|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Nov 1, 2018 21:58:02 GMT
From another forum which members here may find relevant:
“Free accounts will soon be limited to 1,000 photos or videos. Flickr isn’t Flickr without the contributions and participation of our free members, and we remain committed to a vibrant free offering.
If you are a free member with more than 1,000 photos or videos, you will have ample time to upgrade to Pro (for 30% off your first year) or download your photos and videos.* Read more about this decision.
blog.flickr.net/en/2018/11/01/changing-flickr-free-accounts-1000-photos/
*Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.”
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2018 0:31:00 GMT
I understand the need for Smugmug (the new owners of Flickr) to put Flickr on a more commercial footing but I think their plans are a mess and heavy handed. I will almost certainly not remain on Flickr once my pro subscription ends next May. They announced a 100% price rise a few months ago for Pro which is unacceptable for something I'm using less and less. Not their issue if my interest is waning somewhat but they will lose income from me. My followers and others will lose access to over 10,000 of my photos.  I doubt I will be alone in leaving Flickr. It's a great shame and I suspect a lot of good content will be lost but it's for Smugmug to live with the consequences of their decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Nov 6, 2018 13:10:11 GMT
I forgot to cancel my subscription when the format changed to unusable. I think it might be time to pack it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 6, 2018 16:05:04 GMT
I understand the need for Smugmug (the new owners of Flickr) to put Flickr on a more commercial footing but I think their plans are a mess and heavy handed. I will almost certainly not remain on Flickr once my pro subscription ends next May. They announced a 100% price rise a few months ago for Pro which is unacceptable for something I'm using less and less. Not their issue if my interest is waning somewhat but they will lose income from me. My followers and others will lose access to over 10,000 of my photos. I doubt I will be alone in leaving Flickr. It's a great shame and I suspect a lot of good content will be lost but it's for Smugmug to live with the consequences of their decisions. I’m sure they will live with no longer having to provide data centre space free of charge for those not willing to pay for it. Fewer customers, but a more profitable business that is more supportable. |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744 
|
Post by class411 on Nov 6, 2018 17:26:29 GMT
I understand the need for Smugmug (the new owners of Flickr) to put Flickr on a more commercial footing but I think their plans are a mess and heavy handed. I will almost certainly not remain on Flickr once my pro subscription ends next May. They announced a 100% price rise a few months ago for Pro which is unacceptable for something I'm using less and less. Not their issue if my interest is waning somewhat but they will lose income from me. My followers and others will lose access to over 10,000 of my photos. I doubt I will be alone in leaving Flickr. It's a great shame and I suspect a lot of good content will be lost but it's for Smugmug to live with the consequences of their decisions. I’m sure they will live with no longer having to provide data centre space free of charge for those not willing to pay for it. Fewer customers, but a more profitable business that is more supportable. Not necessarily. Flickr presumably had a business model that worked and made them a profit. The new owners are taking a gamble that the amount they make from the those remaining and switching to a paid service will make up for revenue lost from the leavers. It might, but then again it might not. It wouldn't be the first time that new owners of a company have not understood the user-base, got too greedy, and got their fingers burned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 18:20:44 GMT
Flickr presumably had a business model that worked and made them a profit. Considering how much money Yahoo lost over the years, it might be a wrong assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 6, 2018 18:29:49 GMT
I’m sure they will live with no longer having to provide data centre space free of charge for those not willing to pay for it. Fewer customers, but a more profitable business that is more supportable. Not necessarily. Flickr presumably had a business model that worked and made them a profit. The new owners are taking a gamble that the amount they make from the those remaining and switching to a paid service will make up for revenue lost from the leavers. It might, but then again it might not. It wouldn't be the first time that new owners of a company have not understood the user-base, got too greedy, and got their fingers burned. As futurix says, Yahoo’s history makes me dubious that Flickr was profitable, as does the way that Flickr has been moved from Yahoo into Oath, and then onto SmugMug. Personally, my view is that the “Freemium” model is iffy in the extreme unless you have the scale of a Google. We’ve got used to something for nothing online, and this is part of the wake up call. I’d also add that I remember how much getting prints and slides used to cost, and am shocked at the reaction to the sort of costs being talked about from Flickr. That is the equivalent of no more than 4 or 5 films at the prices of 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by modeng2000 on Nov 6, 2018 19:39:42 GMT
Is this Photobucket all over again?
