|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2018 21:35:49 GMT
Just been shocked to see they are going to be charging. It is no surprise the merger they had about 2 years ago was a bad thing. Would not be paying $49.99 per year for it, they can go and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision. blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ *Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 1, 2018 21:57:13 GMT
Just been shocked to see they are going to be charging. It is no surprise the merger they had about 2 years ago was a bad thing. Would not be paying $49.99 per year for it, they can go and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision. blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ *Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.
Will this apply to someone who posts few or no videos/photos of their own but has over 1.000 'favourites' posted by others? |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Nov 1, 2018 22:21:11 GMT
Will this apply to someone who posts few or no videos/photos of their own but has over 1.000 'favourites' posted by others? Don't see why that would affect people's faves. Other than that some would disappear as the actual content is removed. Such a bloody shame as a lot of inactive accounts will have a lot of content culled soon just because they are over the 1K photo mark -_- Why can't they just freeze the upload ability instead? Only upside is this will get rid of the shoddy blurry phone shots children, who'll likely move to Instagram. Myself I am held hostage by Flickr and decided to pay up 🙄 So my own Flickr will live on if anyone's been wondering. It's 30% off for the first year if you pay before November 30th. So about £28 quid. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2018 22:58:25 GMT
Will this apply to someone who posts few or no videos/photos of their own but has over 1.000 'favourites' posted by others? Don't see why that would affect people's faves. Other than that some would disappear as the actual content is removed. Such a bloody shame as a lot of inactive accounts will have a lot of content culled soon just because they are over the 1K photo mark -_- Why can't they just freeze the upload ability instead? Only upside is this will get rid of the shoddy blurry phone shots children, who'll likely move to Instagram. Myself I am held hostage by Flickr and decided to pay up 🙄 So my own Flickr will live on if anyone's been wondering. It's 30% off for the first year if you pay before November 30th. So about £28 quid. I can't see the justification in removing content just prevent anymore photos being added if they must. I certainly won't be paying up! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 1, 2018 22:58:40 GMT
Well I've been a paid member for a long while but Smugmug, who bought Flickr, have doubled the price to what I consider to be an unsustainable level. I was not intending to renew when my subscription expired so I'm faced with having my many thousands of photos lost. My interest was waning anyway so I may just kill the account entirely at the requisite time. The only saving grace is that almost all of my photos are stored away from Flickr so I don't have a need to download thousands of photos to store elsewhere.
I suspect a lot of Flickr users will be outraged by this development which is clearly about trying to make Flickr profitable without advertising. I wonder whether this will end up as a huge misjudgement on the part of the new owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 1, 2018 23:18:55 GMT
Will this apply to someone who posts few or no videos/photos of their own but has over 1.000 'favourites' posted by others? No but you may find some of your Favourite shots disappear if the owners do not opt to pay up and Flickr deletes some or all of their content. There are a number of accounts on Flickr where the actual "owner" has died but their photos have remained for people to enjoy. They are incapable of taking out subscriptions. Some unique and potentially valuable content is going to be lost as a result of this decision. I understand the need for Flickr / Smugmug to make money. That's fine and they're not a charity. I do feel, though, that they have very badly misjudged this. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 1, 2018 23:49:19 GMT
Just been shocked to see they are going to be charging. It is no surprise the merger they had about 2 years ago was a bad thing. Would not be paying $49.99 per year for it, they can go and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision. blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ *Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.
Sorry, but again this is a something for nothing case like free travel ... if you benefit you are outraged if it is suggested it is taken away. Any business/service needs to make money to survive. This is why the social welfare budget is second only to the health service as a drain on the national budget |
|
|
|
Post by N230UD on Nov 2, 2018 1:08:54 GMT
I have 13,000 photos on there as a free account holder, so this news is rather frustrating.
I am finding Flickr less active amongst the transport enthusiast community anyway, I get little response from photos I post, and I find uploading photos very time consuming with ever-decreasing free time. Therefore, a $50 yearly charge seems a lot for something i'm getting less enjoyment out of.
I hope I can find a new place to show my photos - I don't really get much satisfaction from taking photos and just keeping them for myself.
I think a compromise would be for current account holders to be allowed to keep all their already-uploaded photos on there free, as is current. Current users would then only be allowed to upload a further 1,000 photos before having to go Pro. Only new users would have the new rules apply.
I liked using Flickr as a back-up for my photos. Most of my photos are either on my laptop, or saved on to disks. I am considering getting an external hard drive, but I have heard of plenty of horror stories of the drives corrupting. Of course, I could pay that $50 in order to keep it going, but its not a cost I feel is justified, especially as i'm only in a part-time job at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 2, 2018 1:13:57 GMT
Just been shocked to see they are going to be charging. It is no surprise the merger they had about 2 years ago was a bad thing. Would not be paying $49.99 per year for it, they can go and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision. blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ *Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.
