Currently, I pay $25 for a year's worth of unlimited photo storage and being ad-free. With this new plan, I have to pay twice as much for what I have now...because even as a 3+ year (almost 4 now) member, I haven't uploaded enough to fill a terabyte. Kind of a bummer, though allowing more than 200 photos (which was the Free offering until now) is absolutely critical for Flickr to be a success.
edit: one of the things I complained about was how the horizontal-masonry that was implemented months (if not a year) ago had been limited to just parts of the site...and how the default logged in userpage was dull and photoless...with the new redesign, both of these complaints are wiped out. Nicely done Yahoo, I will complain more on HN in the future.
edit2: Unless I'm missing something obvious, I don't see a "let me see the old version for now" button...Which I think underscores my opinion of how outdated the old site design was.
"But we are working on a plan to let non-recurring Pro member sign up for recurring Pro subscription. We will post more details when they become available."
1TB is a meaningless promise. No one will use a full terabyte for a long time to come. I have about 1,400 photos on Flickr today, almost all of which were shot with a DSLR. Even if you were to consider file size of my current camera in RAW, that would come out to about 31GB total; Jpeg will be a lot smaller.
So, they jettison features that are hard or costly, offer something that no one will actually use for a long time to come, and...profit, I suppose.
I think the time might have come for me to move entirely onto 500px, which kind of bums me out. I love 500px, but I've also been a Flickr user for over eight years.
Myself, I'll likely remain primarily on Flickr, simply for the community aspect - that's something which seems to remain imperceptible to the likes of Marissa Mayer, sad to say. I'm also on 500px, but there's no atmosphere there.
It's more impressive. Storage is easy to add and increase. Just throw more harddisk at it. This not not the case with features (how do you reliably double your features?)
I'm a premium user, have been for the past 5 years, I don't see what being pro gives me any more and I'm paid up until may 2014! I feel like I'm being screwed over!
is there still a 200 photo limit on free accounts?
are they secretly pushing people back into free accounts so they can kill flickr more easily because there aren't so many poeple paying?
new design is good though, horay for FINALLY being able to middle click the nav now! can't wait till they fix the organizr!
It'd take 291 years to fill up the 1TB allowance:
(Also looks like there's a missing </ul> on that limits page, there.)
Edit: Looks like the page is being edited right this moment - the page used to list the 300MB/month limit but was also mentioning the new account types, at the same time. Guess they forgot to review all the text
Here are their newer plans --
+ 1 Terabyte of photo and video storage
+ Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo
+ Upload 1080p HD videos of up to 1GB each
+ Video playback of up to 3 minutes each
+ Upload and download in full original quality
Ad-Free accounts: (older pro-accounts are gone!)
+ $49.99 per year
+ All the benefits of a free account
+ No ads in your browsing experience
Doublr-Plan(extra 1 TB space):
+ $499.99 per year
+ 2 Terabytes of photo and video space
+ You get all the benefits of the free account
On another note, I (surprisingly) like how the disemvoweling is becoming synonymous with the Yahoo brand (with Tumblr now as well). What seemed stale is starting to seem fresh again. Playful, almost, like a wink to Web 2.0 -- though I imagine it could be perceived as being out of touch too, if they don't play it right.
The Flickr Pro account 24.95/yr for "unlimited storage" was an easy purchase. When you login with your Pro account you are suggested to downgrade to the new 1TB (ad) account.
For 49.99/yr I have to ask myself, do I really need this ? what are my other options.
However, if I were signing up for an account today, I would most likely not purchase a paid account - my main reason for paying for an account was to get past the "only your last 200 photos are visible" limitation. That said, if I actually used my flickr account for business purposes, I would not hesitate to pay $50 per year to remove ads from my photos. I suspect many professionals would agree.
The bulk of the people who want to host 2 Terabytes of Photos will be fine paying $500/year, those who aren't can create multiple accounts. (Those who just want Local+Cloud backups are probably better served by just buying a 2 TB Hard Drive for $90, and backing up with backblaze for $50/year
Stats are gone anyway with the new account types.
I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a good situation for anyone.
