3 ms·

well I'm not as familiar with the space as you, but I've used facebook for example to do exactly what you're proposing. I can share a specific album with other

well I'm not as familiar with the space as you, but I've used facebook for example to do exactly what you're proposing. I can share a specific album with other facebook users, which sounds very similar and you can even create a public link for others to view that album. You can even create Photo Album and share them with other people and people can add to them. So I was assuming your user base was that of more professionals that wanted to be able to have everything in its original format. So what are your differentiators, since you are using facebook login only, where you are just redoing facebook functionality.

kunle 16y ago
The idea is to be robust around groups, and to be dead simple. So as a beta, I only use facebook because quite honestly that was the easiest way for me to get the product out fast, and get feedback. The key differentiator between this and facebook (right now) is that the album is shared i.e. multiple people who were in the same place/event, and shared the same experience, also share the same album. Basically perfect anytime several people do something together and want to have access to everyone's photos, to share, to print, to store, whatever. Our mobile app will extend this functionality live to events happening in real time and will be a way for hundreds of people, taking pictures at the same event, to have all their photos (instagram/picplz etc) in the same album - the end value in this is that it becomes an additional discovery mechanism for people with similar interests. It's important that we break away from a facebook login for example, but this is really the crux of my question; my goal is to build something robust that a lot of people can use, and I'm torn between depth and breadth; depth being making it more useful to the people currently on it for now (and focusing on functionality/UI before acquiring users) or building out features more slowly, and focusing on acquiring more users. If we focus on depth, we'll have a better product sooner, but less users for now, which means less feedback to react to, less traction etc. If we focus on breadth, it will mean more users more quickly, but it will take longer to realize the vision.

kunle 16y ago

The idea is to be robust around groups, and to be dead simple. So as a beta, I only use facebook because quite honestly that was the easiest way for me to get the product out fast, and get feedback. The key differentiator between this and facebook (right now) is that the album is shared i.e. multiple people who were in the same place/event, and shared the same experience, also share the same album. Basically perfect anytime several people do something together and want to have access to everyone's photos, to share, to print, to store, whatever. Our mobile app will extend this functionality live to events happening in real time and will be a way for hundreds of people, taking pictures at the same event, to have all their photos (instagram/picplz etc) in the same album - the end value in this is that it becomes an additional discovery mechanism for people with similar interests. It's important that we break away from a facebook login for example, but this is really the crux of my question; my goal is to build something robust that a lot of people can use, and I'm torn between depth and breadth; depth being making it more useful to the people currently on it for now (and focusing on functionality/UI before acquiring users) or building out features more slowly, and focusing on acquiring more users. If we focus on depth, we'll have a better product sooner, but less users for now, which means less feedback to react to, less traction etc. If we focus on breadth, it will mean more users more quickly, but it will take longer to realize the vision.