Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Flickr gets new UI, new Android app, 1 TB free space (yahoo.tumblr.com)
743 points by pdknsk on May 20, 2013 | hide | past | favorite | 359 comments

Amusingly, in the Yahoo/Tumblr acquisition thread, I complained about how little Yahoo has improved on Flickr...but otherwise, I was a happy paying customer.

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obvious, I don't see a "let me see the old version for now" button...Which I think underscores my opinion of how outdated the old site design was.

From what I'm reading, existing Pro users will be grandfathered and have the ability to continue with their existing subscription.

I am a pro user, but I don't have a recurring subscription, I just rebuy it every 2 years, now I'm going to have to pay double for no ads, seems like I got screwed most of all.

Help is at hand:


"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."

I feel a betrayed, too. I really don't understand why the plan went up in price and has less features. I have the attitude that I want to store (indefinitely), search and link my photos without being visually distracted with ads or pagination limits. In 7 years of using Flickr, I've only uploaded about 30GB of photos mostly just for archival use. Only a small group of Flickr users curate more than 20k photos. Most of the high interestingness (and ostensibly talented) Flickr members store less than 5000 photos and in very small file weights so their photos aren't reproduced in print. So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions. I can't see myself paying more for Flickr without some kind of incentive. Hopefully they don't kill off their fairly loyal subscriber base, but stranger things have happened.

> So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions

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.

Agreed on the issue of 1TB. It's curious to see how many people remain concerned they might inadvertently hit that ceiling.

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.

I'm pretty sure I have at least a TB on Flickr. I use Flickr to store high res copies of all of my photos. I have a lot of photos.

Offering a huge amount of storage is a great way to grab people's attention, but then most people won't actually use anywhere near that amount of space, so marketing wise it's a big win without actually requiring much technical change. Adding new features requires designing and implementing those features which is hard work.

So why did they go for storage instead of pumping the features with premium subscriptions.

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?)

and how do you double them without making the app harder, heavier, more complex.


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's worth noting that if you cancel your Pro account (I just did), Flickr pledges to return the balance of your membership fee (prorated).

I'm in the same boat. Also, the narcissist in me will miss the stats feature.

Hell, I've made thousands of dollars from stats. You'd be surprised how many image thieves at big companies throw a link back to your stolen images, as if that makes everything all better.

I still have stats. Does something say they are being deleted?

You have it as long as you have a grandfathered Pro account. If you switch to one of the new plans (or you don't have autorenewal on your Pro account and it lapses) you lose it.

They are only part of Pro

Adblock doesn't eliminate the ads for you?

If ads are good I actually love looking at them. Occasionally I click too and if they actually catch my fancy, I buy. But this (the last part) is extremely rare.

Lol, your comment was the first thing I thought about when I saw the title of this article over on reddit.

1TB isn't that impressive when you have to deal with a 300MB/month upload rate limit: http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

It'd take 291 years to fill up the 1TB allowance: https://www.google.com/search?q=1TB+%2F+(300+MB%2Fmonth)

(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

As per the new plans, there is no 300MB/month upload-limits on free-accounts.( please don't see Google search results, was that cached? )

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

So 1 TB is free, but an extra 1 TB is $500/yr?! I'm not sure I understand that.

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.

roughly, very roughly - 90%+ of the people on the 1 TB plan will likely use < 20 Gigabytes (at least over the next couple years), and probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes, whereas close to 100% of the people on the doublr plan will be using at least 1 Terabyte.

Completely agree. This is similar to shared host that offer unlimited space. For those using a lot of share/cpu, they'll get a friendly reminder to upgrade, then a notice that they can't continue supporting them as a client with their current plan.

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.

As a current Pro user, $25 per year to continue unlimited storage, no ads (for me and for all viewing my photos) and photo statistics is still an easy sell.

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.

Unless you're invited to sell stock through Getty, flickr isn't meant for business purposes. See http://www.flickr.com/help/website/?search=sell+photos#32257...

best explanation of their pricing structure yet. What's stopping people from creating multiple accounts and use flickr as a cloud backup system for free?

