Not Pursuing

Google Drive–backed Ambient Photos

What we evaluated

We built and tested a Google Drive folder prototype for Ambient Photos. It used Google’s drive.file permission, a selected-folder flow, and a dedicated Drive OAuth connection separate from Google Calendar.

Why we decided against it

The core integration worked technically, but validation showed that drive.file did not reliably expose pre-existing or later-added photos in the selected folder for automatic rotation. Making that behavior dependable would have required broader persistent Drive access. The added permission ambiguity and OAuth/token complexity were more than we were comfortable asking households to accept for this convenience feature. This is our product-boundary judgment, not a claim that Google Drive is insecure.

What we chose instead

App-managed private photos with ComingUp-owned media identity, purpose-built storage, and private delivery independent of an external photo library or its OAuth availability.

What would have to change

A materially narrower, clearer, purpose-specific provider access model would be required before reconsideration.

Proprietary ComingUp display hardware

What we evaluated

Building and selling a dedicated ComingUp household display device.

Why we decided against it

We do not currently believe hardware manufacturing, logistics, replacement cycles, device support, added purchase cost, or ecosystem lock-in improve the household coordination problem enough to justify them.

What we chose instead

A browser-first Household Display that runs on existing tablets, computers, and browser-capable displays, with integrations into existing smart-display ecosystems where practical.

What would have to change

We may reconsider if evidence shows dedicated hardware solves an important coordination need that browser-first and existing-ecosystem approaches cannot serve well.

Writing back to external calendars

What we evaluated

Letting ComingUp edit events in connected Google, iCloud, or future provider calendars.

Why we decided against it

It would blur ownership and make it harder to explain which system is authoritative, especially when provider rules, failures, and synchronization timing differ.

What we chose instead

Provider calendars remain externally owned and read-only. ComingUp owns and may explicitly support changes to ComingUp-created objects.

Behavior scoring and family gamification

What we evaluated

Scores, streaks, completion rankings, compliance dashboards, and comparative family tracking.

Why we decided against it

Those mechanics turn shared clarity into behavior shaping and add emotional leverage where ComingUp should remain factual and neutral.

What we chose instead

Time-anchored responsibilities may eventually have calm completion state, without performance metrics or enforcement.

A built-in household chat platform

What we evaluated

Adding general-purpose conversations, message threads, reactions, and communication history to ComingUp.

Why we decided against it

Chat would duplicate tools households already use and pull the product away from its job: making schedules and household context visible and understandable.

What we chose instead

Keep ComingUp focused on durable coordination context while communication stays in purpose-built messaging tools.

Medical records and compliance workflows

What we evaluated

Storing medical documents or positioning ComingUp as a medical-compliance or regulated care-record system.

Why we decided against it

That changes the product’s risk, privacy, regulatory, and trust boundary far beyond household schedule awareness.

What we chose instead

Show appropriate appointment timing and ordinary coordination context without becoming the system of record for medical information.