needs a freemium model, also android and desktop versions
Glass – Photo sharing app and community
81–90 of 135 posts
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not mobile-only, iphone-only. This is a good example of how ios is a seperate market and Apple has the monopoly.
This seems like a good example of how some devs treat ios like a separate market and lose out on a significant portion of the potential user pie.
iOS users are likely to be much higher value than Android users.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you think of it in terms of per year, it’s $24 vs $60. That’s not insignificant. I’ve personally subscribed to the pro membership of a few apps for $2/m to remove ads and support the devs. $5 would’ve been a harder sell.
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.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When you think of it in terms of per year, it’s $24 vs $60. That’s not insignificant. I’ve personally subscribed to the pro membership of a few apps for $2/m to remove ads and support the devs. $5 would’ve been a harder sell.
$36 over the course of a year is insignificant.
> $5 would’ve been a harder sell
Maybe, but it's far harder to go from free -> $ than $ -> $$.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#85I 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.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#86When 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 doe…
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
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#87When 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 doe…
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.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#88It’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.
I think it can work as a subscription, but offering a free trial seems important
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#89This seems great! I’d try it in a heartbeat. But without understanding the value it provides to me. I’m not going to pay for it.
If they ask me 30 days after, hey, you should consider paying, and force me to make a decision, I can be way more clear!
Edit: Seems like you get a 14 day trial. But that just feels forced. Like I have to interact because I’m paying.
Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community
#90I 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 view…
Not mobile-only, iphone-only. This is a good example of how ios is a seperate market and Apple has the monopoly.
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.