Nothing will stop them - but, (and I'm just guessing here) - the type of people who host more than one terabyte of photos on flickr probably don't want to screw around with multiple accounts - tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts. Obviously some people will - but I'm guessing those will be few enough not to matter.

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

> tracking your detailed stats, alone, gets to be a hassle with multiple accounts

Stats are gone anyway with the new account types.

I agree anyone seriously wanting to host that many photos will not want to split accounts, but FWIW statistics (current Pro feature) don't seem to be offered at all any more.

Agreed that this is why Yahoo is pricing it this way -- but I imagine it won't stop the pricing feeling "wrong" to many people. "Why should I pay $500 a year for just a little bit more than I what I was getting for free?"

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.

I would imagine the people that need more than 1TB would be professional photographers who use flickr as a portfolio / advertising.

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.

$42/month is pretty cheap for 2TB storage. $499/year gets you just 500GB in Dropbox, for example.

And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..

About leaving the service...

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.

No one has pointed out to you that it's $50 a year, not month.

$50/year is for the ad-free. They are talking about the two terabyte plan. The (understandable from the perspective of the consumer) cognitive dissonance is, 999 Megabytes is free, but 1001 Megabytes is $500/year. How can two things, so close to each other, be priced so differently?

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.

"probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes"

I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)

Ah, so not many people know how much space the average user consumes.... http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...

It's just under the standard $500 authorisation limit for big corp credit cards. It also makes the $49 per year offer seem cheap.

I doubt a corp card limit has anything to do with it, this isn't a business product.

Because businesses don't need to store images?

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.

Because Flickr TOS say you can't have a business account. http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157626812125880/

I've seen nothing that says that's changed.

That is a random comment in a forum from someone who doesn't represent Flickr.

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."


Businesses do not need to be in the business of selling images in order to have a need to store images.

I just feel safer using Dropbox or Glacier. Flickr seems more like a social network, specialising in photos, and I wouldn't feel comfortable about using a service like that as a backup. As a business, the TOS are just not clear enough about what I can and can't store.

True, It's just the first thing I think of when "photos" and "business" come up.

In before Yahr/Yahoor.

Can anyone see a way to make the 1TB serve as the main storage space of all your photos? (and not just publicly displaying them).

I'm tied into iPhoto on a very full SSD and am longing for a way out.

Community manager at Trovebox here. To go along with the other Trovebox-related reply, we're planning to start work on an iPhoto plugin for Trovebox soon because we've gotten so many requests for it.

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/

Something like Trovebox[0] might be a solution to your needs. You can use it as the web frontend to photos stored on dropbox/s3/box/etc

[0] https://trovebox.com/

Uploading from iPhoto's share option, the default option is for photos to only be visible to you.

The google link was just for the calculator feature, noone here's been looking at cached pages.

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.)

So they must be editing those pages in real-time then! All those pages and occurrences across their site. ;)

Even though they removed the limit from the terms today, it was still active when I tried to upload images to Flickr just now. They'll probably correct that soon, still not the most trustworthy way of making this kind of announcement.

The Doublr plan is a strange offer. Wonder if there's a miscommunication on that.

I did not find it strange.

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. :)

1. Sign up for 2 accounts. 2. Adblock 3. ???? 4. Profit

It makes sense, but $499 per year is expensive for an additional 1TB, when the first TB is free.

The effort of managing two accounts seems like a low barrier for the cheap

Yeah, the doublr plans are not consistent with the lower 1TB plan.

Now this is like -- 1TB online storage = 450$/year, doesn't make sense now.

The redesign looks awesome, but who's going to pay a recurring $49 just to remove ads?

Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Hope not, love Flickr :-s

I would if I used it a lot.. Extensive ads ruin a lot of webpages to the extend that I just stay away..

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.

Maybe I'm in a minority, but I genuinely don't care about seeing the ads.

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

It's $49.99 a year, though. As a fairly heavy flickr user I could easily see spending $4.16/month to remove ads.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it's not just that you don't see ads; it's also that others don't see ads on your photos. The latter can be an important feature for those who use Flickr to create professional portfolios.

