Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glass – Photo sharing app and community

glass.photo

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#71

Post by andy_ppp »

klyrs wrote: post #10
buildbot wrote: post #6

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.

There are plenty of ways to incrementally provide features to paying users on something like this while still making the base model free.

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#72

Post by KoftaBob »

1shooner wrote: post #64

Homepage: >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.

“sell to” as in sell their company to another company, not sell your data to another company.

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

1shooner wrote: post #64

Homepage: >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.

At least they're being honest and up front about the consequences of their business being acquired.

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#74

Post by [deleted] »

1shooner wrote: post #64

Homepage: >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.

[deleted]

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#76

Post by dreamcompiler »

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.

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#77

Post by KoftaBob »

satvikpendem wrote: post #68
shosko wrote: post #63

$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.

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.

Re: Glass – Photo sharing app and community

#78

Post by satvikpendem »

KoftaBob wrote: post #77
satvikpendem wrote: post #68

Earlier 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.

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.
Post reply on HN