faizanaziz

Thanks for your advice… Our logic was that since most people know about photo sharing we need to tell them how our product is different. Then we can say what other features we have.

We will look into it

App.net is a paid service. Twitter is a free service supported by ads. The whole premise of the article is that "Pixter is an ad-free photo sharing social network". Thats how we equate it.

We finish the article by "Over the last year, paid services like App.net and Posthaven have gained traction. Pixter is heavily inspired by these services, we want to thank Dalton and the team over at App.net for inspiring us."

This is not an announcement for pixter. We did that sometime back. This article is about difference between free vs paid services and why we chose to build pixter. We do have an introduction paragraph about pixter without which the article would not make sense to people who don't know what pixter is. Sorry about that, it was not our intention.

To make it clear I have added Pixter to the title

Oops, brainfucked!

Fixed BTW

As a person who cares about technology in general, its not that simple to make that choice. Especially when your just starting of…

Thanks for your feedback, will definitely look into it

We wanted use instagram but with App.net's TOS/Privacy and general interest towards users.

I would say inspired by both of them

This whole product… The app and the web server was built by 2 guys in about 3 months… If we need to have good quality apps we need to spend time on them. We launched iOS first because of higher willingness to pay(usually). Stay tuned for more

Thanks for that…

'break;'

++++++++++[ > +++++ +++ > +++++ +++++ << - ] > -- . > +++++ . ----- - . ++ . > +++++ +++++ .

Great… Would love an up vote

Thanks

These services that are owned by big companies and are generally free (1 TB limit) don't have an incentive to make something for the user. They care about their customers the advertisers. You should rather invest in a service that's built by people who love photos and build the service with a clear business model. A model that powers the user. Where the user pays for the service and thus becomes the customer. Now any decision the company makes it has to put the users first who are the customers.

I am one such person who feels this way about these giant social networks. So I built http://pixter.in , a service that puts users first. Do check it out.

We started building this app / service in feb 2013. The whole app and service has been built by one programmer and one designer in about 3 months. This includes building the complete back end and the app.

We want to release an android / other OS versions but we have limited time and we will try to do so ASAP.

Please visit the website. There I explain what the problem is.

In summary, since the user does not pay them and they need to be profitable there only option is to sell the resource they have. That is the users content. But selling really personal things like photos will be a huge deal and the users will get really upset. So instead they term it as 'sub liscence your photos / personal information' to third parties. Which basically means that advertisers can use your photos / personal information.

Would really prefer if you make all the changes how much improvement can be seen. This would put into perspective what the optimisation means.

Does anyone know wether it will be good for python dev?

All good things come to end. Well...

Painless sever management is slowly becoming painful again :(

Worse if you are tied into the AWS ecosystem. You can't even move out or even have backup servers in other places.

Some loved it, some hated it. Others didn't play with it :)

Seems like October 2011 has taken the best of tech, each great in their own way... RIP John McCarthy

This is something unexpected... Why can't a BETA product that can search in a map in a place not search in another place. Are you suggesting that making a Google maps search is different in USA and Australia and even if so, all jwilson511 is saying is please mention it somewhere before someone purchases the product.

Thanks for the advice

Apple wants Cache (stuff that can be re downloaded and not core to the experience, just to improve performance) to actually be deletable when space is low. A valid point.

Developers want a place to store app information that is critical and sometimes a very important part of the app(example main feature of instapaper is to view offline content). This should not be backed up since its redundant and when the phone needs to be restored(rarely) this data can be re-downloaded. Also backing up will be slow and destroy user experience.

Solution make another location which is used for storing the data(not backed up) so then all are happy. Maybe you can have data from hidden directories not backed up inside the Documents directory. Then Apple can delete caches in apps like browsers. User critical data like settings can be backed up and app critical data that need not be backed up can also exist

Couldn't agree more

Laying off jobs is kind off expected since there whole software division has become redundant due to Micrsoft's OS... Agreed they still have to make some software but that's still way lesser than what it did previously.

Whats troubling is that it is reducing manufacturing... Does it actually expect to sell less phones and if it does than how does it plan to make money... They are mass market devices, numbers are really important

So malinvestment is a good point but money does not disappear. For malinvestment to happen someone has to make good investment... Therefore the money does not disappear it goes to the person with better investments... Let me put it this way money transfers ( what i meant by it hides in someones pocket)

Coming back to your house... When you commissioned the house you paid for materials, salaries etc... therefore transfer of money.... Next when u bought the land u invested in a certain property for a certain value, the value was destroyed (due to whatever reason tsunami etc) so you lost money but the person who sold it to you gained (aka transfer of money)

Now if you talk about which building is worth building thats a whole new debate... Sorry I didn't explain it before... I was just talking about how banks usually have pretty good ways to make money... They invest in competitors cause no matter who wins... They get the interest...

Money does not disappear... It just hides in some peoples pockets :)

So if the hedge fund managers lost money and Porsche lost money, so where did the money go?

To play this game both borrowed money, so both parties paid interests... So i guess the banks made money... Fits in with this article http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/news/goldman.earnings.report...

After years and years of waiting they decide to tell us something... At least there is hope

"What might go wrong? (This is a test of imagination, not confidence.) Google might finally unleash GDrive and steal a lot of Dropbox's thunder (especially if this takes place before launch.)" - Dropbox application

Well at least they could not steal dropbox's thunder :) Now its time for dropbox to kick ass - "Getting love from early adopters will be important" They already have that, I guess they just need to add newer features now... All the best

Google wants everything... Web, OS, handset, carrier next i guess they will be fighting for oil also :).... Now dropbox... One company cant do so many things well... Learn from Microsoft