The original pro account removed ads while browsing the site, Not from your pages as viewed by others. Plus a lot of the time your Photos are submitted to groups, would adds be removed every time one of your pictures turned up on the page?

Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.

Anecdotally, I think it is the case that if you're a Pro user, and someone else is viewing your photostream, then they won't see ads next to your photo. This probably doesn't apply to your photos in other groups, etc. So we both may be right.

But surely they don't make $49 per user per year on ads? It looks like they're over-charging on the paid accounts to cover the costs of the free accounts. Especially the 1TB is free, 2TB is $500 deal.

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.

I don't see that limit anymore. Have they updated the page? Especially with 200MB limit per photo this seems really odd.

Yes, it looks like someone's editing that page in real time now!

I know what you mean but this sounds like something off CSI

Yea and the 300mb limit is there now with 50mb per photo.

Nope. Gone again.

I'm curious to see how many people will hit that limit... the largest images I have, at about 6000 x 4000, with 48-bit floating-point pixels, using non-lossy compression, are only 80MB...

Stitch a few of those into a panorama.

I'm a little shocked honestly - they might as well offer "unlimited" storage if I can only upload 3.6GB per year in images.

This makes the entire 1 TB craze seem like a giant farce.

Edit: It appears they have removed the limit, disregard.

I think it's intended to distract you from the actual limit. If they came out and said "Unlimited storage" everyone's first reaction would be "What's the catch?"

Huh. Flickr Pro is gone, and there's no way to lift this 300MB/mo limit? Looks like Dropbox might have found themselves a new paying customer.

Pro is now "Ad Free": http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

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...

When I log in, I see:

"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.

This only applies to existing Pro accounts, not new ones [1].

[1] https://secure.flickr.com/help/limits/#150487675

The pro badge is no more, and pro accounts exist only as grandfathered in plans. You can renew an existing pro account, but those who aren't currently can't subscribe to it.

OK, maybe I'm shallow and elitist, but at least I'm honest. I always liked seeing my little "pro" badge there...

It's worth pointing out that you can't renew existing pro accounts manually, only accounts that are set up with recurring transactions will renew automatically. For some reason this doesn't include my account, as far as I can tell. I'm a little annoyed about this.

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.

Although, for existing Pro users, it looks like they can continue renewing their Pro accounts [1]:

* 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. *

[1] https://secure.flickr.com/help/limits/#150487675

I saw that - but I haven't been able to find out what price we can renew at. If it's still at $25 - every pro user in the universe will renew. If it's even $50 - for unlimited storage (versus $500/year for 2 terabytes) - still sounds like a no brainer.

I wonder if Yahoo/Flickr are really going to take that good a care of their existing pro users?

I believe, as of now, the price is still $25. From my own "manage your pro account page":

Your Flickr Pro subscription:

1-year Pro at $24.95 Your Pro account will renew automatically on 3rd September, 2013


Interesting. Yes, I'm seeing similarly - $44.95 on a two year basis, renewing next in September.

I'm unable to find any mention of this 300MB/month limit on that linked page?

I only see: "Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo"

Check again, the mention of 300MB/month is gone. Looks like old copy cache.

Just tried to use their uploader and hit the limit when I got to 300MB.

Humour me, but are you on the Flickr team? I'm seeing that page change before my very eyes, clearly as a "oh shit!" response when the discrepancies were noticed, and the cache excuse is as old as time.

Probably just didn't get all the edits in from the old FAQs. No reason for the accusations.

It was developer humour rather than an accusation. Many of us have been in the situation where we overlooked changing something, and when it's noticed we quickly change it and attribute the original mistake to some mysterious caching issue.

Flickr staff commented on this post that the 300Mb monthly limit was a bug:


Never knew Google Calculator could be used like that. Thanks.

Beware, it has a subtle catch:

    (1 TB) / (300 (MB / month)) = 291.271111 years
But if you think you're dealing with decimal Bytes, you're wrong - e.g, putting it in GB and taking the units out:

    1000 / (0.3 / month) = 277.777778 years
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte - Google is using TiB/GiB/MiB and writing up the wrong unit)

I think you mean the right unit :)

I don't actually see the 300MB/month limit on that page. Was it possibly a vestigial FAQ list item that just got removed?

