15 ms·
Glass – Photo sharing app and community
- trymas 5y ago> Photography Community Only for iPhone owners?
- DocKitKat 5y agoPretty common for mobile apps to start on iOS only.
- sswezey 5y agoEspecially since iOS users spend more money. From my experience, you can have equivalent apps for iOS and Android, yet the iOS version will drive 90% of revenue. If I were them I wouldn't bother creating an Android version until they've proven the model works with iOS. If it doesn't work with iOS, adding Android will only slow their dev velocity and increase their burn rate.
- wraptile 5y agoIt's becoming a chicken or the egg issue. Every time I open up Play store "premium" apps section is complete trash and "freemium" apps are design in either milking the ads (free but 20 second ad after every action) or the whales (paying 160usd/year subscription for a phone app) - no one is serving middle-class consumer on Android. Then creators complain that there's no middle-class consumer market on Android? Glass already went to the trash bin for me. If you can barely support 1 app at 5usd/month price point what sort of longevity message is that sending?
- aabbcc1241 5y agoBut why not an webapp from the beginning ?
- cge 5y agoIt certainly appears to be. That's a bit confusing, however. Every example photograph rather prominently notes the camera, not phone, it was taken with. The features seem primarily useful for camera-and-raw-processing photographers. The website doesn't seem to indicate that it's iPhone only, but the feedback section, and the lack of any way to log in or sign up other than the link to the iOS App Store, certainly suggests that it is. The feedback section even suggests that it doesn't support iPads well, and is phone-focused. What's the intended usage here? Take a photograph with your camera, transfer it to your computer, process it there, export it... then transfer it to your phone in order to post it? Why?
- farski 5y agoI found it very hard to figure out how to choose content, since I don't personally know anyone using the app yet. I like the concept, and I don't think I want an algorithm as a lunachpad, but Flickr always had groups/categories/etc that helped with discovery. I was surprised Glass didn't have anything similar to that. It felt like a huge hurdle to get into the app.
- imwillofficial 5y agoHit me up! Me and my 3 random pictures could use somebody to follow. @imwill
- sib 5y agoDiscovery is definitely pretty limited right now... (@sib)
- notJim 5y agoIs this the thread where we post our usernames? I'm @deets.
- buildbot 5y agoIt’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.
- klyrs 5y agoI 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.
- DeusExMachina 5y agoThis is not necessarily a bad business strategy. At the beginning it can be better to focus on the people willing to pay up front. It allows you to test the market and to focus on the feedback of paying customers. You can add free trials and optimize for revenue later.
- buildbot 5y agoSure that can't be free - maybe allow free accounts with restricted uploads in size/number? Or even a free trail without the subscription signup that locks the account instead. I'm pretty leery of trails that autoconvert to subscriptions, though using an iPhone makes this less awful.
- andy_ppp 5y agoThere are plenty of ways to incrementally provide features to paying users on something like this while still making the base model free.
- brundolf 5y agoI think it can work as a subscription, but offering a free trial seems important
- sib 5y agoWhen I signed up (last month), there was a free trial in place. Is it gone now?
- athenot 5y agoIs this essentially a reboot of Flikr, for mobile first?
- ISL 5y agoDoes it interact with the open web? Are there examples of public-facing profiles one might see? As Instagram closes down its interoperability with the open web even further (try visiting pages in an Incognito window -- sign-in is rapidly required), it opens the door to photo-sharing sites that are better net-citizens.
- gmaster1440 5y agoThey're currently working on a "Discover" feature, which will likely come to the native app before it's available on the web.
- notJim 5y agoOddly enough, one of their screenshots shows a URL[1], but that url doesn't actually work if you go to it. https://glass.photo/royhandy/e8ewjkla https://glass.photo/royhandy/e8ewjkla
- AnotherGoodName 5y agoThey do have valid links further down the homepage though. https://glass.photo/om/3lyGawR7MzJx2M46BMqpsV https://glass.photo/om/3lyGawR7MzJx2M46BMqpsV
- danellis 5y ago> No algorithms I don't like this particular lie. It seems like as soon as we find it acceptable to tell it, we get to choose how complex or user-hostile the algorithm gets to be while still telling the same lie.
- rednerrus 5y agoAlso, without an algorithm it's going to be useless. Tik Tok works because the algorithm allows you to find new creators.
- CarelessExpert 5y agoYes, because algorithmic curation is the only form of content discovery...