If you are such a heaver user that you need more than 1TB of space, you are unlikely to want to split your account into two and your would probably be unlikely to balk at spending $500 per year on what would be for you a business service.
And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..
A while back I was getting nervous about what Yahoo was going to do with Flickr, so I signed up for a $60/ year SmugMug account.
On the technical side of things, transferring the data out of Flickr wasn't a problem at all. If I remember correctly, importing ~9000 (~42 Gb) of photos from Flickr took less than an hour, and preserved almost all of the meta-data I had in Flickr (sets, collections, tags, etc.). It was so fast I almost didn't believe it. Of course 1 Tb would take a while even at that speed.
The bigger problem is getting people to use the new site. My Mom, for example, still goes to my Flickr page.
It's a very, very small number of people (though they certainly exist) that have photo libraries of > 1 Terabyte. And, and an almost insignificant number of people who have 1 Terabyte of curated pictures. (I.E. Eliminating Dupes, Poor Composition, Focus/exposure issues, etc...)
Flickr as backup doesn't make sense - backblaze, at $50/year, makes a lot more sense. Perhaps this is Flickr's way of encouraging people to start using them as a curated upload site, and not as a backup of their entire photo library.
I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)
I've built an image library for a FTSE100 company. $499 per year for storage and access to a decent API would have looked pretty cheap to be honest.
I've seen nothing that says that's changed.
The actual TOS make no mention of whether you can have a business account or not. In face the best practices page specifically provides guidelines for businesses.
"This guide is intended to help organizations—such as businesses, groups and non-profits—get the most out of Flickr."
I'm tied into iPhoto on a very full SSD and am longing for a way out.
If you're specifically looking for Flickr, a little searching shows me this page, which mentions an (unofficial) iPhoto plugin: http://www.flickr.com/tools/
When I looked at the limits page it was updated to list all the new plans, but it also mentioned a 300MB/month upload limit for free accounts (in two spots, I seem to recall, but at least one, and then it was gone.)
You get 1TB extra i.e total 2 TB + no ads.
Some interesting observations -- the cost of Free account for Yahoo is -- 450$ per free-user/year.
So, lets be prepared to get ads all around. :)
Now this is like -- 1TB online storage = 450$/year, doesn't make sense now.
Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Hope not, love Flickr :-s
Yes, I know I could use adblock etc., which helps, but the design and layout is still much worse than it could be. It's worth paying a small amount to fix sites I use a lot.
Also, it's the principle of the thing. If they can't see that their site is totally f#¤ useless and ugly, I'm not going to bother with them.
I'd never pay for them to be turned off, unless perhaps if it was a small site or community that I wanted to help out / donate to.
Oh, and the audio ads in Spotify, I'd pay in blood not to hear them :D
Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.
And it seems that after proving people will happily pay for premium features, they've now sent an email to all their customers which essentially says unless you have over 1TB of photos with us (which is pretty-much no-one), you may as well cancel and use the free account instead.
It seems like a very bizarre structure to me and I can't see people subscribing to it which is a shame as IMHO they've just vastly improved what was already by far the best product in its market.
I Hope I'm wrong.
This makes the entire 1 TB craze seem like a giant farce.
Edit: It appears they have removed the limit, disregard.
Well, sort of. There's no mention of bandwidth on the new limits page, other than it was previously unlimited under Pro. They apparently haven't completely updated their FAQ page...
"Dear [name], as a Pro member continue to enjoy the benefits of unlimited space, an ad free experience and stats."
"Smile [username]. Flickr gives you one free terabyte of space. Share your photos in full resolution. See what's new
Pro members, your subscription remains the same."
It seems Pro is still here.
As I understand it, accounts that were originally a gift, like mine, don't get the recurring transaction treatment. This makes sense, but only up to a point, that point being where the owner of the account renews it with a different credit card and it becomes truly "theirs".
I am not sure that flickr gave this scenario due consideration, there must be a lot of people who received pro as a gift but have since paid to renew it will be unable to benefit from the reduced "grandfathered" price of $25.
* Starting on 5/20/2013, we will no longer be offering new Flickr Pro subscriptions. After that point, the following things will happen: *
* Recurring Pro users currently have the ability to renew. *
I wonder if Yahoo/Flickr are really going to take that good a care of their existing pro users?