The page specifically listed the new account types (free, adfree, doublr) but also mentioned that the free account was limited to 300mb/month. Maybe they forgot to change a paragraph when they published it earlier.

For most normal users taking a normal amount of photos, that's absolutely fine.

Where is the upload rate limit mentioned?

It is not. Some id^H^H guy saw the old limit posted before the page was updated, and tons followed to comment without pausing to think that such a limit does not make sense with the new announcement.

The page was using all the new account type names, and seemed like it was otherwise all up to date. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting about it. Seemed like a plausible "catch" to the generous storage limit.

As a Flickr Pro user, this upsets me. 300MB is like what, 20-odd full-sized JPEGs? A month? With no way to lift that limit even if paying?


I wish people wouldn't downvote others for simply reporting on what they see. It's not your fault Fickr is live editing their page.

And Internet forum votes aren't personal. Karma doesn't matter. We downvote bad information, period.

On Reddit, sure. HN, like StackOverflow, uses it to decide what level of participation you're allowed to have.

Only essentially at levels that are extraordinarily achievable with participation. Really, only at the 500 level does it matter.

Wait, what? I don't post a lot on HN, what do you get at the 500 point level..?

The ability to downvote.

That Flickr page is a bizarre mishmash of old and new information.

Yahoo is looking fresh again!

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 has been upped to a maximum of 15GB when Google combined all their storage into Drive. Your argument still holds though.

Yeah its now combined to be 15GB for all Google products.

"So we’re also giving our Flickr users one terabyte of space — for free."

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.

I worked at Yahoo at that time, and what I remember was the sheer panic from the Mail team trying to figure out how to respond...

Keep in mind as a non-pro user you can only upload 300MB a month: http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

277 years (or 7,242 fortnights) later, and you can finally use all of your space.

Edit: It appears they have removed the limit, disregard.

I think they updated the limits page, I don't see any mention of 300MB per month on there.

That limit seems to have been removed. In fact, you can upload 200mb for a single photo (with no mention of upload rate limits).

This is pretty interesting to me as I've been spending the last month preparing my soon-to-be startup; (hopefully) a competitor to Flickr/500px: https://photographer.io

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.

I'm 2 years into a photo service and disk space has never been the determining cost factor. Space is only used to get users to upgrade to a paying account. I don't downplay the importance of that though, it's critical to figure out how you're going to make money today and not once you have a few million users.

In Yahoo!'s case it's about getting more engagement and users.

I'm hoping to offer a bunch of features other than unlimited photo uploads to entice users into subscriptions. More features, such as being able to share private collections (albums/sets) with others, or increased control over what they see on the site.

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 :)

Please, have a plugin for the major photo packages (Lightroom, Aperture, iPhoto, etc). Making it easy to get the images into your site lowers the barrier dramatically.

I stick with flickr because I use Aperture. It can export directly to my flickr account and means I have one less headache.

Don't underestimate this. The first thing anyone will want to do is import/upload their photos.

These are definitely on the horizon. This is one of the things that has been on my to-do list from the start. I did look into how the integrations work, IIRC Lightroom was pretty straightforward, but I assume Aperture can't be that much more tricky :)

Wow, your offering looks rather promising. A reasonable price for unlimited storage, and importing all photos from other services.

Photo import is something I want to offer, but I need to make sure it doesn't break the terms of service of the other sites before I add it :)

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.

Most API rate limits are stated in the developer docs. By default I stay below 1 request per second and that seems to work for most APIs.

If you wait long enough we'll eventually open source our import infrastructure :).

Doh, I feel like a pillock now - didn't realise Dean was talking about openphoto.

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.

Feel free to ping me (jaisen@{hackernewsusername}.com) to chat. I've got plenty of opinions to hand out for free.

The reason I would want to sign up a photo sharing service is to be able to display them online and also have them backed up at the same time. I am notorious at the backing up part. Guarantee me these 2 things and I'll be your paying customer.

