Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Flickr is dead (thomashawk.com)
183 points by wspruijt on Aug 12, 2011 | hide | past | favorite | 96 comments

The whole photo-sharing space is ripe for a massive disruptor.

Photographers and enthusiasts have been drifting away from Flickr for ages, but up until now there's been no offering that's really a suitable full replacement.

On the one side you have sites like SmugMug, which has an awesome API, detailed controls over your images... but is devoid of any of the social features Flickr users have grown to love (and loathe sometimes - YOUR PHOTO HAS BEEN INVITED TO [INANE GROUP HERE!]).

Or you have beautifully designed sites like 500px... which also has no API and forces its users to operate the whole thing painfully in manual. But it does have really good discoverability features, maybe better than Flickr.

I'm not confident that Facebook and Google+ will take over the photography enthusiasts' world. I believe that most regular people will share their pictures there (and they already do, on Facebook), but the photography community won't jump on board until there are some very significant leaps (solid API, discoverability features, more niche-specific social features).

But in any case, Flickr is feeling old and creaky, we're all just waiting for something better to come along. Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken this long.

There is one thing Flickr has going for it that can't be replaced on a feature-for-feature basis: Its community has a large number (if not necessarily proportion) of good photographers.

The dashboard is clumsy and ineffective, the whole groups system is backwards and doesn't encourage quality, the Explore algorithm can be quite nice but is too random, the "interestingness" algorithm seems to have crashed somewhere in 2007 and never changes for a given search, and the "contacts" feature has far too much friction for what is essentially a follower system... But as long as I can see new photos from the talented people I follow there, and can share my work with those who enjoy it, I'll keep using Flickr.

Here's my suggestion/plea to Yahoo, however:

The whole user experience really should be rethought with the Twitter-era follower-followee paradigm front and center. Imagine a Flickr where instead of wading through hundreds of redundant, poorly-curated groups to find something captivating, you find photographers whose work you enjoy and easily follow them. Great photos get "re-flicked" throughout the network, prolific members get added to lists that people can follow, and the whole experience becomes much more dynamic, social, and quality-driven.

It's ripe for multiple disruptors. Photos are a communication medium that serves multiple purposes, just as words do. Some photos are your portfolio. Others are your memories. They call for different interactions.

Flickr, Smugmug and 500px are very portfolio-oriented. Snapjoy and my site (OurDoings) are very memory-oriented.

Facebook and Google+ are social-oriented. They're great for sharing what you did yesterday, but awkward for nostalgia. I anticipate both the portfolio- and memory-oriented sites acting as home base, but feeding out to the Facebook and Google+ for social interaction.

     Flickr, Smugmug and 500px are very portfolio-oriented
Oh, I wish Flickr were portfolio oriented.

Unfortunately they have this bizarre concept of a photostream in which you cannot rearrange the order of photos, and they happen in the order of upload and not the date on which they were taken.

Also, while logged in, you cannot filter your own photostream by public / family-only / private photos only. It can be quite annoying, since I have thousands of family-only photos and only dozens of public photos, so I have to log out to see how my photostream looks to outsiders.

Both of your complaints are mistaken.

You can arbitrarily reorder your photostream (not just sets, your actual photostream), and you can check the organizer to filter your photostream for only public photos.

how do you do that?

One way, for example:


The key is "upload date" which is editable, and determines the order.

If you don't have a tool for it, go to your set in the organizer, sort the set as you want, go to the first photo, open the edit modal dialog, and start stepping through the photos setting the upload time to 1 second after the last. When you're done, the photo stream itself will reflect the custom order.

Sets already reflect your custom order with no extra work. Some Flickr tools (of which there are hundreds) support reordering the photo stream, using this technique under the hood.

Since everything on Flickr has an API, you can do most anything you can imagine.

wow, that's awesome. I hadn't realized they had made upload date writable! This has some interesting possibilities. It is somewhat too bad that changing it will wipe out the original photo upload date, though - for photos which don't have the date taken in the exif, there will be no time history of the photo left.