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Nov 7, 2018 9:20:14 GMT
Flickr presumably had a business model that worked and made them a profit. Considering how much money Yahoo lost over the years, it might be a wrong assumption. You may well be right. They could have been break even, or making a loss, and SmugMug bought them cheaply for what they could retain of the customer base. Not necessarily. Flickr presumably had a business model that worked and made them a profit. The new owners are taking a gamble that the amount they make from the those remaining and switching to a paid service will make up for revenue lost from the leavers. It might, but then again it might not. It wouldn't be the first time that new owners of a company have not understood the user-base, got too greedy, and got their fingers burned. As futurix says, Yahoo’s history makes me dubious that Flickr was profitable, as does the way that Flickr has been moved from Yahoo into Oath, and then onto SmugMug. Personally, my view is that the “Freemium” model is iffy in the extreme unless you have the scale of a Google. We’ve got used to something for nothing online, and this is part of the wake up call. I’d also add that I remember how much getting prints and slides used to cost, and am shocked at the reaction to the sort of costs being talked about from Flickr. That is the equivalent of no more than 4 or 5 films at the prices of 20 years ago. I think the mistake a lot of companies make is that they jump from free to paid plans, the minimum of which can be quite expensive. (The Flikr pro plan actually seems fairly reasonable.) I think they would do themselves some favours by offering slightly less for nothing, and then having a very cheap plan as people go over the free limit, to wean people onto paid plans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 9:27:19 GMT
Freemium usually doesn't work out for companies in the long term.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Nov 7, 2018 10:05:54 GMT
Freemium usually doesn't work out for companies in the long term. As I implied, I think that is because, often, they are too greedy. The model that seems to work is where the strategy is: We'll provide a good, fully working product and only make features 'premium' if they are needed for heavy users. I use several products like that. The really clever ones will have two or three levels of premium. The model that I very much doubt works, but which I've seen a lot is: We'll develop a product, tell people it's free, but place so many restrictions on the free version it's all but unusable. In the first instance, users can get to experience what the product does and how well, and many are then happy to pay. In the second, the users are already suspicious of the company because they feel they have been deceived by being offered a 'free' product that is all but useless and they cannot even determine how well it works in practice, so few will buy. |
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Nov 7, 2018 11:00:42 GMT
In either case, though, you have to go through the barrier of users being charged for what was once free. The side effects of this on Flickr are unfortunate, but those complaining at the impact need to look at their own reaction rather than assuming a subsidy for their hobby will continue.
That is also true of other tiered pricing models. I’m involved in something now where I’m looking at a product for what it can do, but with one eye on the pricing tiers knowing that the extra cost of going up a tier would hurt, but getting rid wouldn’t be viable either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 11:53:38 GMT
Also Yahoo mined personal data of Flickr users - something that SmugMug don't want to do (as stated), don't have any real reason to do (they don't have advertising network of their own, like Yahoo did), and even prevented to do (thanks to GDPR). When something is free to you, *you* are the product.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 9, 2018 21:26:34 GMT
I am undecided. I will not decide until early January, as by then other things may have changed.
I do not want to go but need to also watch the pennies. It would not be so bad if there was a reasonably priced revenue sharing option.
Simon
|
|
Antje
侵略! S系, でゲソ! The Tube comes from the bottom of London!
Posts: 605
|
Post by Antje on Nov 18, 2018 11:17:53 GMT
Yahoo basically bet their future on ads and near-unlimited free storage at the expense of the Pro users (which until 2016 included me). If I recall correctly the 1000-photo limit did exist before the free storage saga.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 18, 2018 11:37:13 GMT
I have over 4,000 photos there, with many more put aside in a special folder for future publishing.
I am now in a quandary and unsure how I will proceed. I don't want to have wasted what amounts to a fair amount of time publishing, narrating, etc my images. But the alternative is ongoing annual fees which are only going to increase over time....
Although I also pay for webspace (for my website) on an annual basis I can use advertising to help defray the cost. This is not an option on flickr.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,744
|
Post by class411 on Nov 18, 2018 11:56:53 GMT
I have over 4,000 photos there, with many more put aside in a special folder for future publishing. I am now in a quandary and unsure how I will proceed. I don't want to have wasted what amounts to a fair amount of time publishing, narrating, etc my images. But the alternative is ongoing annual fees which are only going to increase over time.... Although I also pay for webspace (for my website) on an annual basis I can use advertising to help defray the cost. This is not an option on flickr. Sorry in advance if this falls into the 'teaching grandmother to suck eggs' category, but can you not place photo's you want to show here on your website and link to them on DD? |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Nov 19, 2018 20:03:55 GMT
Yes, I can and sometimes do, but if the image is already on Flickr then its easier to use that!
|
|
I doubt I will be alone in leaving Flickr. It's a great shame and I suspect a lot of good content will be lost but it's for Smugmug to live with the consequences of their decisions.