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?

Backups are interesting, and something I had considered as a primary feature of the site. However this site is (currently) just me, and I don't feel that I could wholeheartedly say that a backup system relying on a single person is a good idea :) (unless that person is cperciva, in which case it's a-ok!)

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.

It seems like not many services want to be the full RAW backup service that also does easy photo sharing. As in press a button and get a zip file of the gallery type of photo sharing that you get with G+. You do

You have 3 tiers: 1. RAW backups 2. Full JPEG renders downloadable in a zip file 3. Smaller JPEGs for online slideshows and viewing.

Do you have an API? I work on a photo aggregation and backup service called Woven (http://woventheapp.com) and it'd be nice to hook it up.

Lightroom catalog and RAW storage.

Lightroom integration is something I'm keen on. In regards to RAW storage; would that be for backups?


I hate this new layout.

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.

I have to agree with you. I only post my "Art" photography on flickr and all the people I follow do the same. Seeing this huge mashup of all the varying styles and works together is really terrible. It's just not a nice way of presenting photography.

Works well for travel: http://www.flickr.com/photos/terretta/

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.

Completely agree, another example is the UI layered on top of a photo. UI and content should not be mixed, especially if that content is the key asset on the page and of the service.


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.

500px.com seems more geared towards professional photographers, if you're looking for such an option.

I agree that the flickr redesign is horrible, but I don't think 500px is that much better. Photos are still too close together and have text and UI elements overlayed. It looks messy to me.

500px also mechanically crops your images to square in the main listing, completely changing your compositions. This is a deal breaker for me.


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.

Have you seen pBase? That's what photographers used to have before flickr

Too noisy I agree... fotoblur.com tries to do this by giving images lots of space.

I think the 300 MB upload limit from before was removed. I can only find that in references to Free vs. Pro documentation.

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.

Now I can access my high res photos again. I don't know if I can trust them after the shit they pulled.

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?

Mayer is a pro. She understands user experience. And Yahoo has a solid pile of cash, so they can clearly afford to spend some of it wooing users and repairing their image. Whether Yahoo can ultimately be rehabilitated remains to be seen regardless.

Marissa is nearing her 1 year anniversary as Yahoo CEO and it seems that she is turning the company around.

The stock price is up, I'll give you that, but in terms of actual user/profit/revenue growth what are the numbers to suggest that she is turning the company around?

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.

I'm thinking she's not as concerned about that yet. Her first step seems to be making Yahoo and it's brands "cool" again.

Being cool is not a business model.

It worked for Instagram.

Props to her, but to be fair, it's not hard to say "Hey look, a wall!" and go the other direction.

It's a lot harder than she makes it look.

Yeah, you're right, it might be easy to turn around a startup for example, but she's piloting the Titanic with a hull made of mesh. It's impressive.

I can name a few former Yahoo CEOs who would beg to differ.

Its not just the change in business direction. Look at Yahoo's stock chart for the past year: http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=YHOO

One would certainly hope that reflects the business direction. Ideally it always would...

From the FAQ [1]:

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.

Free: 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: $49.99 per year All the benefits of a free account No ads in your browsing experience Doublr:

$499.99 per year 2 Terabytes of photo and video space All the benefits of a free account

Links: [1] http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/#150470666

I'm down right angry. I loved the old flickr interface. It was simple and usable. Now it looks like a less functional google+. Flickr's job is NOT to be a fancy photo viewer, it's supposed to be a photo organizer.

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).

Give it time. That is the archetypical reaction of a user being confronted by change (angry is else hard to explain).

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.

First it looks good, but only because the old one. When you try out the new look, it is immediate that it lacks any consistency in its design or style whatsoever... (maybe because it is not rolled out fully yet. I guess riding the tumblr hype is more important now.)

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...

"Give it time."

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...

Wasn't the big advantage of the Pro account unlimited storage? Do the ones with the account really store more than 1 or 2 TB? I understand that the price of the new paid account feels strange, but i don't think it is such a big failure.

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).

