Is there anyone who could point me to an easy-ish way to get this running on a PI + Screen? I have a special-needs son who would LOVE to have this running. I'll take any advice! Thank you!
Can anyone offer any guidance on the audiobook aspect of this? What is a "Kindle book with narration"? If I'm an audible customer... doesn't this seem like a far better deal? Their page seems very light on details for audiobooks.
Yep, End of year 2015. The sign for KC passed through STL last month and caused a commotion of people thinking it was the STL one. I've been driving up to Chicago to hit IKEA and Fry's and have really been waiting for this one to open.
Everpix was one of the best $5/month I spent. I would have been willing to spend far more for their services. I wish they would have tried to bump the price up to save the service. Having one place for all my photos made me exceptionally happy. Even my wife absolutely loved Everpix.
I guess I need to find an alternative... what are they?
The problem with Dropbox is that photos are eating space on my local hard drive, unless I manually manage them. Everpix was perfect from the syncing perspective. Sharing could have been improved and I think they should have put more effort to private sharing experience and that would have helped with growth too.
That still presents the problem of frequent uploads: you have to sync a folder on your hard drive, and then follow up with unsync when it gets too large, and then set up a new folder for the next batch.
Will just say for anyone that never used Everpix that flickr, zenfolio and smugmug don't really do the same job. Yes they all host photos, but the whole point is that it's an automated process, imports from multiple sources and does magic like de-duplication.
sounds exactly like zenfolio, flickr etc. They all supposer set and forget and they all do duplicate detection. If they didn't and everpix had a real value proposition they might still be going.
I wish they would have tried to bump the price up to save the service.
The bump would have to been at least something like tenfold to solve anything. According to the article they were -$2,294,818.17 south at the end and their subscription revenue was only $254,060.57. I'm quite confident that would have eaten their 12.4 percent conversion ratio badly.
Aside from the actual product announcement... I'm interested to see that they created an Android and iOS version at the same time. For the past several years, Android apps were typically pushed off a month (or years, in Instagram's case).
I wonder if their Android app drove much of their adoption in the past year or so, and as such, they decided to make sure they could launch feature-complete apps on both platforms on day one?
If so - will Android finally start getting apps on pace with iOS?
I was most interested by their Live TV offering. But does anyone have any details on how they get the TV stream? One of the slides mentioned HDMI In/Out - does that mean it's going the GoogleTV route? I have a logitech revue - and I absolutely hate it.
Most likely it will have to work with an external subscription. The guy on stage mentioned that he uses Comcast and then did the demo. So I imagine it will work like Google TV and just be a glorified channel changer without any content of its own.
I too have the Logitech Revue and it eventually just became a netflix box for my kids. We just switched back to having a dedicated laptop for our TV and never looked back.
So this looks amazing... and I want to buy into it... but I was just burned by Snapjoy several months ago.
I feel like I'll pay the money... spend my time syncing my library and getting everything organized... and then someone else is going to snatch you guys up and shut it down.
Clearly you guys have a business model and a product you're selling. If I can't even rely on you guys being in business long-term, what can I do? But you guys have built an amazing product! Keep up the good work!
I completely agree with you. I looked at the site originally, and thought, "eh. another app that's going to be bought out by someone, probably" and left.
After reading some of the comments here, I went back and read it more carefully, and it totally looks like something I'd gladly pay a subscription to, but I've been burned before when places have closed after they've been bought out, it's not a nice feeling.
I'm still contemplating it though! It looks awesome.
I've also been thinking about this irony the past year or so. The startups that most evidently have their shit together in terms of product, design, branding, etc. are in a way the least "believable in", since they seem likely to quickly become catnip for acquirers. Sparrow, for one.
(Everpix founder here) We tried to make our privacy policy pretty clear and relatively easy to read at https://www.everpix.com/legal/privacy.html. What parts did you think were not detailed enough?
Do I still own my pictures once they are uploaded to your server? Does keeping my pictures stored on your server after the privacy policy changes count as 'continued use of the service'?
What Im getting at is if you get bought by Microsoft, where does it say that Microsoft cant take my pictures and use them in their next ad or sell them to someone else?
(Everpix founder here) Ah I see. Sorry I should have pointed you out to our Terms of Services instead [1]. Our Privacy Policy mostly covers what we do with visitor's data.
Because Everpix ends up storing the entire life in photos of each of our users, we are very very careful with privacy matters and our policies.
For instance, as you can see in the TOS section "Proprietary Rights in Content on Everpix Services", users fully own their photos and we do not claim any ownership rights. The only right we ask is the one to display your photos on our platform back to you and to users with whom you choose to share them with (kind of obvious but it doesn't hurt to say it). One last (edge) case is if you explicitly give us some of your photos to improve our science [2]. For such photos you are giving us some rights.
I'm waiting for someone to do this sort of thing the right way by setting up an endowment or trust and legal instruments that can guarantee preservation of hosting (as much as possible) for at least a decade into the future.
Why not offer an export to S3 or Drop Box or Etc... feature so to avoid this fear? I agree - not going to pay unless some back up (locally or otherwise) option is offered to mitigate this risk.
(Everpix founder here) Just to be clear, we certainly allow users to re-download photos in full-resolution and with all their metadata, but in batches from various places in www.everpix.com, not as a single gigantic multi-gigabytes ZIP archive (for technical reasons you can imagine but we are working on it).
Note that in the case of Everpix, one of our key goal is that no manual organization be needed. Just keep taking photos the way you are used to, let stuff sync in the background and we'll take care of the rest.