Your Flickr Pro subscription:
1-year Pro at $24.95
Your Pro account will renew automatically on 3rd September, 2013
I only see: "Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo"
(1 TB) / (300 (MB / month)) = 291.271111 years
1000 / (0.3 / month) = 277.777778 years
I think this a well-thought idea to -- get more social.
Also with this move, it might push Google users to consider syncing and sharing their photos to Flickr now. Google gives 5GB for high-resolution, i.e original quality photos, Yahoo is giving 1TB, but think yahoo ads.
Any such kind of service is a lock-in ( platform level, so more control) and maybe they integrate tumblr strongly with photos? ( again a deeper lock-in to yahoo only core-products).
All this means -- they are back into Internet business.
From the past 2 days, there were enormous analysis around Yahoo, its principles were questioned, so did this all reach the board and the top management? :)
This is incredible. I remember being blown away with the 1 GB of storage I got with my gmail account back in 2005. I couldn't even fathom needing a terabyte back then. What a fun time to be alive.
277 years (or 7,242 fortnights) later, and you can finally use all of your space.
Obviously I can't compete with that free space which they're giving out. Instead I'm going to stick to a lesser free plan and a sensible subscription price, and hope that people realise that I actually aim to make a profitable business out of it and stick around for a good long while.
If anyone's interested I'd be grateful for any/all feedback, or any questions about what Photographer.io can offer over Flickr. Obviously it's still in beta, but I figure I should probably let people know that it exists.
EDIT: If you tried to sign up, I apologise if it was broken. I pushed a fix for something else a few hours ago and managed to break the sign up form (clearly it needs better testing). The patch is going up now, and you should be able to sign up again shortly.
In Yahoo!'s case it's about getting more engagement and users.
I'm looking to launch it proper in the next couple of weeks once I have the TOS finalised and the company set up. And I'm always open to any suggestions users have for features they'd like to see :)
I stick with flickr because I use Aperture. It can export directly to my flickr account and means I have one less headache.
I'm working out the subscription cost at the moment; I'm currently thinking around £25 per year. Does that sound reasonable? I'll very likely offer a discount to any beta users who upgrade within the first month or so too, as I'm really grateful for any and all feedback.
If you wait long enough we'll eventually open source our import infrastructure :).
I've not seen it before; it's a great idea. I haven't got an API yet (but it will be coming soon after beta) and I'm all about freedom of data and information, so if you fancied supporting Photographer.io as another data source in the future I'd be more than happy to help.
I've worked a bit with Flickr's API in the past and found it very reasonable, so hopefully adding support for importing from there shouldn't be too tricky.
Edit: Right now I don't find the Ad Free account attractive, just saying. If anyone can have the same storage, what is flickr selling?
Obviously I'm not expecting photos uploaded to the site to disappear at any moment (they're all on S3 anyway), but I'm not confident enough in the system yet to be able to offer anything like that, unfortunately.
You have 3 tiers:
1. RAW backups
2. Full JPEG renders downloadable in a zip file
3. Smaller JPEGs for online slideshows and viewing.
Artistic images need space, especially images that aren't meant to be place together. Otherwise their color would collide with each other and ruin the visual experience for them.
If flickr wants to become a social network that features family photos maybe that's the right layout, but I think most of the pro users weren't paying $25 a year for that purpose.
Flickr is no longer a valid place to share pictures for photographers who care about their visual quality. That made me really sad today.
But poorly for featured photos with no relationship to one another. This set is generated based on Fickr's "Interestingness" algorithm:
The relative prominence of these machine selected photos is clearly not associated with artistic quality or visual impact.
I would think Flickr of all sites has enough data to do a visual impact based layout even on photos with zero views and no metadata.
That would have really impressed me. Otherwise, these new masonry layouts are just trendiness mistakenly misallocating artistic emphasis.
I can't believe Yahoo doesn't have a professional creative team to work on this product.
Flickr got screwed up by bunch of engineers who have no taste of aesthetics.
As a viewer, not an artist, I considered Flickr the biggest usability failure among the part of web that is actually used by people. I mean it. It was my worst photo-browsing experience ever (even lists of images on Wikimedia Commons are nicer).