The problem is that now a Pro account (the way to get no ads) costs twice as much.

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.

What do you mean with noise?

Since when has it not been about viewing and sharing photographs as it's #1 priority?

Personally, I'd like Flickr to be both a photo viewer and organizer. I don't feel like the new interface is any worse for organizing photos, and I'm much more likely to point people to a flickr set with the new layout.

Your opinion seems very much in-line with the hugely negative reaction thread on flickr[1]. I'd be interested in the specific functionality you lost in the update that you miss.


Front page looks too busy at 1280 px wide. I can't quantify why - maybe it looks too appy rather than like a page. I used to rant a lot about Flickr showing me 500 px wide photos with oceans of whitespace on my large screens - now it looks like they've gone overboard in the other direction...

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.

I greatly miss the whitespace. When I visit my photostream now, I am presented with an entire screen full of things to process. It used to be about enjoying a single photo, but now the experience just feels like "look how many photos I have".

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.

You can get the old interface by appending /?details=1 at the end of the photostream url. e.g. - http://www.flickr.com/photos/tathagatac/?details=1

But not by default, and not the previous "big photos in one column" layout for first page of photostream. (There's even a leftover link to change the layout at the bottom one's own details=1 page that 404s...)

My vertical photos do look oddly small in the new layout.

What did you think two years ago when the old interface you lament was new?

It stayed with the overall color scheme and felt like a progressive update. This is far more intense and dramatic.

Wow....I must say, I never thought I would be able to say this....but I am getting excited about Yahoo again.

Marissa Mayer is doing a fabulous job.

Putting products first, like she should.

Wow....just wow!

Getting Marissa Mayer is the best thing that happened to Yahoo. Regardless of some of the mistakes that may have been made (thinking of one acquisition in particular), she surely is putting the company back on the map. Personally I still rarely use Yahoo; I only visit Yahoo finance once in a while, but I'm liking what I see.

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.

So, who's already working on their "files stored steganographically in Flickr photos" cloud storage filesystem?

Or perhaps a little more practically, a WordPress/Joomla/Drupal/whatever plugin to use Flickr as a CDN?

They just sent me this in an email:

"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?

Pro accounts appear to be grandfathered in - you keep the unlimited space, you can continue to renew at $25/yr, but with the 'Free' account, you can upload larger individual files - 200mb photos in 'Free' vs 50mb photos in 'Pro', 1gb videos in 'Free' vs 500mb in 'Pro' - there are more details at http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

I wonder if the 200MB vs 50MB differentiation is intentional. As a Pro user, I was curious, so I tried uploading a 70MB file. The flickr uploader complained. I tried a 30MB file and it was happy. So, it appears that, at least as of now, the 50MB limit may still be in place for Pro users.

So far, the response from Flickr power users looks overwhelmingly negative: http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/

Most of that looks like the usual user complaining because an interface changed.

Why wasn't I consulted?! http://www.ftrain.com/SiteLaunch.html

If power users = pro users, and pro users = paid users, yeah, you should take notice with the people left generating revenue.

Disclaimer: Flickr Pro user since 2005. More than $25/year? Off to Dropbox.

There is a component of that, but it's also dangerous to dismiss any negative feedback that way too.

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.

In my experience, a certain percentage of users will always complain about user interface changes, no matter how good they are. I have always believed in a policy of waiting ~2 weeks to let the changes "soak in", and gauge whether the complaints are just a knee jerk reaction by a small percentage, or is indeed indicative of a larger problem. This is also one of many reasons you find larger companies doing a "roll out" of a new UI change. It's a good way of gauging user reaction while only affecting a small random sample of your user base.

Well I'm a power user (8,000+ photos) and I love it. I guess it helps that my most recent photos are ones that I actually edited...on other days, I might do a photo dump of something dull, which would make for an ugly looking homepage.

Me too (4,000 photos). I had recently let my Pro account expire in favor of just posting to G+, but now I'll probably start uploading again. (Of course, G+ also just changed their photo support last week.)

I've been a Flickr Pro user since 2007. Flickr has been a huge part of my photography hobby. I don't know if I'm a "power user", but I can tell you all about different prime lenses, aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop.

