I would be more excited about this if I didn't have to log in via Facebook.
Socialcam is requesting permission to do the following:
* Access my basic information
* Access my data any time ("Socialcam may access my data
when I'm not using the application")
* Access my friends' information ("Current Cities, Photos,
Videos and Photos and Videos of Them")
Granted I'm already having a tough time keeping up with all the permissions' changes when apps get updated on my phone, seeing the above (especially #2 & 3) gives me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe explain why you need these permissions on socialcam.com? Also, I would rather just create a socialcam user account and share a video on Facebook when I want to; I realize that would take the social out of socialcam.
You are never forced to share a video on Facebook through SocialCam. We ask for the permissions so that it's one-click to share, not so that it will autoshare every time.
Trust me, we use the app all the time and none of us would want it to autoshare.
As for the particular permissions, they all support the basic functionality of the app.
We need your basic info so we can set up your name/picture in your profile
We ask for permanent permission so that we can keep that up to date.
We need to be able to access your friends information so that we can help you find people to follow in the SocialCam.
The reason we ask for each is pretty straightforward. Facebook doesn't have a particularly granular permissions system, so even though we don't use "current cities of your friends" we get it anyway.
I will never use a service that requires me to use my Facebook login. So while you may have a good reason, remember there are others like me who will never give you a shot because of your tying to Facebook.
We will add independent login in the future. We started with Facebook because it is easy to bootstrap the network, it is where most people want to share their videos anyways, and it allows us to keep the content clean much easier as most people don't want to troll under their own name.
Some of his speculation on the underlying reasons for facebook only auth (they don't want dirty videos) seem astute. As for the vitriol, Justin's reply seemed slightly disingenuous and people don't like being duped.
Maybe it was this that set off my bullshit detector, but then again, real bullshitter would be offended by these lazy attempts:
- Trust me, we use the app all the time and none of us would want it to autoshare.
In this day and age, you come out with "trust me". You must think we're stupid.
- We will add independent login in the future.
Why? It's an obvious Facebook video play and the market, as shown by recent events, is ready for it. Why say otherwise? It's a this for that, and that's ok.
- it is where most people want to share their videos anyways
Do you have any numbers gleaned from a survey that includes "most people" or am I to take your word for it?
- most people don't want to troll under their own name
You've never watched TV or are pretending noen of us never have.
Be authentic, make a kickass product. Is it that hard or do you have to lie to yourselves?
In the end, isn't that the only thing you can say? Maybe you can prove something about how secure a service is, but you definitely can't prove you'll respect people's privacy. All you can do is to respect them, and ask for trust.
Au contraire. You can say "You are not required to trust me. We don't ask for personal information nor require you to surrender your Facebook login nor do we demand that you send us a copy of your house keys in the mail."
It is a matter of scale. They are asking you to trust a couple founders of the company whereas you are asking them to trust thousands (potentially millions if they are successful) of users. Better to have Facebook filter out most of the bad actors up front and not pollute their site with spammers, trolls and other shenanigans until Facebook-only login is retarding their growth.
It works the other way around. Facebook is retarding their growth right now, when they can't afford to have it retarded. On the other hand, when they are big, they can afford to make users jump through hoops (and identify themselves).
That's really not true - Facebook, when used properly, can be an astoundingly good driver of growth. If you're not the type who would use Facebook, you're probably not the type of person who will drive their growth anyway, so why should they take away time from optimizing for those users who will?
By going into the facebook privacy settings for that application, you're allowed to remove some of the individual permissions they ask for. Example: Access to data at all times can be removed individually.
Its interesting to hear this as we are currently building an app that we envision use Facebook Connect. Our plan to use FB Connect is so that we have a leg up on customer adoption than starting from ground zero, credibility (I flinch) of being associated with FB, and using the user's social graph to tailor and deliver content. But seeing some of the caustic (and valid) comments and fears about FB playing a central role, I am not sure if that route is such a good idea anymore.
