Not to get into a flamewar about OS'es, but why start out with Safari? If you're looking for a large demographic, which I presume is the case, it would make the most sense to develop primarily for IE,then Firefox, then Safari.
Is it a question of trying to get opinion leaders (typically mac users) to try it out first, are there technical reasons or is it something else?
In the early stage, it's more important to get the product right than find the biggest market. I'm guessing the developers use Safari, and they want to 'eat their own dog food'.
I know I'd feel like a shitheel writing an ActiveX plugin for IE.
The last several major versions of Mozilla have inanely required you to fully restart your browser process to install any extensions or NSAPI plugins, and you aren't allowed to have multiple browser processes touching the same profile. It's a fucking conversion killer.
A large part of Greasemonkey's existence is due to how poorly architected extensions are -- the full restart, zero sandboxing, etc.
Webkit's native plugin API is really goddamn cool but I don't think any shipping software used it before ClickToFlash.
Question: any business plan that you can share? I ask because we deal with pro photographers (lots of them). If you wanted a paying customer, I would license this from you.
Partly because every implementation of HTML5 drag and drop has a lot of bugs. Partly because the API is terrible. And partly because the reach is still pretty terrible compared to things like flash.
At the moment I plug in my camera, iPhoto opens, I click 'Import All', go back to my browser click Browse, click Media, click iPhoto, click 'Last Import' and click the photo I'm after.
Whilst you are saving a few clicks out of that routine, you're also asking me to install something that ties me to Safari so that I can save a couple of clicks and not have a local copy; so I haven't bothered trying it.
I think I understand the value you're trying to offer but I'm not convinced that what you have is sufficiently better than what already exists (at least on OS X).
The experience when you're trying to upload a dozen or a hundred photos is obviously different. The current reality of multi file uploads is still pretty poor in the browser (though the new Facebook photo uploader looks pretty slick).
The experience when you're trying to upload a dozen or a hundred photos is obviously different.
How so? In my experience when I have needed to upload multiple files the website has presented a Flash based uploader that really only differs from a native HTML form in that it allows for multiple photos to be selected in the browse dialog. I've never uploaded more than perhaps half a dozen photos at a time using one of these - do they not scale to hundreds of files?
I'm not clear on what the relevance of your comment is. To quickly recap — I'm contrasting what Picurio offers via a plugin for Safari against what's available in all the browsers on my machine today; which includes Flash based uploaders that allow you to select multiple files in the browse dialog. What were you trying to convey with your comment?
I'm sorry, I misread your comment as stating that there was no real benefit to getting multiple-select, that it'd be just fine to present multiple file <input>s without the baggage that flash brings along.
I wonder, do modern people store all their photos in the cloud? I still have folders, and only upload the occasional pic into the cloud.
Not to detract from picurio. My initial reaction was "I don't need it", but it could well be one of those things you don't want to miss anymore if you have tried them once.
It clearly works well enough in their own testing for them to be comfortable releasing it. That it's not working for you indicates there's something going on they don't know about.
You could assist them and other prospective users by helping them fix it.
>It works by using a Mac/Safari plugin that installs in seconds and doesn't require a browser restart. It makes uploading a cinch. Why don't all photo sites do this? We have no idea.
I would be willing to bet that some people don't like installing a plugin and that is why the other photo sites don't do that.
You'd think so. But at Songkick, we thought that the friction point would be people installing the plugin, and it was surprising how many people downloaded it, even not knowing entirely what it did. (One thought that it would play free music, not monitor listening habits on iTunes.)
That's true. However, a lot of photos sites have uploaders to make upload more convenient. (I believe there's usually a 5-file limitation when doing HTML upload or something like that, right?* Plus, you need to select each picture one by one)
This is basically the same thing. Except that it's right in the browser rather than a separate tool. And looking at their product, it seems to make a lot of sense.
But, I wouldn't be surprised if the thought process for many of the photo sites was: do we make one uploader for Windows and one for Mac or do we make a plugin for Safari for Mac, Firefox for Mac, Safari for Windows, Internet Explorer… (without even thinking about versions of OS)
* edit: apparently there are no limits but the one sites put themselves. The biggest limit is the need to go file by file.
I believe there's usually a 5-file limitation when doing HTML upload or something like that, right?
No, there's no such limit. Although most people have their web server set to disallow more than say 10 uploads at once.
You can do some awesome uploaders with Javascript, and either iFrames or Flash. But to do the camera import you need to get outside the browser sandbox, so a plugin does seem like the best way.
I agree, it looks like a compelling product. Many of my family members use sites like EasyShare instead of a "better" site like flickr because they can import directly from the camera.
Is it a question of trying to get opinion leaders (typically mac users) to try it out first, are there technical reasons or is it something else?
Just curious.