- 8ytecoder 5y agoAlgorithm for discovery and algorithm for sorting are two different things as well. I’d love to see recommendations for people to follow. But from those I follow I want a chronological order.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- imwillofficial 5y agoThis is not a lie. This is a shorthand to quickly convey a meaningful feature. Namely, no algorithmic timeline manipulating what you see. It’s just that, a timeline. Next you’ll be telling me that calling something “cool” is a lie, because that new T-shirt doesn’t have a low temperature.
- itake 5y agoa timeline is an algorithm? Wait until people start gaming the timeline based algorithm by deleting and re-posting images, so they stay at the top slot. When does "no algorithm" become an algorithm? When you add ML?
- jtth 5y agoI 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 viewing image galleries on my phone when I have a 27" iMac 5k and Flickr shows me over a decade of photos collected from every type of photography enthusiast.
- mkr-hn 5y agoI used a few Flickr embeds on my site and it reminded me of all the promise of composability and interoperability in the early web. I miss it.
- Abishek_Muthian 5y ago> promise of composability and interoperability in the early web. I miss it. Then avoiding embeds altogether and choosing hyperlinks is the way to go. Came to this realization after having to remove embeds from what was a cool platform to begin with and later turning out to be soul sucking privacy nightmare.
- mkr-hn 5y agoWhy would I do that? Flickr embeds still work fine after almost 20 years and did even when Yahoo owned it. They're now owned by a company that sells real, actual things in service to paying customers and has for a long time (older than Flickr), so I don't see any reason they would go the route most widget/embeds did and pile trackers in. Incentives are the key. AdTech took over most things, but this is a rare oasis of that lost web.
- Abishek_Muthian 5y agoMy comment was neither specific to Flickr nor whether embeds technically work but on the issue of privacy, security and performance of a website especially since the notion of 'early web' was invoked.
- bonaldi 5y agoThis falls uneasily between two stools for me. For a photography-focused space, it doesn't have anything like the wealth of photography tools and data that Flickr does (or even just EXIF). For a community space, it doesn't have bookmarking or nudging or sufficient interaction beyond comments to make that work for me either. Both those things can be secondary if it's exposing you to great new work and new trends in photography, but the onboarding didn't bode well on that front: of all the photographers it suggested I follow there was one woman and one non-white person in the mix. That's not a slam dunk on their work but it did turn out (from what I can see) to all be in a very similar sort of "late-millennial white man with a mirrorless" niche.
- sib 5y agoIt shows a limited subset of the EXIF (camera, ISO, focal length, aperture, shutter speed) - although I notice that not all images have the data, so I don't know whether it's stripped by the person uploading it or somewhere in some version of their pipeline. My images (exported from Lightroom, moved to phone via AirDrop, uploaded via the Glass app) all have the metadata intact.
- perardi 5y agoLightroom (or at least Lightroom Classic) defaults to embedding all metadata, but it’s exposed fairly prominently in the Export dialog, so I suppose people turn it off to, I dunno, hide their secret sauce.
- sib 5y agoSorry, I meant that "my images ... still have their basic metadata intact ... when they get to Glass" (so Glass is not trying to remove it).
- mkr-hn 5y agoEven one (1) queer dude would do. I'd hop right on if I saw a professional fursuit photographer on there, for example.
- somethinggggggg 5y agoWhy do companies insist on choosing non-unique, generic names for their products these days? I’m going to forget that “glass” means a photo app the second I close this tab.
- clarge1120 5y agoIt will take a lot of marketing to overcome this fact. "Glass" is a fine name that helps while you're taking in the features/benefits, but it does not help at all with retention.
- rchaud 5y agoFrankly, that's the company's problem. Personally, it's much more annoying when startups name themselves with intentionally misspelled words. Optimizely, Musical.ly, come to mind right away, but there are loads of others. The only reason this is done is so they can advertise on Google Ads without running afoul of their "non-branded terms" policy.
- reacharavindh 5y agoAre there public “profiles” of user accounts to see how a non user of glass.photo would get to see my photos?
- bringfyre 5y agoiOS only. When will an Android version be available?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rchaud 5y agoProbably moments after the "new cool iOS app" hype cycle fades.
- timmg 5y agoI'm really curious to see the winning business model for apps like this. Everyone is used to free web apps. No one wants to pay. And people have become more and more worried about ads (many people block them). Is there a world where everyone pays a subscription fee to N different web/mobile/social apps? I'm skeptical.
