[HN Gopher] Glass - Photo sharing app and community
___________________________________________________________________
Glass - Photo sharing app and community
Author : hkc
Score : 118 points
Date : 2021-09-16 14:58 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (glass.photo)
(TXT) w3m dump (glass.photo)
| jtth wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| efraim wrote:
| Not mobile-only, iphone-only. This is a good example of how ios
| is a seperate market and Apple has the monopoly.
| drusepth wrote:
| This seems like a good example of how some devs treat ios
| like a separate market and lose out on a significant portion
| of the potential user pie.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| iOS users are likely to be much higher value than Android
| users.
| Jcowell wrote:
| Still mobile only. The PS4 Spiderman game is Console only
| even if it's a PS4 exclusive.
| bonaldi wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| It 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 wrote:
| Lightroom (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.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Even one (1) queer dude would do. I'd hop right on if I saw a
| professional fursuit photographer on there, for example.
| somethinggggggg wrote:
| Why 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 wrote:
| It 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.
| danellis wrote:
| > 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.
| klyrs wrote:
| It's kinda like saying that a product contains "no chemicals."
| There's a truth that people are reaching for, but the language
| used is deceptive. Clearly, "select * from my_table order by
| insertion_time" is handled by an algorithm... but it isn't
| ranking content by hidden metrics, maximizing engagement, etc.
| that people mean by "algorithm."
|
| When tools are used to do harm, they cease to have neutral
| meanings. Chemistry is villainized because of DDT; medicine is
| villainized because of thalidomide, AR-15s are villainized
| because of mass shootings, etc. Can we expect more nuance of a
| lay-audience?
| rednerrus wrote:
| Also, without an algorithm it's going to be useless. Tik Tok
| works because the algorithm allows you to find new creators.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| Yes, because algorithmic curation is the only form of content
| discovery...
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Algorithm 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]
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This 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.
| sib wrote:
| But it is - sorting by timestamp is certainly an algorithm.
| groby_b wrote:
| In a world where people nitpick each other to death, sure.
| Meanwhile, in the real world, language has meaning beyond
| the literal expression.
|
| And I'm willing to put money on the fact that their target
| audience understands perfectly what "no algorithm" means.
| Heck, even the people complaining know what it means, they
| just like being right.
| [deleted]
| itake wrote:
| a 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?
| notJim wrote:
| In the common language used these days, "the algorithm"
| refers to the sorting/reranking companies like Facebook and
| now Twitter do to attempt to show you posts you're most
| likely to engage with. I think the vast majority of people
| reading that Glass has "no algorithm" will understand this.
| perardi wrote:
| Insert 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-7...
| nbzso wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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 wrote:
| I think you grossly overestimates the the technical knowledge
| of the general public .. but yea making a service iPhone only
| is just lazy ..
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| 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.
| brundolf wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| Although 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.
| shosko wrote:
| $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 wrote:
| 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.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| 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.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| $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 $ ->
| $$.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| 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.
| shosko wrote:
| My 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.
| trymas wrote:
| > Photography Community
|
| Only for iPhone owners?
| DocKitKat wrote:
| Pretty common for mobile apps to start on iOS only.
| sswezey wrote:
| Especially 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.
| cge wrote:
| It 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?
| frostburg wrote:
| It's not a great workflow but everyone serious does it with
| instagram, too (even with phone photos, doing post on the
| phone is awful).
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Early 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.
| CR007 wrote:
| I 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.
| derekdahmer wrote:
| Has a subscription-only social network ever been successful?
| LordAtlas wrote:
| Oh, wonderful. iOS only. They can bugger right off. I'm not
| buying a fucking iPhone just to use their app.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| It 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 wrote:
| needs a freemium model, also android and desktop versions
| athenot wrote:
| Is this essentially a reboot of Flikr, for mobile first?
| mkr-hn wrote:
| It 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.
| 1shooner wrote:
| 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.
| reginold wrote:
| I hear you. At least it's not free. Free is a red flag these
| days.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| "sell to" as in sell their company to another company, not sell
| your data to another company.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| At least they're being honest and up front about the
| consequences of their business being acquired.
| [deleted]
| ISL wrote:
| Does 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 wrote:
| They're currently working on a "Discover" feature, which will
| likely come to the native app before it's available on the web.
| notJim wrote:
| Oddly 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
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Are there public "profiles" of user accounts to see how a non
| user of glass.photo would get to see my photos?
| gargron wrote:
| Any chance of this becoming part of the ActivityPub fediverse?
| notJim wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| There 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| beyondcompute wrote:
| There'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? :)
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Instagram 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.
| beyondcompute wrote:
| That got downvoted fast. Typical Hacker News. (*)
| clarge1120 wrote:
| I read HN almost every day, and the speed at which a comment
| can be eliminated my biggest complaint.
| farski wrote:
| I 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.
| notJim wrote:
| Is this the thread where we post our usernames? I'm @deets.
| sib wrote:
| Discovery is definitely pretty limited right now...
|
| (@sib)
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Hit me up! Me and my 3 random pictures could use somebody to
| follow. @imwill
| subpixel wrote:
| How is this substantially different from VSCO?
| bringfyre wrote:
| iOS only. When will an Android version be available?
| [deleted]
| HomeDeLaPot wrote:
| I 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.
| timmg wrote:
| I'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.
| sneak wrote:
| According 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.
| lucideer wrote:
| A 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).
| aaroninsf wrote:
| I 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.
| buildbot wrote:
| 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.
| klyrs wrote:
| 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.
| brundolf wrote:
| I think it can work as a subscription, but offering a free
| trial seems important
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| This 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.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| There are plenty of ways to incrementally provide features to
| paying users on something like this while still making the
| base model free.
| buildbot wrote:
| Sure 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.
| sib wrote:
| When I signed up (last month), there was a free trial in place.
| Is it gone now?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-16 23:00 UTC)