Sorry, but again this is a something for nothing case like free travel ... if you benefit you are outraged if it is suggested it is taken away. Any business/service needs to make money to survive. This is why the social welfare budget is second only to the health service as a drain on the national budget I'm pretty sure that can be done without penalising existing users. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 2, 2018 1:55:04 GMT
Sorry, but again this is a something for nothing case like free travel ... if you benefit you are outraged if it is suggested it is taken away. Any business/service needs to make money to survive. This is why the social welfare budget is second only to the health service as a drain on the national budget I'm pretty sure that can be done without penalising existing users. But in all seriousness, what benefit is there for them in keeping existing users that don't want to pay? |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 2, 2018 2:20:42 GMT
First Photobucket and Flickr. What photo sharing site is there left?
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 2, 2018 6:05:04 GMT
Just been shocked to see they are going to be charging. It is no surprise the merger they had about 2 years ago was a bad thing. Would not be paying $49.99 per year for it, they can go and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision. blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/ *Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.
Sorry, but again this is a something for nothing case like free travel ... if you benefit you are outraged if it is suggested it is taken away. Any business/service needs to make money to survive. This is why the social welfare budget is second only to the health service as a drain on the national budget I understand your point but I think it's the moving of the goalposts that people object to? By all means introduce a 1,000 limit but to start removing photos that were posted under the current rule is very poor. As far as I'm aware an unlimited number of photos can be stored on Facebook accounts and I can't imagine many people being willing to pay these charges, people have got used to online services being free to use and paid for by advertising. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 2, 2018 7:22:04 GMT
This is a poor move by Flickr to penalise existing users. I enjoy following accounts by snoggle, RandomBusesGirl and many others. Hopefully another provider steps into this space to offer an alternative solution. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 2, 2018 7:29:36 GMT
Sorry, but again this is a something for nothing case like free travel ... if you benefit you are outraged if it is suggested it is taken away. Any business/service needs to make money to survive. This is why the social welfare budget is second only to the health service as a drain on the national budget I understand your point but I think it's the moving of the goalposts that people object to? By all means introduce a 1,000 limit but to start removing photos that were posted under the current rule is very poor. As far as I'm aware an unlimited number of photos can be stored on Facebook accounts and I can't imagine many people being willing to pay these charges, people have got used to online services being free to use and paid for by advertising. But with so many people using AdBlockers these days .. that business model no longer stacks up! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 2, 2018 15:34:23 GMT
I understand your point but I think it's the moving of the goalposts that people object to? By all means introduce a 1,000 limit but to start removing photos that were posted under the current rule is very poor. As far as I'm aware an unlimited number of photos can be stored on Facebook accounts and I can't imagine many people being willing to pay these charges, people have got used to online services being free to use and paid for by advertising. But with so many people using AdBlockers these days .. that business model no longer stacks up! There are several issues with your analogy and what Flickr / Smugmug say they are doing. I understand your "something for free" point but Flickr are retaining free accounts but with draconian photo based limits rather than storage size limits. The more equitable approach would be to cap on storage size so people have the option to load few but large file size photos or many more smaller sized ones. I always edit down my photos to a reasonable size which is why I'm nowhere near breaching the current 1TB limit for a free account (although I actually pay for Pro). Flickr's CEO has said, on the Flickr Help Forum, the move to vastly reduce the numbers of "free" photos is down to just 3% of free account holders who keep their photos private and not shared openly. So, in short, Flickr are ruining the experience for 97% of users rather than tackle the 3% with vast libraries of "private" photos. One perhaps doesn't need a vivid imagination to understand why those accounts may be "private". The decision to just delete probably hundreds of millions of photos is unprecedented (barring the complete commercial failure of a previous photo sharing site but even there steps were taken to allow people to retrieve their images). I really don't think Flickr have thought through the consequences of this policy decision. As a pro user I face a 100% price rise. That's a ridiculous hike and not justified on any rational basis. The money may not be a huge sum but some of us are on limited finances and being able to buy food and pay the electricity bill is a tad more important. Given other events looming in this country we have no firm idea as to how much life's essentials are going to cost in less than 6 months time. Flickr could have come up with a more nuanced pricing structure to lessen the financial burden on people / ease a transition from a free (advertising based) model towards a paid one. Instead they have opted to pad out an already fairly poor and unattractive set of features with some tech advances and more "offers from partners" (i.e. discounts against already over inflated prices) that are of zero interest to me. Some people may well find that new offer fine but that's for them. I don't object to paying a fee that I consider to be value for money. I've done that for years. I understand the need for Flickr to have a revenue stream that can sustain the business. What I don't understand is why they have opted for such a clumsy and heavy handed approach that will almost certainly cost them a great deal of users, a downturn in ad revenue and a downturn in their subscriber base. Perhaps they just want a much smaller business that is cheaper to run? It would be honest of them to actually say this rather than the usual flowery buzz word laden nonsense you get with these "It's all wonderful, PS - here's the bad news" type announcements. I've already advised my Flickr followers that my account will cease next July when my subscription expires.  |
|
