Picurio (YC W09) unveils camera-in-browser for Mac/Safari

http://blog.picurio.com/picurio-unveils-camera-in-browser-for-macsafa

by prakash • 16 years ago

37 26 16 years ago

blog.picurio.com

_3ex72• 16 years ago

>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.

Timothee• 16 years ago

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.

qeorge• 16 years ago

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.

lsb• 16 years ago

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.)

kvs• 16 years ago

Most people when prompted to install something will install it because the prompt (and the plugin) is between them and the task they want to finish.

callmeed• 16 years ago

1 statement, 2 questions.

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.

cmelbye2• 16 years ago

There was an error in your browser. Please reopen it and try again.

No, thanks.

dschobel2• 16 years ago

You could post your browser/platform and what you were doing when it blew up so that they might fix it. Just a thought.

cmelbye2• 16 years ago

Picurio (YC W09) unveils camera-in-browser for Mac/Safari

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?

mixmax• 16 years ago

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?

Just curious.

_3ex72• 16 years ago

I was wondering the same thing.

I would like to think they ran analytic s on their traffic and noticed Safari as the browser they get the most visits from.

johnrob• 16 years ago

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'.

blasdel3• 16 years ago

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.

Tichy2• 16 years ago

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.

jrockway• 16 years ago

The cloud is not "storage", it's "sharing with your friends". What's the point of taking pictures if nobody ever looks at them?

Tichy2• 16 years ago

Looking at them a couple of years later to cherish the memories.

omarish• 16 years ago

Why don't most photo sites support HTML5 drag and drop uploads yet? That would reduce complexity in the user experience, and no plugin required.

boucher2• 16 years ago

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.

http://www.alertdebugging.com/2009/08/16/on-html-5-drag-and-...

andrewtj3• 16 years ago

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).

boucher2• 16 years ago

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).

andrewtj3• 16 years ago

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?

Picurio (YC W09) unveils camera-in-browser for Mac/Safari

Related Stories