Isn't it currently google+ for recent history automagically archived in picasaweb for nostalgia

All the photos you directly post to Google+ are in a "Photos from Posts" album, which will grow quickly out of control for people who take more than a few pictures. There's no chronlogical view of Picasaweb photos, not even anything like Flickr's Archive feature, which is more geared toward photo-a-day projects than toward nostalgia. You certainly don't have anything like Snapjoy or OurDoings to automatically organize a backlog of hundreds of photos.

All this is true of Facebook as well, and I think it's by design. Nostalgia is often a solitary activity. What social networks want is interaction, so they're going to steer you toward whatever's been uploaded/commented on most recently. Interaction is what grows social network usage.

Totally agreed. 500px's lack of an API is reflective of its whole purpose, it seems: after uploading photos, I had no idea whether the original version was stored. The embeds have one photo size. It's all very focused on being 'in the site' and on your 'portfolio.'

Flickr was the right 'kind of site' for me back in the day, and still works well as a photo service, not a destination. Google+ is a different kind of site - it's a 2011 socialmediaadservingconnecting site instead of a site with any focus or any emphasis on users creating content of value. The 'you are the product' feeling applies to Google+, whereas Flickr I always felt like I was paying for something of value and getting a relatively honest deal. And 500px feels less like a photo service and more like a site builder - something that doesn't fill my 'place to store all of my photos and export them if worse comes to worst' criteria.

Flickr is beyond irritating at times.

I uploaded duplicate photos by mistake on Flickr and had to go through hundreds of photos one by one deleting them. There's no option to delete duplicates based on file name or file name/creation date etc. because Flickr has basically been dormant from a development standpoint for years.

Your need is very unique and it's something you only do once in a while.

And yes, you can delete all the photo at the same time using organizer, or you can use the API to write your own delete method.

I think you're right that duplicate detection is not a commonly-desired feature among photography enthusiasts. They generally upload a small set of carefully-chosen and edited photos, so duplicates will be uncommon.

For people with large collections of their memories, I think it's more common. That's why Snapjoy launched with duplicate detection as part of their MVP. My site (OurDoings) got compliments from a new user on several features, but duplicate detection was apparently the only feature that was capslock-worthy:

duplicate detection. EXCELLENT! Not encountered elsewhere and what a difference it makes, it means that people can dump their stuff even though they havent quite optimised/tagged/cleaned up their local stuff. It detected both duplicates in the file sets I sent (it happens with multiple computers, synchronisation, and multiple aborted organisation efforts) and when i sent files already uploaded. Removes a lot of work :)

If you're using Flickr as a carefully curated art portfolio, I agree, it's unusual and easy to sort.

If you're using Flickr as an event display solution, it's quite easily done.

I have two pro accounts with Flickr, specifically so I can shoot and present events while still leaving breathing space for my general work. By and large I like it, but there are definite issues with bulk tools and this is one of them.

I disagree. Finding and removing duplicates amoungst the 6000+ photos I have on Flickr is a PITA. I screwed up a few times and uploaded photos I didn't think I already had there.

There are many 3rd party apps in the Flickr App Garden that can make up for any shortfalls of the website.

For example, if you're uploading photos, an app like photoSync (http://webecoz.com) knows enough not to duplicate your photos. It will detect that it's a duplicate and use the copy that is already on Flickr.

I believe it may also recognizes duplicates when it's downloading photos.

Thank you for mentioning 500px. I didn't know of it, just checked it out, it has some incredible photos.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned IMGUR yet - it is a fantastic img host - but the premium accounts allow a lot of flexibility. Albums, galleries - privacy settings etc.

Plus it has mobile uploaders and is super fast and easy.

At $24/year for unlimited access/features- I have dropped all others for it.

The horrifyingly stupid advertisements on imgur have made me loathe it.

It's fine for it's original purpose: anonymous reposts on reddit. It's crap for much more than that.

Albums, galleries, and privacy settings are the bare minimum. Flickr does a better job than imgur in those cases already.

