Picurio (YC W09) unveils camera-in-browser for Mac/Safari
blog.picurio.com
blog.picurio.com
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.
I would like to think they ran analytic s on their traffic and noticed Safari as the browser they get the most visits from.
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.
Statement: awesome
Question: can it handle RAW files?
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.
http://www.alertdebugging.com/2009/08/16/on-html-5-drag-and-...
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).
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?
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.
No, thanks.
If it's not going to work as advertised (and it's advertised as being a quick and painless plugin), then what's the point?
You could assist them and other prospective users by helping them fix it.
Or you could sneer. Whatever you want.
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.
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.
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.