I never understood why people posted photos to this website or how it became popular. Could you, or anyone, share some thoughts of that? I am genuinely interested in how people who were more target-audience felt about Flickr.
Also, it looks like Pro accounts will still be available to existing Pro subscribers... for the time being, at least.
From the FAQ:
> I’ve heard that Flickr Pro is no longer being offered. How does that affect me?
> Starting on 5/20/2013, we will no longer be offering new Flickr Pro subscriptions.
After that point, the following things will happen:
> Recurring Pro users currently have the ability to renew.
> Eligible Pro members have the option to switch to a Free account until 8/20/2013.
> The “Gift of Pro” will no longer be available for purchase.
> Pro users will no longer appear with a “Pro” badge beside their name or buddy icon.
So what happens after 8/20/2013?
Anyway, then there's this:
> What happens if my Pro Account expires?
> If your Pro account expires, don't panic! None of your photos or videos have been deleted!
> This means instead of enjoying the super-duper capacity of your Pro account, you're now subject to the limits of a free account. If you upgrade again, all of your photos will be waiting for you.
> Any of your sets that disappeared will magically reappear when you renew or upgrade.
OK, so it sounds like they'll give existing Pro subscribers the opportunity to renew.
When I signed up : "You will never lose access to your high res photos".
A few years ago : "Sign up for pro if you want access to high res photos".
Is this a sign that Yahoo isn't going to keep fucking things up?
Flashy product acquisitions and page redesigns a turnaround o not make. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in seeing the hard numbers.
What’s the difference between a Free, Ad Free, and Doublr account?
There are three kinds of accounts to choose from at Flickr, and all of them are awesome in their own way.
1 Terabyte of photo and video storage
Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo
Upload 1080p HD videos of up to 1GB each
Video playback of up to 3 minutes each
Upload and download in full original quality
$49.99 per year
All the benefits of a free account
No ads in your browsing experience
$499.99 per year
2 Terabytes of photo and video space
All the benefits of a free account
Looks like yahoo just screwed up the last good thing they had. This will be my last year with this service (I've been a member since 2004 and have had a pro account for several years now).
Flickr's job isn't that easy to be defined. It serves many purposes: Being able to upload and store images there, to organize them, but also to view them of course. Having a new UI putting the images first seems quite reasonable given that definition of flickr.
Besides, the old interface was neither simple nor useable if one wasn't used to it. No one outside of Flickr had time yet to find out whether the new Interface works.
More general remark: We had a good impression what it was likde for the Flickr-Team inside Yahoo. No ressources, no ability to change or improve the service, blocked by bureaucracy and unwilling management. That they are able now to deliver such an upgrade is downright impressive. 1 TB alone is massive and would never have been possible with the old situation, given the description. There really is change in that place.
On the ux side bringing the pictures to the front is pretty reasonable. Unfortunately it stops with a masonry (which is questionable in itself) and a profile header. Everywhere else it is just too noisy, smells like marketing and distractions that stop you every minute from enjoying the pictures. Just look at the home page with the "sign up" popup.
Yahoo needs designers and style as badly as acquiring the next thing every year...
Flickr was in need of a facelift, but not a complete overhaul. This just seems to me like a rehash of Delicious (the difference being that Flickr is still a part of Yahoo): redesign the whole thing to make it more "social" and "hip" and lose what made it a great service in the process. Delicious is still awful compared to what it was even under Yahoo's governance and I don't think Flickr is going to recover from this either.
And what's this about dropping their Pro accounts in favor of some 1TB free space nonsense? Yeah, that's going to work...
I don't know if Flickr really neded just a facelift. The overhaul signals more strongly that Flickr no longer stagnates. It could be that it was indeed a needed one, given the age of the old interface. It could be that they needed that overhaul to get tumblr, to show them thay aint the old Yahoo no more. Who knows.
I agree that it gives the impression of wanting to be more hip and social, but I think that's good if the userbase was in decline before. I think that the lack of a beta and the possibility to give feedback before makes this so hard for existing users.