Wow I didn't know about 500px. Thanks for mentioning it, hope they release an API…

I've worked with SmugMug on some projects and I'd say they actually have fairly robust social/sharing features–they just may not be marketed well.

They have tons of social network sharing & embed features. Plus a great API. Their categories and subcategories can act much like Flickr's groups but I simply think people don't use/browse them much.

I wasn't thinking about social network sharing when I was referring to social features - I was thinking about social features within the community.

I'm an amateur photographer, the work that I do is of interest to other photogs, rarely to my "real life" friends. Flickr's Groups, for all its faults, allow me to keep up with photographers of similar interests, and they with me - no amount of "Facebook/Twitter/StumbledUpon/+1" button integration will get you that sort of interaction.

There are really two sides to this that I can think of:

- Discoverability: can you discover the work of other people easily, and they yours? 500px has a wonderful way of measuring top uploads and exposing the best work to the world in a beautiful way. Flickr has groups where you can reach out and interact with photogs of similar interests. AFAIK SmugMug has very little in this regard.

- Interactivity: what can you do once you discover interesting, good work? On Flickr you can comment, you can add to group pools (to the collective groaning of everyone, but hey), you can fave, you can give all sorts of feedback. Similar for 500px. SmugMug is not nearly so tightly integrated in this way.

It's very much organized to be individuals of portfolios, there's not a distinct feeling that you're part of a greater network rather than simply looking at a single photographer's work.

Thomas Hawk is a well-known Flickr hater. He keeps bashing Flickr at every chance he gets. And then he continues to use Flickr. I've been reading his "Flickr is dead" and "I hate Flickr" rants for years and years. He tried to start a competing service, but it failed miserably; so he continues to bash Flickr instead.

Dude: if you don't like Flickr, don't use it. Plain and simple. And if you think you can build a better product, go ahead and build it.

The world would be a much better place with fewer whiners and more doers.

When he noted that he had been banned from their help forum a lot of alarm bells went off for me.

Well, considering he trolls the blogosphere with a new "Flickr is Dead"-type post every month, I can't imagine he was very helpful within the help forums and was doing more harm than good.

He has 60,000 photos on Flickr, and 198 on Google+.

Some of his Flickr photos are against G+ ToS.

I'm surprised he hasn't disclosed it himself, but it's worth noting that the author has tried his own hand at this problem with the site Zooomr.com. Things didn't work out though and the site never took over Flickr.

Exactly, I am at a loss to explain why so many people continue to fanboy this blowhard.

He has expressed on multiple occasions his dissatisfaction but fail to disclose his conflict of interest as well as the fact that if he really really hates the service so much he can take it elsewhere or try to start his own (oh wait, that didnt work out).

Be careful not to accidentally commit a Circumstantial Ad Hominem. His so-called conflict of interest has no bearing on whether his argument is cogent.



His site could have failed for a number reasons, such as lack of funding, lack of viral growth (if it was social), or whatever. I think you should be careful not to pick on someone because their startup/project failed. Especially here on HN, where we're supposed to embrace failure.

It's not the fact that he tried and failed (although it is more the fact that he hitched his horse to Kristopher Tate and Zooomr which ended up going nowhere) but more the fact that he so actively disparages (repeatedly) a supposed competitor.

Putting that aside, he's also done this repeatedly to no avail so it is disappointing to say the least to see people pick up and repeat his deeply flawed message.

You might also want to take a look at the following for some perspective on the man behind the persona.




Zooomr is no longer a conflict of interest since he no longer works there. Zooomr has been closed to new registrations for ~2 years.

He has never stopped using Flickr, and still thought Flickr was great when he went to Zooomr: http://thomashawk.com/2006/06/why-im-going-to-work-for-zooom...

Trying, even if he failed, puts him in a better position to criticize than an average armchair pundit.

Except that this gentleman has previously complained about Flickr censorship, yet completely ignores that Google+ is far more restrictive and has already been accused of pulling people's photos (e.g. Lego cleavage[1]) and pulling non "real name" accounts. I don't think he's thought this through.