I love the new UI and the new app.

I initially liked the new photostream layout, but after using the site for a little while, I think I prefer the old layout.

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.

I'm not quite sure how I got to it, but go to user's stream and then tack on a ?details=1 to the end of the URL. I have no idea if that's an intentionally preserved view or not, but it's more like you're looking for.

The details=1 query string is added when you click "Edit" in your own photostream's header.

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.

Thanks for that. Though there appears to be a bug - it says I have 0 photos (in the thing at the top).

Thanks! This is exactly what I was missing. Hopefully they keep it around.

Anyone found a way to make this a default view?

I'm not sure I would consider them power users but it's somehow expected because everyone knows how people can be adverse to change... (It's still fresh in my mind when everyone complained about the new Gmail UI or even G+...).

Pro since 2007, so deeply relieved at this update. Many people will complain about any change since it requires them to learn something new, even if the new way is an improvement.

As a sporadic user for 8 years, I like it. There will always be complainers.

You can add myself to the list of angry users. I'm not only angry because it's just a terrible interface change, but it's an entire service change. Like if twitter decided it was pinterest, only you've been paying for your tweets.

People who complain on the forums are not necessarily power users

Ok, great. The iPad experience has gone from mediocre to terrible. Hit targets are too small, figuring out how to click through to detail pages is non obvious, and it just feels slow as molasses on my 3rd gen iPad.

Interesting design choices - the photos are highlighted front and center but all the social aspects of Flickr have been shoved downward into have-to-scroll territory. Contrast this to Facebook and Instagram, which both use a right sidebar layout for profile and comments, which ensures everything's easily visible above the fold.

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.

Good insights - I agree with you. As a past social flickr user, I checked out my old account. It took me quite a while to find old comments and new activity, which is much different than the past of it being up front.

I remember a lot of people noting that facebook's UI evolution toward a focus on images rather than text is theoretically nice. That is, it's presented very well whenever the images are nice, but on facebook that's rarely the case--a quick look through my homefeed, it's either blurry party shots/selfies or obnoxiously filtered Instagram pictures. Flickr seems to have made the same evolution, and in that respect its UI changes are hardly original ideas. Yet it's almost a perfect fit -- where else on the Internet will you find more professionally-taken pictures?

> where else on the Internet will you find more professionally-taken pictures?

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. =:/

I used to be a flickr pro user, and then I left over a year ago. I do like the storage and overall design change, but there are other reasons I'm not really interested in going back.

#1 being

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.

How can they give away 1TB of space for free? Because the cheapest 1TB drive I saw was $67.

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.

It's exactly the same as when GMail gave away a gigabyte of space for free. Some people said it was financially ruinous, but of course few people used anywhere close to that much, and storage prices continued to drop.

Terabytes are the new gigabytes.

Mostly because you can only upload 300MB per month in images: http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/

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.

Edit: It appears they have removed the limit, disregard.

I don't see the 300MB limit listed anywhere on that page. Maybe they hadn't finished the site rollout?

It looks like they did, indeed, remove it just as I was posting, good for Yahoo!

At the scale that Yahoo runs, 1TB is considerably cheaper than $67/TB.

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.

True, but aren't they 'supposed' to buy high grade HDDs for datacenter usage?

On really large scale there's little point: disks will fail anyway all the time. It's mostly whether your maintenance plan can keep up with replacement rate.

Virtually no one will use it, and handful that use any nontrivial portion of it will draw eyeballs to the site, delivering ad revenue.

I, as a regular consumer, just got a 2TB hard drive for $90. That means the space was $45/GB compared to your $67/GB. When you buy enough hard drives to fill a data center I am sure you get better prices too! As other commenters have said, I doubt most people will use a fraction of this space.

"When you buy enough hard drives to fill a data center I am sure you get better prices too!"

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...)

You might get the drives cheaper, but you also need to pay for the servers to house them, and rent the space, and hire the people to replace the drives that fail, and so on. The fully loaded cost is far higher than the purchase price of the drive.

