similar sort of "late-millennial white man with a mirrorless" niche.
It shows a limited subset of the EXIF (camera, ISO, focal length, aperture, shutter speed) - although I notice that not all images have the data, so I don't know whether it's stripped by the person uploading it or somewhere in some version of their pipeline.
My images (exported from Lightroom, moved to phone via AirDrop, uploaded via the Glass app) all have the metadata intact.
Lightroom (or at least Lightroom Classic) defaults to embedding all metadata, but it’s exposed fairly prominently in the Export dialog, so I suppose people turn it off to, I dunno, hide their secret sauce.
I don't like this particular lie. It seems like as soon as we find it acceptable to tell it, we get to choose how complex or user-hostile the algorithm gets to be while still telling the same lie.
It's kinda like saying that a product contains "no chemicals." There's a truth that people are reaching for, but the language used is deceptive. Clearly, "select * from my_table order by insertion_time" is handled by an algorithm... but it isn't ranking content by hidden metrics, maximizing engagement, etc. that people mean by "algorithm."
When tools are used to do harm, they cease to have neutral meanings. Chemistry is villainized because of DDT; medicine is villainized because of thalidomide, AR-15s are villainized because of mass shootings, etc. Can we expect more nuance of a lay-audience?
In the common language used these days, "the algorithm" refers to the sorting/reranking companies like Facebook and now Twitter do to attempt to show you posts you're most likely to engage with. I think the vast majority of people reading that Glass has "no algorithm" will understand this.
In a world where people nitpick each other to death, sure. Meanwhile, in the real world, language has meaning beyond the literal expression.
And I'm willing to put money on the fact that their target audience understands perfectly what "no algorithm" means. Heck, even the people complaining know what it means, they just like being right.
Algorithm for discovery and algorithm for sorting are two different things as well. I’d love to see recommendations for people to follow. But from those I follow I want a chronological order.
I found it very hard to figure out how to choose content, since I don't personally know anyone using the app yet. I like the concept, and I don't think I want an algorithm as a lunachpad, but Flickr always had groups/categories/etc that helped with discovery. I was surprised Glass didn't have anything similar to that. It felt like a huge hurdle to get into the app.
It says "for professional and amateur photographers alike" but I'm not sure most professionals will want to spend 25% of the cost of Adobe's photography plan for a marketing channel that isn't already in the sweet spot between mainstream uptake (where customers and clients are) and oversaturation.
It certainly appears to be. That's a bit confusing, however. Every example photograph rather prominently notes the camera, not phone, it was taken with. The features seem primarily useful for camera-and-raw-processing photographers. The website doesn't seem to indicate that it's iPhone only, but the feedback section, and the lack of any way to log in or sign up other than the link to the iOS App Store, certainly suggests that it is. The feedback section even suggests that it doesn't support iPads well, and is phone-focused.
What's the intended usage here? Take a photograph with your camera, transfer it to your computer, process it there, export it... then transfer it to your phone in order to post it? Why?
Especially since iOS users spend more money. From my experience, you can have equivalent apps for iOS and Android, yet the iOS version will drive 90% of revenue. If I were them I wouldn't bother creating an Android version until they've proven the model works with iOS. If it doesn't work with iOS, adding Android will only slow their dev velocity and increase their burn rate.
It's becoming a chicken or the egg issue. Every time I open up Play store "premium" apps section is complete trash and "freemium" apps are design in either milking the ads (free but 20 second ad after every action) or the whales (paying 160usd/year subscription for a phone app) - no one is serving middle-class consumer on Android. Then creators complain that there's no middle-class consumer market on Android?
Glass already went to the trash bin for me. If you can barely support 1 app at 5usd/month price point what sort of longevity message is that sending?
Is someone doing managed Pixelfed instances? I can't find anything. I figured the Masto.host people would be on it by now, but there's nothing on their site.
Why do companies insist on choosing non-unique, generic names for their products these days? I’m going to forget that “glass” means a photo app the second I close this tab.
Frankly, that's the company's problem. Personally, it's much more annoying when startups name themselves with intentionally misspelled words. Optimizely, Musical.ly, come to mind right away, but there are loads of others.
The only reason this is done is so they can advertise on Google Ads without running afoul of their "non-branded terms" policy.
It will take a lot of marketing to overcome this fact. "Glass" is a fine name that helps while you're taking in the features/benefits, but it does not help at all with retention.
I personally won't be using the app since I don't have an Android; I don't think I'd spend enough time on it to justify the subscription (I don't use Instagram either); and it doesn't appear to solve the photo-related problems I have (backup & private sharing).
But it's good to see this—it's an experiment similar to Instagram but with a different business/community model. Best of luck to the authors.
The most interesting part for me is how they position themselves. They are essentially aiming at the things people hate about their competitors and that their competitor can't easily change.
Ads, design for addiction/engagement, bad abuse prevention.
I think more apps will bubble up to disrupt the big companies that don't adapt to these needs.
Its starting now but I see this happening over the next 10 years.
It might be great but my friends won’t be paying for it so I won’t see their photos and they won’t see mine. As horrible as it is to say, I don’t actually mind Instagram ads that much, they often help me to find what I’m looking for or jog me to buy the packing materials I need to order!