1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/did-google-ban-cl...

Flickr has had and continues to have plenty of problems over arbitrarily deleting accounts.

One thing Flickr has going for it is photos aren't so closely tied to a user's identity. I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me.

The article has it right, though, about Flickr's lack of updates. The most recent major change I've noticed was a year or two ago and, IMHO, it made the site worse.

"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me."

Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, balance, etc.) and then carefully catalog on flickr (for the former, I might take 20,000 photos during a week, and end up with a couple dozen really choice ones I want to keep in this way), and cheesy photos of me and my family at these places, mostly goofing off with statues or whatever.

The semantics of the two kinds of photos couldn't be different. So I use FB and G+ for the latter, and flickr most definitely for my carefully curated former.

How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location.

Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000 cycles. I doubt you're replacing your camera body every 5 trips.

It's not that hard. You're assuming I'm only take one shot of a scene. It's really not that hard to take 3 or 4 a second in some cases. If I'm shooting a panorama, I might take 12 or 13 shots in ~10 seconds.

I usually shoot more like 10,000-15,000 in a week, but I've gone closer to 20,000 in a couple cases. It's only 1500 photos a day for a 10,000 shot week. Which averages just a bit over 1 a minute for an 8 hour day (but who says I only spend 8 hours out and about?) but in truth, the shot times are more clumpy. For example, I shot about 30 photos in 2 minutes of Vasari's fresco inside the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore (the Duomo). I'll probably combine all those into one or two larger photos stitched up.

Differently, walking up to the same Basilica along a street in Florence offered several very different compositions of the same street. In 5 minutes I was able to shoot 20 pretty decent shots, and probably 1 or 2 really good ones.

That's 50 shots of the same building in a total of 7 minutes.

Riding on local public transport often gives you views of lots of neat things, and only one or two seconds to shoot them.

I'm not even counting the family photos I also took in the meantime.

And yes, I'll actually probably start looking for a replacement camera body sometime next year. I shoot with a D60, so it's only about $400-450...trivial compared to the cost of 5 or 6 2- week trips overseas.

My wife used to think I was crazy, but now years later, going over these old photo archives, we can remember in fantastic detail many of the great places we've traveled together.

"Oh, that's pretty, that would make a good picture..." click click click click click click

When taking a picture has almost no cost, people take many pictures of the same thing and sort out the best of the bunch later.

You're assuming he's only taking one exposure per scene. It's easy to take that many photos in only a few days, let alone a week. Hell, I can take 300 shots of my infant son playing around in about 15 minutes.

It's really not that crazy. I know lots of photographers who went to Africa for a week and took 10k+ photos. I can take 500+ in about 30 minutes with an animated model if I'm doing more of "do your thing and I'll try to catch some good shots" versus "a carefully planned out set of poses".

Google+ makes it easy to share some items with some circles, and other items with other circles.

Yeah, but there's something different about doing it that way. I don't get to just put my stuff out there the same way for people to stumble on. I get between 20 to 100 views a day on my flickr page and I have absolutely no idea who it is. On occasion I'll get messaged by a travel guide or a competition or something that wants to use one of my photos or have me compete.

I'm not sure I can replicate that in g+.

Recent major change was the photo page redesign done this year no? (or was it last year?), and that redesign is good.

About the 1st point: totally agree. I use flickr to look for a good pictures and from time to time to post some of mine that are reasonably OK - for me it's not, and never has been, a site to post photos from last night's bash or socialize with people, that's what Facebook is for (and maybe G+ will be someday in the future (but it won't come easy for them)). I also don't need the site to change every 6 months - if it works OK (and flickr works OK for me) then changing it is not really necessary (or at least, not that important).

Really? The whole reason I like Google+ is that I can share family photos with family and make other stuff public. I could never do that on Flickr.

No photographer will take Google+ seriously as long as uploading an artistic nude could result in your entire Google account being disabled.

