[jmonegro]

365.io was created specifically for Project 365, which is a year-long photography project in which you upload a picture a day for 365 days so that after a year you have some sort of photo documentary of your life over that year.

The main difference between this and a Flickr stream is the focus. Flickr is meant for photography in general, and while you could use it for Project 365, it's less organized and focused. For example, your P 365 entries would be mixed in with your regular flickr uploads.

[thwarted]

That's why you put them in a set.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thwarted/sets/72157623777255069...

This is from a 20 line shell script that takes a picture at some random time within a minute after I unlock the screensaver. They are then uploaded manually using kflickr because, honestly, some of them come out really crappy (out of focus/blurry) and I unlock my computer like a 100 times a day.

[pavel_lishin]

Clever! Can you share the script? I have something similar, but my computer takes a picture every 20 minutes or so and uploads them to my server ( http://lishin.org/pavelcam.jpg ), overwriting the previous one.

(To answer the inevitable question, yeah, it's caught me naked a few times.)

[thwarted]

I cleaned up the code and put it up at https://github.com/thwarted/picsofourlives

Maybe I slightly exaggerated on the size. It's a 14 line shell script and a 57 line perl script. Anyway, it's small. Requires xscreensaver and mplayer and a working USB camera.

[dshankar]

That's what I interpret Flickr groups to be - a way to focus on a given subject rather than photography in general.

You need to prove the value of your product before you can start charging users $11. Your frontpage gives no indication of the value added.

[jmonegro]

We feel Project 365 is more personal than flickr would allow you through groups.

Regardless, thanks for the feedback.

[LiveTheDream]

Agreed about Flickr groups.

> You need to prove the value of your product before you can start charging users $11

Disagree about this. It's obvious what the offering is, so let the user decide if it's worth $11 to them. The expectation of value is set by defining the price point.

[makmanalp]

Well, it's also not clear what being "more organized and focused" gives you too. It doesn't seem worth 11 bucks. I think you need an obvious distinction to be able to get people to pay up. On the other hand, I love the design.

[Jabbles]

And the $11? ~100Gb of transfer on S3?

[jmonegro]

Storage + bandwidth + hosting + assorted costs (maintenance, backups, email, etc.), all for a year + profit

[dshankar]

Why not automagically host the files on Flickr, saving you costs of storage & bandwidth?

[ptio]

Wouldn't there be anything in Flickr's ToS that would prevent third party developers from hosting their app's photos there? I like the suggestion though.

[javan]

Yes. From Flickr: "The direct link to a photo file is no longer shown on the page. Per the Flickr Community Guidelines "pages on other websites that display content hosted on flickr.com must provide a link from each photo or video back to its page on Flickr." Linking directly to the photo file doesn't do this."

[mitjak]

I'll second that question but also point out that it probably would make even less sense to charge for the service.

[yeahsure]

I think a desktop and/or mobile software for P 360 would make more sense than an online solution. It could simply integrate with people's Flickr accounts and get out of the way.