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.
Insert an obvious and oft-repeated lament that Flickr could have thrived if they had been managed properly.<p>But gosh, Flickr was and is so good. (At least on desktop.) The simple fact I can <i>link to a photo with an obvious download button</i> and it shows up as a real webpage and not a lightbox or something is sadly remarkable.<p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/51209773555/in/album-72157719292175571/" rel="nofollow">https://www.flickr.com/photos/perardi/51209773555/in/album-7...</a>
Does it interact with the open web? Are there examples of public-facing profiles one might see?<p>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.)<p>When I edit photos and organize them I use a computer because it has a big screen. Again my phone isn't involved.<p>Why then do they require an app? It doesn't bother me that they <i>have</i> 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.
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'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.<p>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.<p>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.
> No algorithms<p>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.
Pixelfed[1] is a free, federated and brilliant instagram alternative for photographers!<p>You could spend those 5usd/month on hosting your own managed instance or just donating/supporting free, meaningful communities.<p>1 - <a href="https://pixelfed.org/" rel="nofollow">https://pixelfed.org/</a>
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.
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).<p>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.<p>Ads, design for addiction/engagement, bad abuse prevention.<p>I think more apps will bubble up to disrupt the big companies that don't adapt to these needs.<p>Its starting now but I see this happening over the next 10 years.
This 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.<p>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!<p>Edit: Seems like you get a 14 day trial. But that just feels forced. Like I have to interact because I’m paying.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>And one more thing: Making a service iPhone only is not cool. Apple is not cool anymore.
I am enjoying this, though it is very feature-sparse at the moment. That may be part of why I am enjoying it.<p>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.<p>The rate of timeline refresh is still quite low, though I've "followed" a few dozen people.<p>It feels like a proof of concept at the moment but it's slowly quietly coming along.
$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.
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).<p>Is there a world where everyone pays a subscription fee to N different web/mobile/social apps? I'm skeptical.
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.
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.<p>Bummer they don't have a website.
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.
There’s not that much wrong with Facebook or Instagram. They are what <i>we</i> 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? :)
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.<p>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.<p>Without that, it's basically just a less-usable Instagram (Instagram has a website with login at least).
Homepage:<p>>Glass is subscription-based, which means we won’t sell your data<p>Privacy Policy:<p>>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.
"Safety as a priority, not an afterthought<p>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."<p>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?