Flickr will close your account over a single photo not having the appropriate safety level setting and plenty of photographers take it seriously.

I knew I'd heard that name before:

> Flickr will be here long after you are and its cultural significance to our world will outlast your quarter to quarter financial results.


Flickr may or may not be dead, but Google+ isn't going to replace it. The great thing about Flickr is the discovery. Flickr has a ton of tools that help you find other photographers (explore, tags, groups) and Google+ has none of these.

Whereas Flickr enables and encourages users to seek out new contacts, it seems to me that the purpose of Google+ is to better facilitate communication between existing contacts. He doesn't mention this in the post, but does anyone know how was the photo walk organized?

Exactly. Now, this isn't to say that Google couldn't create new solutions to some of these problems, but I get the sense that at its core, Google+ isn't going to be about discoverability per se, but about, as you say, connect with people you already know.

Flickr's search is actually quite robust and amazing. I frequently use the Creative Commons archives for my work as a writer. It's a fantastic resource.

Flickr might be dying, dead or stagnant, but I don't think that its replacement will be a slightly rehashed Picasa. Instead, I'm guessing it will be some sort of new network design that is able to surface photos from multiple sites and accounts and identities.

Here are a few things that have killed Flickr for myself and 80% of my photographer friends:

- Poor quality of work (or, rather, the good photography is buried under mounds of dross). 500px has the advantage of being new, and limits monthly uploads, so the quality there is surprisingly high

- Vacuous comments. "Nice capture!". "Great shot!". This is only made worse when looking at the horror-movie-esque overdone-HDR monstrosity.

- Group and all flashing badge icons in comments

- woeful mobile interface which is slow and eventually displays a non-zoomable postage stamp sized image. I cringe whenever I see a Flickr link on twitter

In short, Flickr might still be a place for photographs but not for photographers. Actually, I think photoblogs or 500px combined with twitter provide a great way of showing off your photos and getting great feedback from people you respect.

The short version of the article is that Flickr hasn't changed in years, no one at Yahoo seems interested in it, the community is drifting away, and they're heading towards Google+.

I think this is pretty much true, though I'm not sure Google+ will really be where everyone will end up - it certainly lacks a lot of things (like shared circles for example), and whether Google will support those communities by creating the features they want is really up in the air right now.

Not that I have high hopes for Flickr, but sampling the trends going on a walk with Google employees is probably a bit biased.

As for Flickr: isn't it strange how the products with the worst user interfaces always seem to become the most popular? Same with Facebook.

I don't agree with the interface comment. Facebook became popular in part because it had a much cleaner, more usable, interface than MySpace. I think the same is true of Flickr, though I'm not a heavy user.

It's probably true that other, newer companies have created better interfaces since then, but I'd argue that they became popular because their interfaces were superior at the time.

> I think the same is true of Flickr, though I'm not a heavy user.

Might have been true in the past, but I'll be damned if I don't just insta-close any flickr link I click by mistake these days. I just want to see a picture and half the time I get these two dots swirling around for what seems like half an hour, until it leads me to a half-broken interface with a tiny dot of a picture.

Not worth it.

Or: they become popular despite, and then they're too scared to improve the UI for fear of change?

Both Flickr and Facebook had awesome interfaces when they first became popular. They just didn’t change enough or went in the wrong direction afterwards.

Much the same with Google Plus. It takes serious effort for growth and the infinite strength of 'user needs' not to clobber a good interface with lots of cruft that most users don't want.

I think the Flickr UX is pretty good, but I've only been a user for a couple of months. So maybe the problem is that the Flickr UX can't grow with the user/photographer?

Sensationalist title aside, I think Google+ and Flickr fill two different niches: the former is for the social sharing of images, whereas Flickr appeals more to a professional/enthusiast group. One thing is that Flickr puts control of image copyrights into the user's hand, whereas G+ doesn't really have that at all. To that end, someone looking to protect their images would seem to prefer Flickr, I should think.

