5 ms·
Well, I understand the differentiation, but I don't see the value-add for me. But that's just my personal opinion.
by ph0rque 19y ago
Well, I understand the differentiation, but I don't see the value-add for me.
But that's just my personal opinion.
- davidw 19y agoSomething that might make a difference for me is that I actually get to keep a bit of the money the site makes with advertisements. There's no way I'm going to pay someone to host my photos when I can do it myself and make some money at it.
- brlewis 19y agoIf there's enough interest in your photos that you could make nontrivial money from ads near them, then you're not in my target market. Skilled artistic photographers are well-served by existing photo-sharing sites. This one is for photos whose value is in the story they tell.
- davidw 19y agoI make trivial money from them. Enough for hosting and a bottle of wine now and then. But that sure beats paying someone to host them.
- brlewis 19y agoI expect few if any news.yc people are in the target market, but I want to wait and get more answers before I elaborate. I want answers based solely on what's seen on the page, not informed by comments here.
- davidw 19y agoI guess what you need to figure out is how strong the network effects are for other photo sites. People seem to like the community aspect of flickr, for instance, and they lose that if they go to your site. That said, yeah, there's probably a lot of people who don't put their photos on line yet who might go for something less 'cool'.
- brlewis 19y agoYou're getting the idea. There are millions of people out there whose photos sit on their hard drive, never to see the light of day. The early-adopter types are well served by flickr, pbase, smugmug and others.