31–40 of 79 posts
Just when I wanted to learn more about the project, it appears to be down :( http://theopenphotoproject.org/
I guess on the flip side, it makes me feel better about PhotoStream uptime. :-)
"You decide where to store photos" That is most likely the reason this, as many other "open" alternatives, won't defeat proprietary solutions. A normal human being won't bother setting up an S3 account and integrating with this service when they can just pay Flickr/Picasa and forget.
This is the main reason why I decided to remove the photos I share with friends out of such services and create a minimal gallery in my own web site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, good luck dowloading your whole photo collection from Flickr. I periodically fire up an EC2 instance and do just that via the API. > It may say unlimited, but only a fool would believe it. How many photos do you have uploaded anyway? Unlike your average "unlimited" shared web hosting, I've yet to hear of a single person booted off Flickr for uploading too much (legit) stuff. Storage is cheap, and the folks pa…
>> I periodically fire up an EC2 instance That was point oc put forward: A normal human being won't bother setting up an S3 account .
I'd bet against this happening... nobody knows about this. Also, hasn't twitter, shared photo streams and Instagram/Facebook already "defeated" simple image hosting platforms?
I'm betting against that. Photos, unlike many other types of content, are not ephemeral. If you don't believe they are then ask anyone who takes photos of their kids. It is often difficult to defend my thoughts with younger more technical groups. If all people care about really is sharing photos in the moment then I'm wrong and OpenPhoto will be a failure. I'm bullish.
Only each and every hosting solution one might pick for OpenPhoto (S3, DropBox, their hosting company, whatever) is just as ephemeral as Flickr and Picassa. A lot of them even more so (I've seen tons of hosting companies close, Google can shut down Picassa like it has closed down lots of it's own products, Dropbox could get bought by the big players and close down, etc).
>It is often difficult to defend my thoughts with younger more technical groups.
And yet, those are the only part of the population that might be interested in a self-hosted, open source, photo hosting.
Free might seem better than $25 per month, but $25 per month for actual unlimited photo storage is something not even Dropbox or S3 can compete with. Not to mention Flickr has no barrier to entry, you upload your photos and don't have to worry about paying for a third party service like S3.
It's nice to dream that an open source Mozilla project can steal some of Flickr's thunder, but it isn't going to be happening any time soon.
So, back to the 1990s? Not that it's a bad thing, but aren't php scripts and wordpress plugins to do this kind of thing old hat and pre-date flickr, picasa, skydrive et all?
A well-designed 2013-era take on the problem may be interesting to see, but the mere existence of software to store, present and manage photos on your website is as mundane as can be. So, what's new here?
If you have been living in a cave for the past few months... I want to stop reading right here.
I read dpreview/techmeme/theverge daily, and I'd never heard of "OpenPhoto" before. I presume I'm the target audience for this new service, so it's probably not a great idea to start off a posting by simultaneously insulting me and losing credibility.
OpenPhoto who? I had never heard of OpenPhoto until now, so I guess that kind of weakens the point of this article by about 50% straight up. Flickr in my opinion while having failed to stay relevant in a world of Instagrams and Facebook, it's still the best place to store your photos and from what I hear Marissa is focusing on Flickr quite heavily recently. Free might seem better than $25 per month, but $25 per month…