We planned on using an Independent login along with FB and Twitter, but was planning to skimp on putting a lot of thought in to the Independent login. Would that not be prudent anymore? I would like to hear your thoughts (and of others).
How many legitimate businesses want access to my entire Facebook network?
How many scammers/spammers?
Isn't group B a lot larger than group A? Isn't even group A a little scammy? Does Kellogg's want access to my info to help me, or because they want to show me more cereal ads?
You're starting off putting yourself in group B, which is not a good idea at all. Facebook is acquiring a very negative user reputation, along the lines of Ebay and Paypal. That doesn't mean that people will stop using it, but there's very little trust for Facebook - Facebook has done everything in its power to demonstrate that it is not trustworthy.
Facebook can't be trusted to keep your data private, and you're lumping yourself in with them. Seems like a bad plan to me.
Clicking "let this company I've never heard of suck down all my Facebook information" is a terrible idea. It's like downloading and running an executable from ugothacked.ru. Except you can't even wipe your computer and reinstall - it's irrevocable.
I've tried it out with my Nexus One and while it works great (http://socialcam.com/v/XANxOwfD) I don't think I'll switch to it (I'm part of their audience I guess, I often record short videos with my N1 of stuff I see to share with my friends) as I can't see what advantages it offers over Youtube?
Also, your videos will upload in the background as you record them, making upload time much shorter (but only be published when you click "Finish" at the end of the creation).
By "making upload time much shorter" you mean "making apparent upload time much shorter." They'll still take the same amount of time[1] to upload, except that that time begins while they're being recorded.
[1] Or more, in some probably unlikely cases, for example if the upload speed exceeds the bitrate of the video.
Interesting UI decision to feature an HTC branded Android phone on the landing page when so many other top dual-platform apps (Eg - redlaser) stick to standard iphone body for landing page mock-ups.
I thought it was two iPhone's sitting next to each other for a minute, until I really looked at the one on the right. That HTC looks way too similar to an iPhone (maybe that's the point?), but I would have used a different looking phone (even a Nexus One w/ the gray body) to visually differentiate the models and make it clear that it is a dual-platform app. The screenshots are very similar and rotate too quickly to really see that they are different apps as well.
I just got the email about it this morning. I have been playing with it during my snow day. I have not been able to tag my friends in the videos I have made though.
Great job on the android app, I really enjoy it so far.
Sweet! Works great on iPhone 4. Background uploading is such a major pain killer that no one here seems to be appreciative of. That's a huuuge technical feat and a major head start and of course am not surprised that JTV guys nailed it. Congrats!
You might mention prominently on the landing page that Socialcam is free of charge. That's a lesson that Instagram seems to have taken, anyway: http://instagr.am
So I've seen a couple of these types of websites out now. I have never understood why anyone would want to launch such a service, other than an exercise for creating a website that uses video? How is it so much better than the available alternatives that people would want to switch?
Can you explain why people would go through the process of registering to use your service, over just sharing using youtube links on facebook or facebook directly?
Do you have a business model? How would you plan to monetize assuming your service became really successful?
Is the success of twitpic limiting your imagination?
Videos are public but there are no central directories or search. The only way to get a link to a video is from a share (Facebook, Twitter, email, sms) or by viewing a friend or friend of friend. We might add some form of strict privacy in the future.
Has there been any thought to making use of facial recognition software for instant tagging. I had a similar idea to Socialcam but for pictures that auto tag and upload your pictures with location, people, along with some other features.
I love the idea, I would use the idea... I'm not ready to adopt the current version. The UX has way to much going on. I was expecting/hoping for more of an instagram like experience for video. That would be more interesting to me.
I'm really waiting for some great parody videos based on their demo video. It wasn't like shooting video and uploading it was "hard" before. Its interesting to see alot of these "DUH" concepts re-emerge with buzz lately.
It applies a bunch of lessons we learned making a live video broadcasting app for Justin.tv. The distance is not so large as you'd think (minus the whole "not live" part).