Delicious was something else, I think. I was under the impression that after their changes, some of the old use-cases weren't supported anymore? What is the new Flickr missing exactly, apart from tiny images as default, strange workflow to get the real image or at least bigger sizes, and ugly menus?
I know that the old Flickr wasn't a place I enjoyed. I used it mainly to get images for a program of mine. Don't think I will be a heavy user of the new one, but for my use case, it sure looks better now (iff the extended search for CC-licenced images still works).
Maybe the old interface could have used some polish, but the new one goes overboard cramming photos together and hiding metadata/comments. It looks like it is giving photos more relevance, but actually it just creates noise.
Your opinion seems very much in-line with the hugely negative reaction thread on flickr. I'd be interested in the specific functionality you lost in the update that you miss.
Photos in different styles don't look great mashed up right next to each other on my photostream. Old design had an option to show them big as one column, or smaller with more whitespace around them.
The default photo height on my photostream is also lower than on the old big one column setting, which makes particularly my vertical photos look worse when you're scrolling by.
Sure, it's hard to please everyone, but it's hard for me to personally transition from the old layout.
That said, I'll keep my paid account around for awhile if things keep evolving for the better.
Marissa Mayer is doing a fabulous job.
Putting products first, like she should.
Naturally the 1 TB storage is a trick. I can't imagine more than a handful of hardcore users filling up that space, but the feeling of not having to worry about deleting old files significantly contributes to a great user experience.
Or perhaps a little more practically, a WordPress/Joomla/Drupal/whatever plugin to use Flickr as a CDN?
"As a Pro Member, your subscription remains the same. You'll enjoy unlimited space for your photos and videos, detailed stats and an ad-free experience. However, you can switch to a Free account before August 20, 2013."
I can't understand what this is supposed to mean. But it sounds like the pro account, which provided unlimited storage for $25/yr, is going away. I wonder what they do about pro members who already have more than 1 or 2 TB of usage now?
Disclaimer: Flickr Pro user since 2005. More than $25/year? Off to Dropbox.
Pro user since ~2005 here. I don't mind change in general, but I think the change they made here is definitely for the worse. Art needs space to breathe, and what they've done here is the equivalent of a photographic gallery plastering all the exhibited images in a wall-to-wall collage.
That sort of in-your-face layout may work for something like Facebook or Instagram, but not for something that is (was) meant to be for more serious photography.
I love the new UI and the new app.
The new site definitely looks more modern and glossy, but there's a reason museums don't display photos in a huge mosaic -- it makes it very hard to focus on and consider one image at a time. Now to browse someone's photos I need to go into the "one image at a time" viewer, which takes longer and leaves a long browser history.
Funnily enough, at the moment the details=1 layout even preserves the old "Did you know you can change the layout of this page?" link at the bottom, linking to a 404.
If you've been using Flickr as a social tool, making and getting lots of comments, I could see you being a bit upset with the decreased emphasis on social features in the new layout. I wonder what effect these changes will have on the level of social interaction on the site. I also wonder if it was a planned deemphasis, or just an inadvertent consequence of expanding the space given over to the picture.
The main venue which comes to mind is 500px. However, with its leanings toward a more professional level comes a lack of the fun, informal atmosphere of Flickr. I maintain a presence on both, for now, and thoroughly enjoy Flickr - but, I'll have to keep an eye on what happens there hereon. As they say, the headlines giveth, the fine print taketh away. =:/
Don’t use Flickr to sell.
If we find you engaging in commercial activity, we will warn you or delete your account. Some examples include selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream or in a group, using your account solely as a product catalog, or linking to commercial sites in your photostream. If you engage in commercial activity elsewhere on the internets or in the real world, you’re still welcome on Flickr—in fact, we’ve even set up some best practices especially for you.
...which definitely takes some steam out of the previous "pro" account.
I've been pursuing photography as a serious hobby for just over 7 years. I'm not expecting to make tons of money in on-line sales; I just hate displaying most of my things with those handcuffs on.
I used to upload all over the place and just crave the attention of the favorites and likes, etc. Now I am more selective of what photos I publish and where. I'm much more interested in a gallery type offering. Most of my casual photos that I would think about posting back to flickr are already on Facebook or G+ where my friends and family can see them.
