If you're photographers who are planning to migrate to Flickr you might want to reconsider, unless you don't mind...
If you're photographers who are planning to migrate to Flickr you might want to reconsider, unless you don't mind paying $50/year for unlimited storage.
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/11/03/flickr-limits-free-version-to-1000-photos/
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/11/03/flickr-limits-free-version-to-1000-photos/
Because it's either/or: Either you pay $50/year for unlimited storage, OR you are limited to 1000 photos.
ReplyDeleteI predict a bunch of photogs will move to Flickr (or enhance their existing presence), but a LOT of casual photogs will depart in droves. I'm undecided.
I don't mind - in fact, I've had a paid Flickr Pro account for years. As many others have pointed out since the announcement that G+ is going away, if we aren't the customers, we become the products.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Dillman and then they decide it is $79.99... Or maybe $14.99 per month, or...
ReplyDeleteThere's no contract, no lease.
No go
That's been the case already a long time ago when I joined Flickr. It changed when yahoo acquired Flickr, unlimited storage was one of the perks yahoo tried to lure people into their services with. We know how that worked out: not. Now that smugmug acquired Flickr they are going back to their roots. No problem with that.
ReplyDeleteChristof Harper or you pay nothing and they shut down the service because it is not profitable. I'd rather see a business thrive on my money and providing me good service than live with the uncertainty of an intransparent business model.
ReplyDeleteMatthias Welwarsky however, since there is no contract, no guarantees of service, no limits on the price raising.... you end up paying money to have a non transparent and uncertainty in provision of service.....
ReplyDeleteYa, no.
All of the above are good points. For me, photography is a hobby at this point in my life, and I'm not sure I want to spend $50 a year on it. I don't really get a social aspect from Flickr, so it's more of a storage and off-site backup for me. Which has value, but I might be better off investing in my own storage that I control. Still thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Dillman I get the same thing with google photos, with a lot of storage space. shrug
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much I can trust google for anything, but that just means I'm LESS likely to trust flickr. Flickr has changed it's terms often enough that several forums I know will not permit flickr photos in posts
Christof Harper I have a Google Pixel phone that came with unlimited full resolution storage for life, so I have a metric tonne of photos on Google. I'll keep using it as long as it lasts for that reason, at least.
ReplyDeleteAdmiral Taptap True, but they're giving you plenty of notice so you can grab copies if needed. I don't consider the deletion a major problem. I understand their not wanting to host tons of pics for people who aren't paying.
ReplyDeleteIt's gonna be a loss of Creative Commons licensed photos regardless, especially of those who've uploaded more than a 1000, and either lost access to their accounts (quite some people have been unable to get back in due to the Yahoo takeover), or just aren't alive anymore.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, it feels a bit like burning a library.
I hope that Archive.org for instance will at least make a backup of all the CC-licensed works.
archive.org - Internet Archive
Christof Harper pff, yes, but you have no contract with Google about your Photos account either and that's apparently not keeping you off. That, plus you know already that Google is prone to just shutting down nonprofitable stuff, like Picasa, which then sorta/kinda but-not-quite became Photos. Anyway, if you're looking for a free space to dump your photos - flickr is not for you. And of course there is a contract with flickr if you use their service. There always is, explicit or implicit. If the conditions don't suit you, well, then, by all means, stay away.
ReplyDeleteMatthias Welwarsky I have no contract with Google. I hace know trust with Google as I have stated
ReplyDeleteI am also not giving Google money to provide me with no contract
PFFFFT
its not that hard.
Christof Harper policies.google.com - Google Terms of Service – Privacy & Terms – Google
ReplyDeleteThis is a contract. Like it or not.
Matthias Welwarsky oh, devastating. it's not a contract that provides ME with anything in terms of durable guarantees. which is the same problem you have when you pay for flickr
ReplyDelete(actually, having worked int he industry extensively, it's the same problem you have int he US with 99% of consumer internet access. you have no enforceable contract. the provider has an enforceable contract, but you can't enforce shit. Even most small commercial frame contracts don't actually guarantee service or uptime. )
Sersiouly? this is all you can do?
Matthias Welwarsky (remember, as you get more emotionally attached to "being right" and "making me look bad", that you are defending unethical business practices in an effort to "win" some little emotional game.)
ReplyDeleteChristof Harper well go pick your own nose, dude. You're trying just as hard, with all that superiority you're airing, down to the very point of stipulating "unethical" behaviour. That's low.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Matthias Welwarsky, Christof Harper is correct. And it's not very often I say that.
ReplyDelete