I'm a weekend photographer and I recently became a paying Flickr user. For my simple use-case of uploading files and sending off the URL to a couple of friends per email Flickr is the perfect service.

Why not use free PicasaWeb for this? $5 gets you bbasically unlimited storage.

The only answer I can say myself is that PicasaWeb uses the ugliest possible lossy compression settings on all photos it displays.

Picasa is all integrated with the other Google services (which I'm a heavy user of), but in the case of Picasa it results in a messy UX for me.

Eg. I just went to picasaweb.google.com to check out whether it's $5/mo or $5/year, and what is shows me is a bunch of pictures from my G+ stream, but the whole UX is confusing. It doesn't even have a front page (like flickr.com). Where do I find pricing?

It seems to me that Flickr is better at the whole "do one thing and do it well" paradigm and it results in a much smoother UX compared to the integrated G+ mess.

EDIT: There's a tiny "Upgrade your storage" link at the bottom, pricing is $5/yr for 20GB.

Yahoo, which once held great promise, seems to have become the company that buys things and fails with them. Some examples off the top of my head:

Konfabulator (Yahoo Widgets), Geocites, Delicious, Flickr, Broadcast.com.

Heck, they don't even provide their own search results anymore. Can anyone think of something that Yahoo has bought that has flourished under them?

FWIW, Konfabulator (now Y! ConnectedTV) is on 8 million TVs and growing. Pairing that with their recent IntoNow acquisitions, if those are to be integrated (rumored) then it could be a very unique and exciting product.

That's their business model. Yahoo is a media slaughterhouse, not a farm.

Thomas Hawk has a long history of enthusiasm and rage; if his normal pattern holds expect to see him lambasting Google for not adding his pet (absolutely essential) feature in six months or so.

This latest enthusiasm has me puzzled though. I mean Google+ looks like it's great for sharing photos of limited interest that aren't necessarily public. But it doesn't strike me as a good place to present your art to the world.

I'm surprised that no one is selling turnkey photosharing sites that work off an Amazon backend and that operators can skin with their own branding and mix and match galleries and slideshow Javascript, and other features.

The more telling thing is that Thomas Hawk isn't even his real legal name (Google it) so is in BLATANT violation of the Google+ real name policy.

Feel free to report it. I personally don't see why he should get a free pass on this.

I wouldn't report it because I try not to be an utter prat, on the internet or IRL. But it is a telling instance of Google's hypocrisy on the issue of pseudonymity.

Have a look at Openphoto, it's an open source (kickstarter funded) option to do exactly what you're talking about


I think you are describing SmugMug at the end there.

The problem with Facebook and now Google+ is that these are not specifically designed for sharing photos.

Facebook gets more photos uploaded than Flickr can ever dream of, but they are family pictures or pictures of drunken teenagers, of poor quality in general. If you want to see art, Flickr is a wonderful place to discover amateurs with talent and there's nothing out there that can beat it.

Also, I think a photo-sharing service has to have good tools for exploring said pictures. On Flickr, even if it has many flaws, it is really cool to search for pictures with a high interestingness score and then to start following the people that took them. I found some breathtaking works of art that way.

On Facebook and G+ you have to rely on your friends-feed instead for discovery, but that's not how art is supposed to be discovered.

Flickr, for all its flaws, works for its intended purpose and can only be killed by another web service that is created explicitly for photo-sharing.

Google is in a position to do that however, but with Picasa Web and not Google+, although integration would be nice.

a bit heavy on the google influence in the article....

I don't feel like G+ is at all geared to photographers. Flickr has tons of features/tools that seem natural to many but are key to managing photos, making sets, organizing etc. The meta data alone you can associate with flickr photos is incredible. G+ can make a photo set in the same way Facebook can, not really same target/point.

I was thinking the same thing re: google influence. Also, was it any wonder that at a photowalk attended by a ton of Google people, Google+ would be talked about more than Flickr?

He makes some good points about the interface stagnation and community excitement (even my own Flickr account has grown weedy and sparse over the years.) However, it was off-putting to see so much, I don't know, what seemed like personal vitriol next to evaluations of the service itself.

