ShareALot vs MSN Photos


ShareALot is a new photo sharing service that’s been getting some column inches today due mostly to the launch of their product at DEMO (and don’t get me started about how upset I am that I’m not there in person…). ShareALot is promoted as as application which “takes the pain out of sharing digital photos with friends and family”.

So I went to check it out, because I like new stuff and I just bought a digital camera and I am still in the “take a million photos a day” phase. I know, it’ll probably pass. Like my current need to start every sentence with “I read on a blog the other day” or “As I wrote on my blog recently” or “When I was in New York a couple of weeks ago”…

Anyway, I went to download ShareALot and it is an 18 Mb download. I know, I’m on broadband, that shouldn’t be an issue. But I recently shelled out $60 for a “Premium” membership with MSN Groups which allows me to upload 30Mb of photos. Friends and family who subscribe to my photo site get an email with a URL when new photos are uploaded. It seems to me this is pretty painless. At least ShareALot, at this stage, is a free service (although they reserve the right to charge for it down the track).

If anyone else has tried out ShareALot, I’d love to hear your reviews. Maybe I am missing something?

 

Soure: Wired News


Comments (4)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Cameron,

    Sharealot is better if you want your friends to actually get the pictures on their computers to use or if you have a lot of digital content that is bulky to share. They can easily get originals of the photos and they can take the pictures and use whatever application they like to use to browse, organize and modify the photos. That is hard with a web solution. There are no limitations on how long the photos will be there or how much you can share at one time. You can set up groups of people and simply dropping the photos in a directory and they make it to the right people. There is no chance of a virus and the pictures are viewable fast and easily whether connected to the internet or not.

    It gets down to whether you think media is better served at the edge of the network or centrally. It depends on how many are going to view the content. If thousands of people need to view the material and not use it locally then it is probably much better to store it centrally on the web. If it is a few users and they want to have access to the digital content all the time and use local applications to view, edit, organize and use the digital content then sharealot is probably better.

    Hope this helps, John

  2. Anonymous says:

    ShareALot is terrible. I am so confused regarding all of the positive reviews in respectable newspapers such as the NY Times and the Washington Post. It is constantly on the fritz and is not as user friendly as promised (not even remotely). My poor mother (who should be the prototype for the untechnical user, she could make millions of US dollars) couldn’t figure it out for the life of her. Anyways to make a long story long, I was extremely unimpressed with ShareAlot.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I have tried both MSN Photos and ShareALot, but I use another software which is better : PixVillage. No more "transfers", with PixVillage you only "share". Really amazing. The internet is moving faster and faster !