I was wondering how many people here actually used LayerVault instead of managing their files on Dropbox.
I use and love it. It has made it much easier for me to keep our developers in sync with my latest changes and get quick feedback without any extra work on my part.
I use the Dropbox sync method so that I don't lose out on Dropbox's easy folder/file sharing features. There were initially some problems with it (as expected with a major and complex new feature) but LayerVault's support was excellent at getting things fixed quickly for me and I haven't had any issues at all lately.
I use it, and I find it very helpful. Have been using it for months. I think I started using it even before DN was around. I searched for something like LayerVault for months and months before I found it or before was released.
I think I might be one of the earliest users of layervault. I love it. Layervault is vital to how I work and how my team collaborates.
Yes. You should use LayerVault.
Can't remember the last time I used photoshop.
I've been off and on with LayerVault over the past year. Since I have a dual-computer setup between home and work, it works pretty well. For instance, I worked from home yesterday on a whim and had my files available. I'm aware of the similar abilities of filesync with other services, and Dropbox even does versioning too, but the other features of LayerVault that cater specifically to visual designers are too special and awesome.
One note: My job skews heavily more toward print (board graphics, catalogs, print ads, identity, etc.) and I rely heavily on INDD and Illustrator. LV does a great job keeping my packages in sync, but I really wish I could sync font files.
I'm not exactly sure why this isn't a thing yet, because as far as I can tell Dropbox does a bad job syncing fonts as well. In particular, I'm talking about fonts that are exported as parts of InDesign or Illustrator packages... *.ttf, *.otf, the usual suspects. I suspect this is either to cut down on potential piracy or, maybe, some other reason... but it would be crazy useful. As of right now, I can't find a service that reliably syncs font files.
In general, though, I recently re-signed up and I'm happy with it so far.
Glad to have you back!
I was using it until I realized there is no way to delete old versions of files. I understand saving them all by default, but there needs to be a way for a user to select how many of these saves he/she actually needs. Otherwise you'll forever be paying for files from years ago, which didn't seem like a good deal to me.
Since then, I've swapped to ForeverSave, which uses a one-time fee and stores the files on your own computer: http://tool-forcesw.com/foreversave/
Don't get me wrong, I loooove the LayerVault service, I just couldn't justify paying $39/mo for files I no longer needed.
Storage is unlimited and not related to price.
I hope that you don't take this the wrong way, but you're not being entirely truthful – whether that's your intention or not. The price is high because your income per capita is linear whereas the storage space is exponential.
Let's pretend that each user generates 10GB/month, and let's pretend that you have 5,000 users each paying you $15/month – about half your current price.
After a year you've generated $900k, which is great, but you've also incurred costs because of the 600 terabytes of data that you have. You throw a couple bucks at blazing fast hard drives and pay the salaries of a half-dozen team members. Things are great, everyone is happy.
Fast forward five years, and those same 5,000 users are still raking you in only $900k annually, whereas now they have ~360 petabytes of data that you've sworn to store for them forever. You've multiplied your storage cost by about 600 while your income has remained the same.
The price of service has a direct correlation with the cost of storing data, and you're charging $29/month because it's the only way to keep your business in the black while still promising that storage is unlimited.
I'd be very surprised if the average user sustains 10GB/month. I'd guess it's much closer to 0.
I suspect storage costs are a pretty small part of their pricing decisions. The value they are providing goes way beyond the cost of storage.
(I'm not a subscriber)
Ding ding ding.
Storage is dirt cheap. Probably the technical overhead would come from processing time...though I hope they're smart and have their desktop client do most of the image processing for "free."
Not to sound like a cheapskate here, but I'm talking about the free plan, which is designed to force people out after a few weeks of use.
I saw the 1GB space and decided to give it a try, because I'll never need more than 1GB of space. But! the way things are setup, you force the user to use more than the allotted space.
I'd probably feel less burned if it was a timed trial or if there was warning that once you used up 1GB, you'd be forced to upgrade (when common sense would say you could clean up some of that 1GB).
I guess I should add that if the trial had been time-limited or if the messaging had been clearer that I'd paint myself into a corner, I don't think I would have tried the service.
Which is why you probably don't mention those things to begin with.
I don't. But I don't work at an agency, currently.
I used it for one month (free trial) while working with a team.
I now mostly do freelance and personal projects (and I'm also severely underpaid due to me undervaluing myself) so the $29/mo price scares me and also feels a bit unjustified for what I do, while the free plan feels weird because it's public. There probably should be a compromise (HINT HINT).
But my one-month experience with Layervault was very good (it's a boon compared to all other methods) except some quirks I encountered, which were still mostly addressed nicely by the super responsive team. I think they even fixed a bug 1 hour after I told them about it in chat.
I do 95% of my design work in-browser so posting mocks and stuff isn't really part of my flow at this stage. I suppose it could be may be good for sharing out screen grabs and stuff, but I am a design "team" of one right now, so there's really no need for me. Once we hire another designer (cough, cough, jobs page), I will probably re-evaluate.
Just checked out the jobs page. Looks to me you are seeking another designer that fits your role of doing front-end work, combining a UX designer, as well as a visual designer role into one. That's certainly not a designer position otherwise I'd apply ;) I hope they're willing to pay 6 figures for that role.
Grrr. I hate when people say this. That's an old-school mentality that's becoming more and more outdated with each passing day. At least in this industry. Personally, I can't imagine having to pass off one of my designs for someone else to implement... no thanks!
FWIW, implementing a design in HTML/CSS does not make you a UX expert. UI and UX are best friends, but not necessarily one and the same.
Then you should probably get the job description changed because what's posted up there is asking some one that specializes in UX, UI development, and UI design. Sorry that is not a designer; that is 3 roles in one. It says you have to know java, jquery, HTML, CSS, and ruby on rails, as well as be a UX researcher, and visual designer. The first sentence in the posting even says "full stack"- ["full stack" designer (interaction, usability, ux, graphic design, html, css) ]. It's obvious what the role is don't be so offended by my response because of the truth. Just saying man....
If you were hiring a developer, would you expect them to be able to design a quality database schema or is that solely the responsibility of, say, a db architect?
Well that's a broad question. It is certainly beneficial for companies for server side developers to know how, but to say that they have to is up for debate and not something I should be giving advice on because it's not my domain. It could depend on the type of developer you are hiring, experience, the product, and the company. Level of required expertise will vary with the size of the system that you are working on. Developers should know how to persist data to different storage mediums, including SQL and NoSQL solutions, and be involved with the DB modeling for business logic. In a perfect world you should have a team that's handling everything with the database for larger teams and products. Smaller to medium companies often times can't have a dedicated team so it should be relegated to at least one dedicated person with more domain knowledge on the subject. Even in start ups that I've worked for we've had at least one person in with domain knowledge handling the database while our developers could persist the data into storage solutions, and would help mold the DB with the business department.