I've been thinking of making something like this for many years. It's unfortunate how hostile Instagram is towards photographers, considering it's the main place people engage with photography. Will definitely be giving this a shot.
I've been using the app since it was invite only and I gladly paid the yearly fee. Is the app perfect? No but what app is right out of the gate? I find the subscription the most useful feature of the app. Knowing there's a gate on the app ($$$ wise) has made my interactions with other photographers more worthwhile and genuine. There's currently one purpose here vs a million reasons other than photography on Instagram.
As far as usability uploading photos from my main camera isn't hard. All those photos get dropped and managed in OneDrive so when I'm ready to upload I can upload from my phone without a problem.
It's not better. Just different. The Glass app is geared around photographer fellowship giving that the conversation is driven by comments and not likes or upvoting.
I really, really don't understand why I have to put my self in the position to be censured, scanned or to not have control over the UX.
It is 2021, hosting is dirt cheap, there are proven ways to create a blog and share with your audience. Paying to someone for the "privilege" of participation is not valuable. Investing in your own brand is valuable. If you have social network needs use established platforms for sharing, but link to your own site.
And one more thing: Making a service iPhone only is not cool. Apple is not cool anymore.
Cost of self-hosting is low and increased algorithmic control over content is making UX unbearable for artistic use cases.
That is my point. It is obvious that content silos will be monetized and explored to the infinity, but there is a point where "the common denominator" sanitized content is barely bearable.
:)
I am enjoying this, though it is very feature-sparse at the moment. That may be part of why I am enjoying it.
At the moment it is fairly easy to find high-quality work, I find it most akin to the experience of browsing an art fair or open galleries night: wandering without direction between exhibits, some of which are quite strong, others not interesting to me.
The rate of timeline refresh is still quite low, though I've "followed" a few dozen people.
It feels like a proof of concept at the moment but it's slowly quietly coming along.
$5/month is such a steep barrier. How many subscription services can we take in our lives? Why can't it be $2/month? it certainly would attract more users.
Those that would legitimately pay $2/m but not $5/m are few and far between. In reality, most people I've seen that want lower prices actually want the product for free; if the price were lowered to $2/month, you'd still see the same complaints and excuses.
Sure some people do see a difference like I mentioned, but in my experience of running my own paid sites, the people who agonize over a few bucks a month difference have been my worst customers. My point of view may therefore be different from yours as a business owner vs customer.
My point is that it's the biggest barrier to signup and if you're going to have a successful paid social network you might want to consider the value exchange right now as a new user. None of my friends are on Glass yet, so a big part of the value of a social network is not even present yet.
I'm really curious to see the winning business model for apps like this. Everyone is used to free web apps. No one wants to pay. And people have become more and more worried about ads (many people block them).
Is there a world where everyone pays a subscription fee to N different web/mobile/social apps? I'm skeptical.
I think that's the point of launching only with iOS. the App Store helps manage subscriptions, so theoretically there's less friction when it's time to ask the user to pay.
Early beta user of glass, and although it’s not super polished yet, the dedication to their mission, and well designed execution that puts users first makes this one a must have subscription. That’s a list I can count on one hand.
According to the privacy label, this app fits my definition of spyware (by force uploading activity data without my opt in or consent) so there's no chance I will be installing it.
There’s not that much wrong with Facebook or Instagram. They are what we make them. You won’t have a new kind of community unless you somehow create a new kind of human. Or unless you introduce some kind of requirements for people who wish to enter. But that’s maybe “elitist”, right? :)
Instagram wouldn't let me make an account. Even if I could make one, I'd have to think about what it means to link someone directly into Facebook's data collecting juggernaut by sharing a photo since the only way to view them nowadays is with an account.
A lot of other commenters have mentioned the subscription paywall being a big issue, but even beyond that I find it very difficult to take a community "for photographers" seriously when it can't be used from a computer.
I get that iPhone cameras have come a long way, and the photos they produce are now of professional quality, but the fact I can't even use this service at all from a computer with a old-school traditional lensed dslr is absolutely wild.
Without that, it's basically just a less-usable Instagram (Instagram has a website with login at least).
>Glass is subscription-based, which means we won’t sell your data
Privacy Policy:
>In the future, we may sell to, buy, merge with, or partner with other businesses. In such transactions, Anonymous Information and PII may be among the transferred assets.
Our community has no space for hate. Glass is committed to creating a safe space for photographers. Members are required to follow our Code of Conduct. Blocking, reporting, and account deletion are day-one features."
I thought photography is art, which would challenge peoples ideas or thoughts, and this policy seems to indicate they will delete your account if they think it's offensive?
I read that quote entirely different, this site seems to be billing itself as a community with a code of conduct. It's entirely possible to have ideas challenged while being respectful and courteous towards other people. It's also possible that your art may not be accepted by the site and community, and this community isn't a good fit for you.
There has to be some standard of interaction or genuine, self-described genocidal nuts will take over. See: every attempt to create a moderation-free platform. The only people who'll stick around are real monsters and people who don't think they'll be the target if the monsters execute their plans.
