Poll: would you pay for a virtual filesystem to your social data?
A service that allowed you, in a perfect world, to, for example:
- ("local" filesystem) copy your Instagram pictures and paste them on a Facebook album or on a local folder
- copying your twitpic pictures into your Dropbox
- and so on (interoperable across web applications)
47 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadAn web management application is also possible, although i would be not as much flexible with "downloading"
EDIT: As in deleting the info contained in my Facebook Account.
http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/
"You can delete objects in the graph by issuing HTTP DELETE requests to the object URLs"
I'm not even quite sure what you're suggesting. Is this mainly a picture cross-sharing implementation? (Or are you thinking more broadly about social data? If so, how would status posts/tweets be handled... as files?)
- facebook albums - twitpic, instagram, picsplz pictures
any web application which has an API and allows red/write capabilities through it.
This could work for web apps as well. The beauty of web apps is that you're not tied to one machine, you can log in anywhere. Integrating with Dropbox should be a great way to avoid storing information locally just to share it between web apps.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/11/03/03/2054246/Ask-Slashdot-...
it's one of the many use cases. The problem seems to be "sellable"
But as another commenter said, you have to show a need.
They say to show people using your startup in a normal workflow. So if you had 2 or 3 examples of somebody interacting with their computer and how much easier it is with your app, it would probably hit home better than just a description.
I think the killer feature here is the ability to search for new social apps and auto-signup. It has the potential to turn the social networking thing upside down. (But like all really cool ideas, the audience is probably even "cooler" than the idea)
Take for example, Flick, Picasa and similar. At first it doesn't seem a use case because there are already dozens of online, offline and hybrid applications to manage those collections. But when you add "web interoperability" to it, as in, copy/pasting/moving from into/out of those and into other webapps (copying some pictures from Flick into Posterous, directly) it starts to sound a lot more exciting and worth exploring, which is where i'm at at the moment.
I would pay money for this. In fact, I'd be willing to pay money now, up front, for a proof-of-concept.
www.backupify.com
which is not mine, but you can send me 20$ for helping you solve that problem :)
If we are just talking about pictures/media files and a subscription - No, I won't pay. There have been (rare) times when I cross-posted pictures from Instagram to facebook. It wasn't that big of a deal to upload that image to Facebook.
I might think about paying a one time fee if the app is really good.
Honestly, an API-filesystem framework would be kind of sweet. But I can't imagine the kind of people who would pay for this aren't the same people who could eventually write it. And be faster at adding new/random services, etc.
More abstractly, if you provided a unified API across many platforms which application developers could use to access any such service, it would be a massive hit.
When POSIX got to a point where you could assume it was mostly implemented across OSes, it decimated development cost.
If you could define a good cross-platform API for web services (and provide an implementation), developers would beg you to take their money.
Basically, I suspect that I (and likely people in general) would buy many more products in the hypothetical than they will in reality. This might have something to do with near/far thinking: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/06/near-far-summary.html. My hypothesis: because we're talking about something that you might create in the future, we decide whether we would buy it using far mode thinking. But we do all of our actual buying in near mode. So peoples' hypothetical predictions about what they would buy might not be worth much.
For pictures that's simple, but let's consider a Facebook wall (with replies). A bunch of text files would be hard to browse, a single big mailbox-like file would be hard to edit properly.
Considering that there're multiple OSes, tools and workflow preferences, I doubt there is some universal representation, which would satisfy users.
Should this software be built?
bad) 86% said the would not pay for it
good) 14% said they would pay, just by reading the idea on a few bullet points
the comments were most useful and it resulted in a developer advocate for one of the biggest companies out there, to throw 100USD on paypal to develop a specific feature
http://www.mindwallet.com:54501/?ItemKey=787541c7-0860-41ea-...