Hi, this is a project I've been working on for about 2 months. I am definitely not a designer, so I tried to keep the GUI to minimum and really make the presentation about photos and as fluid as possible.<p>Any feedback welcome! :)
Nice, looks like you've been annoyed at some of the same things I have for a while. A couple of questions:<p>1) Unlimited. So you will keep a copy my 1000s of 10-20mb RAW files for 8 USD/Month ?<p>2) Unlimited part two: How about a x/dollars/month > N<i>xGB of storage (Where N is magic:)? IE: Some transparency towards your margins? And accounts for those that don't need quite 100USD/Year worth of service? I absolutely see that having a treshhold makes sense, but to me 8/Month seems high.<p>3) Since you're probably </i>not* actually <i>unlimited</i> -- who are your target users? Someone with 1000s of high quality jpegs? Someone fed up with picasa/flickr/etc ? Do you have an actual roof on bandwidth?<p>4) The scaling: Do you do it browser side (ie: most of the pictures are rather shoddy quality compared to custom scaled/cropped images?)? Some of it server side, some browser side?<p>5) Which formats do you support? (Jpeg2000, other high quality formats?)
Nice interface.<p>When you click on a picture, the slideshow should be paused by default. I found it annoying when the picture I was checking changed automatically.<p>I did not see the pause button at first sight, you should make it bigger and put it bottom center, and by default it should be a "play slideshow" button.
"Because I want to share photos across all my online and offline personas - not tie them down to a single social network or app."<p>I'm personally happy to know that this is the underlying sentiment, and I'd guess that the photo community feels the same way.
Is your target professionals or consumers?<p>As a consumer I'm always incredibly wary of things that seem too good to be true. I don't understand how you can scale the economics of $8/month with <i>unlimited</i> storage. When I see that it induces scepticism that you'll be around for the long term, and one thing I <i>really</i> do not want is my lifetime archive of photos suddenly disappearing on me one day.<p>A second point - for me these days, getting photos uploaded to storage is as key as the storage itself. If you have a story about that (smart phone apps, background uploaders, APIs, dropbox, picasa, flickr or other integration) then I would like to see it. The drag and drop is neat, but it doesn't work at scale. I want something that's going to upload the photos automatically.
Initial thoughts:<p>- "Dofsome... How am I supposed to pronounce that?" After a minute of hypotheses, I realized that it's a clever mashup of DOF (Depth of Field, i.e. photography jargon) and Awesome. I wonder how many people will figure that out. Maybe give a pronunciation hint somewhere, e.g. (pronounced DOFF-some). (Doff some? Doff some what? Some clothing? Is this an intentional double entendre?)<p>- The key feature, the full-width gallery of thumbnails, seems like a feature that would be easy for others to replicate. Google+ albums are already similar but with chrome around them. Squarespace has some templates with similar look; their hosting also starts at $8/month, but they offer way more than photo galleries/portfolios.<p>- I'm also reminded of Jux (jux.com) which is a beautiful idea. If you haven't explored their demos, please do! I'd happily pay for a Jux-based website, but they decided to be free, and so I won't go anywhere near them; why would I host my photos on a service that has no way to keep running long-term?
I'd like a way to be able to access a full-resolution version of the image. (Fwiw I didn't watch the video.)<p>I couldn't zoom in the image with with browser zoom (ctrl-+/wheelup), it breaks badly when I do that (Firefox nightly Ubuntu).
$8/month ($96/year) seems kind of steep considering that's more expensive than Flickr and 500px pro-type accounts.<p>FWIW I really like this idea and focus.
My initial response was that I would use it but I'm price sensitive thanks to 500px accounts ($20 & $50 yr).<p>Flickr also includes video so that might be something to iterate.<p>Maybe you could offer subdomain for that price?<p>Excellent design. I prefer the static display as default over the slideshow. I want to appreciate the image quality not use it as a digital frame.
The video is a nice idea but it would be better if I could browse the demo shown in the video myself, just try the UI out, w/o register, w/o uploading photos. Just see how it looks and works.<p>Edit: Just found the demo, but it is too close to the "Register" button. I didn't notice that it is a separate button.
Thanks for the terrific feedback guys, here AND the UserVoice.<p>To be honest, I am super-surprised that nobody complained about the google-only login. Maybe a sampling bias here at HN?
I really like this. Great idea. The main issue I see is pricing. I would offer a yearly option. Also, creating a Lightroom plugin would go a long way with more serious photographers.
well-focused service in an interesting space. i'm not serious enough about photography to pay the price tag, but would love to see how this develops - best of luck to you.
I think you're missing a trick. Genuinely chrome-less could be pretty useful, and more attractive.<p>The small black navigation bar at the top of the screen could be done away with, if you change your URL structure to be more easily understood & manipulated.<p>From shoulder surfing various people of various levels of tech experience, i've noticed they are quite happy to edit a logically structured url in the address bar to navigate where they want to go quickly. For example, if the site doesn't provide an easy "up one level" ability.