I'm not going to argue that Flickr isn't dying, but they do have some things that Google+ and Facebook don't have: groups. A lot of groups are a waste, but some well-administered groups are awesome, both for the group photo pools and discussions.

The Strobist group is one example: http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/

Flickr is an amazing resource for sharing and using Creative Commons licensed photos. We use it extensively in creating museum exhibits. I hope that Google+ makes it easy to search and share photos with Creative Commons licenses.

Google+ finally made me move from Flickr. The integration between Google+ and Picasa is really well done. Now I can upload HD video longer than a minute and a half. I can easily share content with exactly who I want to (without them needing an account anywhere). Before I had to upload family photos to Flickr (world-public, of course, or no one was going to be able to figure out how to see them) then email the album around or post it on Facebook. Now it's all in once place and way easier.

I could never understand the appeal of Flickr. I've always found the UI to be extremely confusing and close to unusable. Way back in the day I used to post my travel photos there, mainly because back then there weren't that many alternatives. None of my family could figure out how to use the site to view my albums either.

Thank God we have a competitive market for this sort of stuff now so that I haven't had a reason to visit Flickr in years.

Flickr hasn't much changed their business model or their service offering in a long time, meanwhile online storage costs have dropped through the floor and competitors have been innovating like crazy. There isn't quite a "flickr killer" out there just yet for flickr's key users (avid and professional photographers), but it's getting closer and closer.

One thing I always thought that Flickr lacked was an integrated, easy way to buy photos. I don't want to contact the photographer and wait for a reply, when I need a photo for a slide, I want to be able to buy it instantly.

At this point Flickr seems like a site that just survives by inertia, nothing new seems to be done, they have pretty much accepted defeat, I guess.

It has this. The photographer needs to enable it.

Maybe it's just because I'm not a photographer, but I'm surprised that something like photo sharing can generate this much passion.

Wait till they start discussing quick release mechanisms for tripod heads. You haven't seen anything yet.

If Google really wanted to make this true, they'd add "Import from Flickr" to the G+ Photo Upload page.

Infinite scrolling makes me nauseous. I literally feel sick to my stomach when the bottom of the page is always yanked out of my grasp, Sisyphus-style.

TLDR; Google+ has infinite scrolling, and Flickr does not, therefore Flickr is passe and not supported by developers or the photo sharing community.

In short, Mr. Hawk is pointing out that Flickr is no longer dedicating resources to untangle a PHP codebase that has taken on a life of its own after seven or eight years whereas Google+ is embracing photo-sharing as an integral part of its new offering. Proof to that is that I have Brian Rose in my circles right from the beginning and I had no clue who he was. A photo-walk with the Facebook team? Can anyone even tell me who's on the Facebook photo team? Flickr?

Flickr will not be rebuilt nor will it be offering incremental feature upgrades of any importance going forward. I'd be surprised if they actually had a dedicated development team versus a group of maintenance developers. The managers are there to make sure I pay for my Pro account once a year and report back to the board that the money is still rolling in.

Google+ pictures to help you share, discover and reinforce social relationships, Flickr to store and organize your crap.

OMG does 500px suck. It's Flickr with a new theme and Stumbleupon integration.

After 10 minutes his website finally loaded and I got a chance to read his blog entry. What he backs his claim up with in the end is that a lot of his photographer friends, some of which work for Google, talk about Google+ instead of Flickr, and that there's a tipping point situation happening because the 10% that represent the "best" Flickr contributors are moving to Google+.

Isn't there a chicken and egg problem for new entrants? There's not a lot of photos to discover if you're building something brand new.

site about "dead" Flickr is dead :-)

thomashawk.com/2011/08/flickr-is-dead.html Connection timed out

Must have been hosted by flickr then.

I don't know what the article is about, since the website seems to be down, but i found Google+ to be an awesome photo community.


I think it's just you.

Stupid sensationalist headline.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact