3 ms·

Another one of "these" sites? If I want to share photos with a small group of people, I'll upload them to a Facebook album and specify the exact names that shou

by cmelbye 16y ago

Another one of "these" sites? If I want to share photos with a small group of people, I'll upload them to a Facebook album and specify the exact names that should see them. If I want to send a message to them, I'll use email, Facebook messages, Twitter DMs, or SMS. I don't need yet another site that friends need to learn about, sign up for, etc before it's actually useful.

austinchang 16y ago
We made it super easy to invite friends into a Fridge group. Every group has a private invite URL that you can distribute via any one of those platforms. User click it, create a password, and they are in. The group can be small for a few friends or large for an event. Context stays within the group. Why would you use the Fridge instead of what you are doing right now? With Facebook most people don't really know how to customize their privacy settings and you have no idea how all your friends have it set. If someone shares something with you how do you know their settings aren't public? And using email has it's own set of problems like long reply alls. Subject matter gets lost in branched conversations. People get added or deleted along the way and emails get lost in a sea of email bankruptcy. We aren't solving that problem but trying to provide a better platform to interact in groups.
kordless 16y ago
Yup. From 2003 to 2007, I spent an enormous amount of brainpower thinking about different ways to share photos. In the near term, I failed at it. Here's what I learned: 1. your everyday photo taker won't pay for using a photo sharing site 2. little revenue means assets are measured in the number of users 3. viral adoption is needed to get to a large number of users 4. certain features limit viral adoption 5. people hardly ever upload private photos 6. private photos are only shared with a handful of people 7. photos suck up bandwidth and hard drive space like none other 8. there are lots of other photo sharing competitors Based on all this and about a 100 other observation points (like nobody was going to acquire the current offering) I considered doing a simple offering called FotoFluff. The idea was to create a 'fluff', a collection of photos, and then assign three URLs to it. One to view, one to allow adding, and one to allow edit/delete. You'd only need the URL to do stuff to it, so you could IM it around, or post it in public if you dared. Propegation and commenting was left to the linking sites. Viewing privacy was only as good as the users kept the URL to themselves. Display of the photos was all on one page, with an API to do more if you wanted. Like Imgur, without logins. Delete stuff that never got viewed, or was older than X many days. I just don't think I'd try this again. I'd say it's a damn tough nut to crack.

by cmelbye 16y ago

austinchang 16y ago

We made it super easy to invite friends into a Fridge group. Every group has a private invite URL that you can distribute via any one of those platforms. User click it, create a password, and they are in. The group can be small for a few friends or large for an event. Context stays within the group. Why would you use the Fridge instead of what you are doing right now? With Facebook most people don't really know how to customize their privacy settings and you have no idea how all your friends have it set. If someone shares something with you how do you know their settings aren't public? And using email has it's own set of problems like long reply alls. Subject matter gets lost in branched conversations. People get added or deleted along the way and emails get lost in a sea of email bankruptcy. We aren't solving that problem but trying to provide a better platform to interact in groups.

kordless 16y ago

Yup. From 2003 to 2007, I spent an enormous amount of brainpower thinking about different ways to share photos. In the near term, I failed at it. Here's what I learned: 1. your everyday photo taker won't pay for using a photo sharing site 2. little revenue means assets are measured in the number of users 3. viral adoption is needed to get to a large number of users 4. certain features limit viral adoption 5. people hardly ever upload private photos 6. private photos are only shared with a handful of people 7. photos suck up bandwidth and hard drive space like none other 8. there are lots of other photo sharing competitors Based on all this and about a 100 other observation points (like nobody was going to acquire the current offering) I considered doing a simple offering called FotoFluff. The idea was to create a 'fluff', a collection of photos, and then assign three URLs to it. One to view, one to allow adding, and one to allow edit/delete. You'd only need the URL to do stuff to it, so you could IM it around, or post it in public if you dared. Propegation and commenting was left to the linking sites. Viewing privacy was only as good as the users kept the URL to themselves. Display of the photos was all on one page, with an API to do more if you wanted. Like Imgur, without logins. Delete stuff that never got viewed, or was older than X many days. I just don't think I'd try this again. I'd say it's a damn tough nut to crack.