You can't really spend time organizing albums which could turn out to be wasted time in the future, since we don't even have manual albums or a trash. The only time you can spend with Everpix is more time enjoying your photo collection ;)
Hey -- deet already gave some info about Picturelife I'd also mention this: You can use your own S3 account with Picturelife and never pay us a dime. If we disappeared one day, all your photos would still be on your S3 account and with our free API you could get all your metadata out in a way you (or someone) could still use our frontend to access them. ~innonate, co-founder of Picturelife
Hosting your own gallery and deciding public-private-public-semi-lockdown must have occurred to you I reckon. And you can sure do that. Keep a back up all the time.
AAMOF if you've enough enough at your shared server or VPS then it will become another backup, in addition to local and remote( sth like backblaze, crashplan).
PS. I didn't use Snapjoy much but had few photos there. Just casually put over there after creating my a/c. It was some referral. I can't login now(it's alright) and the good old blog post link, is still there, in which they they promised our photos were safe they will get back to us. Did they?
I'm pretty sure they (Facebook) will lose the ability to call this an "Android" phone - and clearly they won't be entitled to the Google Suite of apps.
Further than that... I don't think there are any repercussions.
Personal disclosure - I'm not interested in a Facebook phone in the slightest (mostly for privacy concerns).
I think this is an interesting concept. Let's assume it is in fact a total fork of Android, in essence, a "Facebook Phone". I really think (as big as Facebook is) they will have a hard time with this. I'm not sure there is space for another type of device - even if it is a massive consumer brand.
I get the sense that a lot of people use Facebook for it's utility... but I think it has lost it's "cool factor" with the general public. I can't see a lot of people thinking "man - I really want deeper integration with Facebook!" Isn't the FB app good enough for most people?
Don't forget that Facebook owns Instagram as well. My non-tech friends (most of them) use exactly 2 apps regularly on their phones. Facebook and Instagram. I'm not sure any of them would jump at a Facebook branded phone, but I think a phone with Instagram in mind as the key feature (e.g. an awesome camera, integrated filters, not sure what else) might strike a chord with some of my friends.
EDIT: Almost forgot about Vine. That seemed to blow up in popularity in my demographic recently here in Hawaii. if Facebook owned Vine, they would have the holy trinity of apps.
We know that people don't like social login buttons because they believe using them will cause stuff to be posted on their behalf. I can imagine the same fear with buying a Facebook phone. "Jill just chatted with Tom, they discussed their sex life."
A big part of buying behavior for phones is the carrier retail outlets pushing the phones onto potential buyers.
Facebook, like Amazon, is a company deriving revenue from its ads and content (virtual currency, etc). They could afford to sell the phones to carriers "at cost", at which point the carriers will have a HUGE incentive to sell the phones. Now of course, if they sell at 0 margin to the carriers, HTC won't be happy. But HTC is not doing well at all in terms of phone sales, and perhaps they'd be willing to sell the phone to carriers at very low margins (kind of like how LG, lagging in sales and design inspiration, partnered up with Google and sold a device, the Nexus 4, for very very cheap).
In such a case, FB phones could actually sell a decent amount.
I honestly don't know anyone who actually likes Facebook. My group of friends and I continue to use it because there just isn't any better way for us to stay in touch at scale on a day-to-day basis, and nobody really cares enough to put up with the fragmentation that moving to a different network would cause. So it's in this weird middle ground of being too important to give up outright, but not important enough to bother actually fixing.
"I honestly don't know anyone who actually likes Facebook."
That's the thing I've never understood. On the one hand, on the nightly news Facebook is discussed as if everyone has an account (and that privacy changes actually matter to most viewers). On the other hand, none of my close friends use facebook.
Stop living in a vacuum. One billion people have a Facebook account. It's possible that your close friends are not in that group, but the average person on Earth does, in fact, use Facebook.
Pedantic correction: One billion people use their Facebook account every month. There are many more than that whose account is inactive, abandoned, or not used on a monthly basis.
pedantic correction: One billion Facebook accounts are accessed every month. No third party established that each account corresponds to a unique person.
Considering the vast amount of complaints towards Facebook regarding privacy concerns, do you really think it would be in the best interest of those users to allow third parties access to all of their data to "verify" that?
no data to support, but I'm pretty sure the amount of people with multiple facebook accounts is pretty small(at least comparatively to things like e-mail adresses)
I'd say you're lucky. Most of my friends use Facebook. I refuse, so I'm out of touch with most of them. I figure if we aren't willing to keep in touch in other ways, our friendship isn't holding up very well anyway.
Anecdotally, it's typically the people in the room who are either a) late to the meeting or b) go off on tangents or c) cause the meeting to overrun. There are lots of good and bad things about remote workers... but being a hamper on meetings shouldn't be one of them.
If you have 20 people in the office - and 1 remote worker - your conference times should be at the preferred time of the 20.
Yeah, I agree. In my experience, the biggest problem with remote people on the phone is that they are actually doing other work during the call and being productive, so if you don't make it clear a question is aimed at them, they might miss it.
Ugh. Biz people can be really bad at this, because they think everyone has Powerpoint.
Once when I was remote, I specifically arranged before the meeting with one coworker to set up a kibbutz session (kibbutz is an expect-script that works a lot like screen, and screen may well have worked, too) showing my terminal, and she was hooked up to the projector, so I could visually walk everyone through my code.