- jdminhbg 5y ago> Is there a world where everyone pays a subscription fee to N different web/mobile/social apps? I'm skeptical. There seems to be a world of people paying subscriptions to N different Substacks, and on a different scale, to N different streaming services. I doubt you are going to be Instagram big on this model, but I think you could build a pretty large business here, beyond just a lifestyle company.
- rchaud 5y agoI think that's the point of launching only with iOS. the App Store helps manage subscriptions, so theoretically there's less friction when it's time to ask the user to pay.
- imwillofficial 5y agoEarly beta user of glass, and although it’s not super polished yet, the dedication to their mission, and well designed execution that puts users first makes this one a must have subscription. That’s a list I can count on one hand.
- mkr-hn 5y agoIt says "for professional and amateur photographers alike" but I'm not sure most professionals will want to spend 25% of the cost of Adobe's photography plan for a marketing channel that isn't already in the sweet spot between mainstream uptake (where customers and clients are) and oversaturation.
- gargron 5y agoAny chance of this becoming part of the ActivityPub fediverse?
- beyondcompute 5y agoThere’s not that much wrong with Facebook or Instagram. They are what we make them. You won’t have a new kind of community unless you somehow create a new kind of human. Or unless you introduce some kind of requirements for people who wish to enter. But that’s maybe “elitist”, right? :)
- beyondcompute 5y agoThat got downvoted fast. Typical Hacker News. (ᵔ◡ᵔ)
- clarge1120 5y agoI read HN almost every day, and the speed at which a comment can be eliminated my biggest complaint.
- mkr-hn 5y agoInstagram wouldn't let me make an account. Even if I could make one, I'd have to think about what it means to link someone directly into Facebook's data collecting juggernaut by sharing a photo since the only way to view them nowadays is with an account.
- aaroninsf 5y agoI am enjoying this, though it is very feature-sparse at the moment. That may be part of why I am enjoying it. At the moment it is fairly easy to find high-quality work, I find it most akin to the experience of browsing an art fair or open galleries night: wandering without direction between exhibits, some of which are quite strong, others not interesting to me. The rate of timeline refresh is still quite low, though I've "followed" a few dozen people. It feels like a proof of concept at the moment but it's slowly quietly coming along.
- LordAtlas 5y agoOh, wonderful. iOS only. They can bugger right off. I'm not buying a fucking iPhone just to use their app.
- notJim 5y agoI've been thinking of making something like this for many years. It's unfortunate how hostile Instagram is towards photographers, considering it's the main place people engage with photography. Will definitely be giving this a shot.
- marckohlbrugge 5y agoI've been using Glass for a couple of months now and it's really a breath of fresh air compared to Instagram. The focus is on the photography instead of sharing your lifestyle or whatever Instagram is meant to be these days. I hope they can gather enough paying members to make it a sustainable business
- djanogo 5y ago"Safety as a priority, not an afterthought Our community has no space for hate. Glass is committed to creating a safe space for photographers. Members are required to follow our Code of Conduct. Blocking, reporting, and account deletion are day-one features." I thought photography is art, which would challenge peoples ideas or thoughts, and this policy seems to indicate they will delete your account if they think it's offensive?
- mkr-hn 5y agoThere has to be some standard of interaction or genuine, self-described genocidal nuts will take over. See: every attempt to create a moderation-free platform. The only people who'll stick around are real monsters and people who don't think they'll be the target if the monsters execute their plans.
- frumper 5y agoI read that quote entirely different, this site seems to be billing itself as a community with a code of conduct. It's entirely possible to have ideas challenged while being respectful and courteous towards other people. It's also possible that your art may not be accepted by the site and community, and this community isn't a good fit for you.
- lucideer 5y agoA lot of other commenters have mentioned the subscription paywall being a big issue, but even beyond that I find it very difficult to take a community "for photographers" seriously when it can't be used from a computer. I get that iPhone cameras have come a long way, and the photos they produce are now of professional quality, but the fact I can't even use this service at all from a computer with a old-school traditional lensed dslr is absolutely wild. Without that, it's basically just a less-usable Instagram (Instagram has a website with login at least).
- perardi 5y agoInsert an obvious and oft-repeated lament that Flickr could have thrived if they had been managed properly. But gosh, Flickr was and is so good. (At least on desktop.) The simple fact I can link to a photo with an obvious download button and it shows up as a real webpage and not a lightbox or something is sadly remarkable. https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/51209773555/in/album-72157719292175571/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/51209773555/in/album-7...
- radicalriddler 5y agoAnd those keyboard shortcuts, so clearly displayed! You just don't see it these days.
