|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 2, 2018 16:07:39 GMT
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.  I had not appreciated they were hiking up the fees for those that already pay. You obviously know far more about this than I do ... but if what the CEO is saying is true, why not just remove the ability to post private photos? |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 2, 2018 16:25:58 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. It was no surprise, I was never a fan of smugmug (stupid name) and hated their format even viewing other peoples pics posted in it. When they bought flickr I knew it would be a downhill road. I have thousands of pics that I gradually upload. Plan was to upload all and put descriptions as its a part of history. I do not take pics now as much as I did some years ago. I wont even waste any time uploading more. Its now a case of going to every pic and taking the description I wrote of them. Flickr have offered a crap service under smugmug and there is no way I would be paying for that, even if I could afford it.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 2, 2018 16:30:52 GMT
I had not appreciated they were hiking up the fees for those that already pay. You obviously know far more about this than I do ... but if what the CEO is saying is true, why not just remove the ability to post private photos? There are legitimate reasons why people may wish to keep photos private. Photos of family events, young children etc may be kept private or accessible to people identified as "friends and family". That makes sense given how easy it is for photos to be skimmed off Flickr and used for other "purposes". Each one of us has different views about what level of privacy they wish to provide for themselves and those close to them. It makes sense for any photo sharing site to have tools to try to cater for these different views. None of my photos are private but then I don't plaster myself or other people over the net in the first place. Moving lumps of metal and street scenes are rather less likely to provide vicarious stimulation for some sections of society. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 2, 2018 20:39:25 GMT
Does Fotki still exist? I never had an account, and found it rather frustrating to view, but it was an alternative to Flickr back in the day, probably long past?
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 23, 2018 12:44:50 GMT
Does Fotki still exist? I never had an account, and found it rather frustrating to view, but it was an alternative to Flickr back in the day, probably long past? They are still there www.fotki.com/ don't know what to think of them.
I may move to photobucket or instagram. I was about to upload to flicr when I read their notice. Pointless to upload any more pics to them, would be a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 30, 2018 21:36:04 GMT
Late reminder, but if any of you want to buy Flickr Pro for the next year you have until the end of today for the discounted rate which works out to just over £2 a month for the next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Nov 30, 2018 22:16:07 GMT
Late reminder, but if any of you want to buy Flickr Pro for the next year you have until the end of today for the discounted rate which works out to just over £2 a month for the next year. Do you have to pay $49 at once if you go for the discount? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 30, 2018 22:23:55 GMT
Late reminder, but if any of you want to buy Flickr Pro for the next year you have until the end of today for the discounted rate which works out to just over £2 a month for the next year. Do you have to pay $49 at once if you go for the discount? The discount only costed around $38 dollars which lands at around £27, but yes you do need to pay it all at once. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Nov 30, 2018 22:41:44 GMT
Do you have to pay $49 at once if you go for the discount? The discount only costed around $38 dollars which lands at around £27, but yes you do need to pay it all at once. It's showing $49 on my end  |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 30, 2018 22:53:06 GMT
The discount only costed around $38 dollars which lands at around £27, but yes you do need to pay it all at once. It's showing $49 on my end I imagine in that case the discount would have expired unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Nov 30, 2018 23:17:52 GMT
It's showing $49 on my end I imagine in that case the discount would have expired unfortunately. Just had a look myself now and its showing as $49.99 (£39.17) for 1 year, but if I use the Gift button on someone's photostream that isn't already on pro then it is showing as $34.99 (£27.42) for 1 year. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Dec 2, 2018 23:04:56 GMT
Late reminder, but if any of you want to buy Flickr Pro for the next year you have until the end of today for the discounted rate which works out to just over £2 a month for the next year. £2 too expensive |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Dec 3, 2018 7:55:49 GMT
Not sure if this is a viable alternative
Make/Use a Twitter account
Upload image/images onto tweet
Copy tweet url and paste onto here (if on mobile,after pasting the link replace mobile.twitter.com with http://www.twitter.com)
or
right click and open image in new tab and copy that link and paste here
|
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Dec 3, 2018 7:58:06 GMT
Not sure if this is a viable alternative Make/Use a Twitter account Upload image/images onto tweet Copy tweet url and paste onto here (if on mobile,after pasting the link replace mobile.twitter.com with http://www.twitter.com) or right click and open image in new tab and copy that link and paste here I don't think it is, personally. Twitter renders down the image quality, in a similar way to Facebook. |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Dec 3, 2018 8:07:38 GMT
Not sure if this is a viable alternative Make/Use a Twitter account Upload image/images onto tweet Copy tweet url and paste onto here (if on mobile,after pasting the link replace mobile.twitter.com with http://www.twitter.com) or right click and open image in new tab and copy that link and paste here I don't think it is, personally. Twitter renders down the image quality, in a similar way to Facebook. I get yourpoint but the compression isn't always that bad |
|