Unless.. they assume that only a very small percentage of people will use it. So if on average, everyone still only uses about 1GB of space, then a 500gb you can get for $45. $45/500 = .09 so about 10 cents per person. With 25 million users that is about a $2.5 million investment.
If the average user uses 10GB then that is $1.00 per person though. With 25 million users that is about a $25 million investment.
Terabytes are the new gigabytes.
It'd take you 277 years to actually hit that TB with a free plan. To even use a tenth, it would take 27 years.
Remember that places like Yahoo and Google operate at levels where a file service issues a monitoring warning if there's less than a petabyte left.
I wonder how significant that'd be?
I've got nothing except "gut feel" to back this up, but I can't help but think there's very little margin available in hard drives for even semitrailers sized orders to get significant volume discounting.
Anyone got any numbers for where the volume breaks are and what sort of discounts are available for very large hard drive orders? (I'm sort of expecting something no better than 10 or 15% in volumes up in the 10,000s...)
BUT PLEASE PLEASE fix the iPhone app which, after their new update earlier this year, no longer lets you upload video!
Anyhow hats off to Yahoo for trying to make things right after several years of stagnation. I'm aware the Flickr team have lost some valuable members and that probably affected future plans but that's a different story.
As for what I believe, I REALLY hope Yahoo keeps it up, but I like rooting for the underdog...ditch the contract with bing searches, and redesign the homepage already. Keep up the good PR...now back it with the good products
I think they are putting the cart before the horse in thinking that upping the storage and redesigning the interface is going to increase their user base. That said, kudos for trying something. I think that Yahoo! continues to struggle with a singular product strategy and that is ultimately causing them to hemorrhage billions of dollars chasing ill-conceived product acquisition.
Here's a few photos I've taken with my phone:
Phone cameras have gotten a hell of a lot better in the past couple of years.
So everything you share could be safer at flickr vs spread out among 100 services
I routinely hunt for creative commons / copyrighted images for ads and commercial use on flickr (yes, that means contacting each and every photographer to purchase rights). I've spent a minimum of over one hundred hours tediously going through the search results. Flickr has one of the worst search engine algorithms I've ever seen. It's dumb beyond all reason. I'll search for "Mountain View Lake" and get a page full of "Asian Children". I mean it's really random.
Pay for Getty if you don't like it.
The new design is great: modern and a little bit more flat for a modern look. I was actually kinda bummed because like....they got rid of the Pro badges....oh well. My photo gallery stands out and looks pretty sharp. Well done, Flickr.
Anyway to sum it up, these changes are nice. And with a free 'old Pro' features, they're definitely a no brainer. I think any photographer can enjoy these changes as much as any casual photo sharer. Yahoo does it again!
Can anybody compare them with facebook's or picasa / google+'s default privacy settings ?
Edit: I've made a bunch of comments as replies to this one. My conclusion is that New Flickr's privacy-friendliness is just barely above Facebook's.
However, they haven't yet demonstrated _continuing_ willingness (as Facebook has) to default to lower-privacy options as they iterate.
If they notice that I've locked down most of my privacy / sharing settings and then take an educated guess at what I want the default to be when they launch a new feature with a privacy slider ("we've set this to 'only family' for you based off your choices for settings X, Y, and Z."), that would be sweet.
One of the settings (geo preferences / "who can see where your photos were taken?") had a weird state to begin with, "no preference set". This is the only one that I saw that had no default. What would have the geo privacy been for photos that I uploaded without setting this?
I checked the box and hit "save", but when I went back and looked, it wasn't checked. I tried again and it worked.
I wonder if they're using one or more caching layers and not being careful about fetching important bits from the authoritative layer.
I can't think of a reason to have done this. Sure, I would have liked for the "log in with Google" button to pop up the system account chooser, but at the very least, just fire off an intent and let the user's browser of choice take care of it.
That said, I still love the fact that something is happening to the site. Just like 500px, I think such sites are great to get feedback and exposure, just a little awkward when it comes to really calling them home.
On the new Flickr, if you go to a single image page and click the three dots in the lower right corner, there is an option to "replace this photo."