- sneak 5y agoAccording to the privacy label, this app fits my definition of spyware (by force uploading activity data without my opt in or consent) so there's no chance I will be installing it. Bummer they don't have a website.
- nbzso 5y agoI really, really don't understand why I have to put my self in the position to be censured, scanned or to not have control over the UX. It is 2021, hosting is dirt cheap, there are proven ways to create a blog and share with your audience. Paying to someone for the "privilege" of participation is not valuable. Investing in your own brand is valuable. If you have social network needs use established platforms for sharing, but link to your own site. And one more thing: Making a service iPhone only is not cool. Apple is not cool anymore.
- poniko 5y agoI think you grossly overestimates the the technical knowledge of the general public .. but yea making a service iPhone only is just lazy ..
- amelius 5y ago> I really, really don't understand why I have to put my self in the position to be censured, scanned or to not have control over the UX. People said the same when YouTube became a thing. > And one more thing: Making a service iPhone only is not cool. Apple is not cool anymore. Fully agree here.
- nbzso 5y agoThe difference about before and now is clear. Cost of self-hosting is low and increased algorithmic control over content is making UX unbearable for artistic use cases. That is my point. It is obvious that content silos will be monetized and explored to the infinity, but there is a point where "the common denominator" sanitized content is barely bearable. :)
- shosko 5y ago$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.
- satvikpendem 5y agoThose 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.
- KoftaBob 5y agoWhen 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.
- satvikpendem 5y agoSure 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.
- shosko 5y agoMy 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.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago$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 $ -> $$.
- 1shooner 5y agoHomepage: >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.
- reginold 5y agoI hear you. At least it's not free. Free is a red flag these days.
- KoftaBob 5y ago“sell to” as in sell their company to another company, not sell your data to another company.
- TeMPOraL 5y agoAt least they're being honest and up front about the consequences of their business being acquired.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CR007 5y agoI won't ever use an app where I don't control where the stuff is stored. No thank you, that's why I create and advocate for self-hosted software.
- andy_ppp 5y agoIt might be great but my friends won’t be paying for it so I won’t see their photos and they won’t see mine. As horrible as it is to say, I don’t actually mind Instagram ads that much, they often help me to find what I’m looking for or jog me to buy the packing materials I need to order!
- dave333 5y agoneeds a freemium model, also android and desktop versions
- dreamcompiler 5y agoWhen 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.
- brundolf 5y agoI 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
- kredd 5y agoAlthough 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.
- jdavis703 5y agoFWIW, I have a DSLR (used to be semi-pro, now just a hobbyist). I use Lightroom and Photoshop on my iPad. I never touch my desktop anymore. Clearly, your workflow may require desktop software. But I believe it's possible to create high-quality work without a desktop these days.
- subpixel 5y agoHow is this substantially different from VSCO?
- Apocryphon 5y agoYeah, whatever happened to VSCO?
- derekdahmer 5y agoHas a subscription-only social network ever been successful?
- HomeDeLaPot 5y agoI 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.
- catchmeifyoucan 5y agoThis 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.
- jonshariat 5y agoThe most interesting part for me is how they position themselves. They are essentially aiming at the things people hate about their competitors and that their competitor can't easily change. Ads, design for addiction/engagement, bad abuse prevention. I think more apps will bubble up to disrupt the big companies that don't adapt to these needs. Its starting now but I see this happening over the next 10 years.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- amelius 5y agoHow long until you can make money with photos, they turn on ads, and the platform will be exactly like YouTube, except now for photos?
- jwhite_nc 5y agoI've been using the app since it was invite only and I gladly paid the yearly fee. Is the app perfect? No but what app is right out of the gate? I find the subscription the most useful feature of the app. Knowing there's a gate on the app ($$$ wise) has made my interactions with other photographers more worthwhile and genuine. There's currently one purpose here vs a million reasons other than photography on Instagram. As far as usability uploading photos from my main camera isn't hard. All those photos get dropped and managed in OneDrive so when I'm ready to upload I can upload from my phone without a problem.
- ekianjo 5y agoWait until they pivot to become the new trendy sns
- wraptile 5y agoPixelfed[1] is a free, federated and brilliant instagram alternative for photographers! You could spend those 5usd/month on hosting your own managed instance or just donating/supporting free, meaningful communities. 1 - https://pixelfed.org/ https://pixelfed.org/
- aabbcc1241 5y ago$5/month is almost the cost of a low end vps. Shouldn't the fee be lower due to economy of scale?