Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: YES. Walgreens and Wal-Mart don't have 40 square feet of prime retail space devoted to photo printing kiosks just so they don't have to sweep the marginal flooring.
An article I just found [1] from 2008 said 18 billion photos were printed in 2007 from services, and grew to 19.7 billion by 2008. Even if it has decreased since then, even with these very limited two data points (19.7 billion, and existing pervasiveness of photo printing services), I would assume the market is very lucrative.
PicPlum is attempting to simplify the process significantly. If they can capture even a respectable part of the market, I think it's sounds like a very viable business.
[1]http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/InfoTrends-Online-P...
Maybe it has to do with how much time it takes to flip a page ? Meaning that we look at pictures in less detail now because we like hitting the "Next" button..
Or maybe it has to do with the fact that things that are digital don't feel that 'real' ?
Also, there is the case where you want to put up pictures of your loved ones around you. Those would need to be printed as well.
I know that this is probably the wrong forum to bring these feelings up in, but I'm 100% sure that my parents and older people definitely feel this way.
That's probably where the market lies.
That's exactly what I'm wondering. I mean, if you'd told me about the basic concept behind Picplum, I would've rejected it in a split second as entirely absurd. But they've been live since August 2011 and still going. Makes me wonder how many other good ideas like that I've rejected off hand.
I haven’t in a decade or more, but I am personally stoked to do this when it’s absurdly easy — and share with people in my life, too.
Also consider that digital photos are probably lost a lot more often than physical photos.
Am I totally off?