We decided to take a web first approach rather than a mobile app first approach for a few reasons:
1) We are web developers so it's what we know
2) Web browsers are ubiquitous, meaning users could still access our app on mobile devices via browser or PWA (more on that later)
3) People spend the majority of their time on computers, whether for work, study, or leisure. So it makes sense to us to be able to easily monitor from your computer.
4) We think the web is cool (See reason 1)
Our goals were to:
1) Make it possible for anyone to sign up and create a security camera
2) Not require any hardware purchase
3) Not require any application install
4) Put our old devices to good use rather than end up in land fills!
We wanted to make UView available as a mobile app as well so we converted it into a mobile app by turning it into a PWA (Progressive Web App). You can install it on Android using the install button, however iOS users will have to select the “Add to home screen” button in the browser.
We would appreciate any comments and feedback!
1. Ditch the two pulsing animations. I tried to click on the pulsing animation top-left and nothing happened.
2. The logo is hard to read. Consider simplifying your logo, but keeping the flashing red record icon on home page.
3. Keep content above the field. I didn't know I could scroll.
4. Don't make me sign up to try it. Why can't it show my webcam feed on the home page? At least defer sign up after you've given me a link that will let me broadcast my feed, then I can sign up on my phone.
5. The flashing recording icon is distracting after the initial "I get it," e.g. on the register page.
6. Be more up-front about T&C on your access to the feed.
7. Nowhere on the site does it say, "Why do I need this?" Said what you said in your post here on your website. "Hey, I'm Geoff. I wanted to keep an eye on my kids & my pets, so I made uView to save money on a camera, now you can save too! Here, give it a try: [Request Webcam Permission]"
8. Hard to read the features with the pulsing thing.
9. The weight of multiple call to actions conflict: Register, Login and "Try Free Now" all feel equally heavy.
11. Consider making it free for 5 minutes, then you have to keep clicking to refresh. Or, an ad-driven business model where you show highly-relevant ads overlaid in the feed, since you know the person using it is interested in security.
edit: @dang, pleeease can we get Markdown-style list formatting? :)
I would actually recommend against that. If the user gets prompted for camera access the moment they reach your webpage, it will turn most people off immediately. They need to click "yes I want to try this" before they get the security prompt, it needs to be asking for permission to do something THEY initiated.
I mean, my first thought when I read the headline was "Directly through the browser? Is that even safe?" … so I would expect the website to tread lightly, anticipating that there are a lot of security concerns when it comes to piping personal video around the world and addressing a lot of that up front.
Are you on a iOS device? Asking because your statement sounds weird to me
It's the same code from your end, but it gets packaged as a mobile app.
To see an example , install "Google Maps Go" on play store
It's kind of cool that I can repurpose an old laptop or tablet as a security camera; but if I'm really serious about a security camera, I'll go out and buy a dedicated camera that's smaller and comes with a mount, and similar priced monthly fee.
Unlimited cameras and being able to view multiple cameras on one screen is definitely something that we felt was a big plus and differentiator.
In most web frameworks, accepting signups and associating sessions with user accounts is the safest and easiest way to achieve this.
> Get notified when something movement is detected on your video feed.
If you have a trial and a real sub, calling the sub 'Pro' sounds silly and unserious, as does saying it has 'priority' support. Priority over what?
There's a lot of talk about privacy being important but the most important question - does the service have access to my video feeds, does it store them, for how long, etc, is not answered straightforwardly anywhere that I saw. Saying things like 'highly encrypted' is a slightly chiller version of the old 'military-grade encryption' and equally uninformative.
I realize a lot of this stuff comes from standard-ish templates but if you're selling something mildly sensitive you probably want to go through the materials with a fine-toothed comb for details and tone.
It's $4/mo for "premium" for US customers (https://alfred.camera/forum/t/alfred-premium-alfred-plus-unl...) and some one-time amount for "plus" (which just disables ads).
FWIW, I have no affiliation with Alfred, although I tried their app several years ago (and uninstalled due to the video surveillance being uploaded to random servers in other countries).
> All of our services are managed in-house bringing you maximum privacy.
Having the services managed in house actually gives me less confidence, since uview has no reputation associated with it. I would be more convinced with some kind of explanation of how the video connection is made secure - what kind of encryption is there, what keeps uview from just spying on my video feed (I suspect not much but don't really know), etc.
Thanks for the feedback about privacy. We'll be working on some messaging to communicate how and why UView is secure and private and to provide more transparency into how our platform works.
Probably want to remove the word "something"
Also, the super light colored "Available on supported Android devices" seems like a recipe for pissed off customers. If it's something I care enough about to prevent me from signing up then it's not like I'll notice it later and say "oh well, what a great service." I'm just going to be mad. Feels very deceptive.
BTW your verification email is landing up in spam in Gmail.
Thanks for the heads up about the verification email!
Tried with Opera, Chrome (Iron browser) and QTweb.
I can get to it with Basilisk (which is an experimental, modded and alpha/beta level browser derived from Firefox).
I believe that you should provide:
1) a "simplified" site accessible with any (including old) browsers/OS
2) a list of the browsers/OS's actually tested and working with the service
Right now, it seems to me that most of the (cheap as myself) people interested in re-using old (even very old) hardware they have handy as per your main points are cut out.
Side note: The motion detection happens directly on your device. We don't process frames or video streams on our servers in order to provide you with the most privacy that we possibly can.
A side benefit for you that I imagine you already thought of is that it greatly reduces the amount of processing power you have to pay for to run the service.