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.
Maybe the actual target audience is people who think they're pros when they aren't? Sounds about right for both photographers and consumer electronics enthusiasts.
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.
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.
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.
FWIW, 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.
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
I think Instagram has already trained a lot of serious photographers to work in this world. At least until recently, the only way to post to Instagram was via mobile (or some Lightroom plugins or spoofing your desktop browser as a mobile browser). Many photographers were going through the workflow you described and then sending the edited file to their phone for posting.
That being said... this seems like a poor move because photographers are willing to do that to get the audience reach Instagram provides. Glass, on the other hand, requires a subscription and doesn't seem worth the effort yet.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Is someone doing managed Pixelfed instances? I can't find anything. I figured the Masto.host people would be on it by now, but there's nothing on their site.
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.
Frankly, 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.
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.
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.
The 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.
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!
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.
I'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.
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.
[+] [-] jtth|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkr-hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] efraim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnotherGoodName|4 years ago|reply
I think the app is required to manage your collection but it appears you can absolutely share links publicly.
Eg. https://glass.photo/om/3lyGawR7MzJx2M46BMqpsV
^That worked fine?
[+] [-] clusterfish|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perardi|4 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] radicalriddler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ISL|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] notJim|4 years ago|reply
https://glass.photo/royhandy/e8ewjkla
[+] [-] gmaster1440|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jdavis703|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brundolf|4 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] panopticon|4 years ago|reply
That being said... this seems like a poor move because photographers are willing to do that to get the audience reach Instagram provides. Glass, on the other hand, requires a subscription and doesn't seem worth the effort yet.
[+] [-] kredd|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] buildbot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klyrs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sib|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marc|4 years ago|reply
I hope they can gather enough paying members to make it a sustainable business
[+] [-] bonaldi|4 years ago|reply
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|4 years ago|reply
My images (exported from Lightroom, moved to phone via AirDrop, uploaded via the Glass app) all have the metadata intact.
[+] [-] mkr-hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danellis|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] farski|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notJim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imwillofficial|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sib|4 years ago|reply
(@sib)
[+] [-] mkr-hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trymas|4 years ago|reply
Only for iPhone owners?
[+] [-] cge|4 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] DocKitKat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wraptile|4 years ago|reply
You could spend those 5usd/month on hosting your own managed instance or just donating/supporting free, meaningful communities.
1 - https://pixelfed.org/
[+] [-] mkr-hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] somethinggggggg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rchaud|4 years ago|reply
The only reason this is done is so they can advertise on Google Ads without running afoul of their "non-branded terms" policy.
[+] [-] clarge1120|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HomeDeLaPot|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jonshariat|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] catchmeifyoucan|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] andy_ppp|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notJim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwhite_nc|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nbzso|4 years ago|reply
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.