Don't forget the redundancy, too. Bit awkward having to explain to your users why you randomly lose a couple of percent of their data every year.

I've been a paid Flickr user for years and I'm excited about the new UX.

BUT PLEASE PLEASE fix the iPhone app which, after their new update earlier this year, no longer lets you upload video!

I don't know about iPhone, but they pushed an update to their android app simultaneously with the website launch. I don't do video, but the app added the "video" permission, so my guess is it will be back soon.

This is great news for people like me that continue to use Flickr after a very long time... Unfortunately the new UI reminds me a lot 500px which I think offers, at the moment, a much better community and user experience if one is really a photography enthusiast.

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.

Go Long on Yahoo. I betting the general consensus is optimistic about Yahoo....like I said in a different post, Yahoo is making great headlines, or what was the term at Google when Mayer was there (buzz,JK).

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

This is great for the so-called "photo-enthusiasts." I'll probably sign up on that basis. But I'm not sure I understand the mobile play. Most of my mobile photos are horrid quality and when I take a photo with my phone 100% of the time it is with the intent to share with others, either via SMS or Facebook or Twitter. I would be happy to share on Flickr. There's only one problem. That of course is that none of my friends use Flickr.

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.

> Most of my mobile photos are horrid quality

Here's a few photos I've taken with my phone:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobisbob/8607495076/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobisbob/8539300849/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobisbob/8526482251/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobisbob/8479530691/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobisbob/8479526973/

Phone cameras have gotten a hell of a lot better in the past couple of years.

They could work like Google+ which automatically backs up your photos.

So everything you share could be safer at flickr vs spread out among 100 services

While I do welcome it... Design wasn't Flickr's problem, it's the piss poor search engine and it's people uploading millions of their blurry family photos and clogging up the search results with garbage. Flickr needs to decide what it wants to be, an image hosting site or a photography community. One will kill the other so stop trying to be both.

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.

Have you ever thought that the primary use for a lot of people isn't to give you a resource, but is for sharing their family photos.

Pay for Getty if you don't like it.

Have you had any more luck with 500px?

These changes really speak for themselves and if you've ever tried Instagram, you're basically getting the better quality photos: clear, crisp, tons of space, and very balanced filters. I love my iPhone and these guys deliver awesome app without being overpowering. As some of the other comments noted, "above and beyond" Instagram.

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!

The default privacy permissions are a bit loose for my taste, but I'm not big into sharing photos except with my direct family.

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.

Also, lots of the settings are inconsistent: the more-conservative setting is variously "yes" or "no". I think it's widely-known that structuring your questionnaire this way leads to confusion.

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 was concerned for a moment just now because it looked like one particular setting wasn't sticking: "Hide me from site-wide searches on flickr.com and on 3rd party sites that use the API?"

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.

It looks like the android app uses a custom browser to render the third-party login pages, putting them in a position to trivially grab your password.

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's a rough flow though. Assuming the external browser finishes itself when the auth page calls window.close you still have a bunch of ugly activity launches in between; you probably see the last thing you were browsing for a few hundred milliseconds, etc. Not very polished.

I thought Flickr never charged for disk space... the whole premise was you could store an unlimited number of photos, they'd just make you upgrade to a "pro" account if you wanted to upload new photos beyond a limit or get photos out. How is "1TB free space" a benefit now?

Without pro, you could only access your last 200 photos. So unless your photos were of the 100MB+ quality, you would not be able to access most of your previous photos in Flickr.

This is fantastic. And it's interesting to see the influences from Facebook Timeline in the design.

I don't even need 1 GB for my photos. What I do need, and what flickr still doesn't have from what I can see [if I missed it, I'd be glad to be corrected], is a way to update an existing photo (upload the tweaked file, but keep the tags and URL etc.). Maybe this is to prevent abuse (make photo of cute kitten, wait until a lot of people favourited it, swap image with something gross), but still... carving digital images generated from RAW files into stone like that just rubs me the wrong way.

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 old Flickr this was possible with a pro account.

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."

Oh, thanks! I wondered about those dots (they do nothing in Opera).

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