
Flickr: Let’s be candid - erickhill
https://www.flickr.com/
======
rococode
Here's the blog post on this:

[https://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-
acco...](https://blog.flickr.net/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-
accounts-1000-photos/)

At first glance it seemed like a way to bring in more money, but the points
they bring up actually seem fairly reasonable.

The rough tl;dr is:

1\. Giving a free terabyte to every user brought in lower-quality content as
people came just for free storage, hurting Flickr's mission of being a site
for quality content by photographers / artists

2\. Subscriptions help them make money from the product instead of the users
(I don't really buy this one, they don't have any reason to stop selling user
data just because of this change)

3\. They want to remind people that file storage costs them a fair chunk of
money to keep running, and it's not something that's magically free

------
artwr
Where have the promise of unlimited storage for free gone? I guess only
Facebook offers you to store as many pictures as you will throw at it. But
retrieval might not be easy.

Snark aside, I am not sure they can be blamed for trying to survive. After all
those costs add up, and without a profitable ads business behind, it's unclear
how Flickr could survive otherwise.

Are there any other popular businesses which currently offers a significant
amount of media storage in a free account?

