?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Flickr

« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 18th, 2018 | 10:17 am

Flickr is undergoing some changes again; apparently Yahoo has decided to spin it off into an independent company again (remember the uproar when Yahoo bought up Flickr in the first place?).

Account perks will be changed in the process (again); in particular, free accounts will now be limited to 1000 photos. And unlike (way) before, when you could have as many photos as you wanted, but only the 200 most recent would be visible, old photos will now apparently be outright deleted.

Unless, of course, you pony up to 50 bucks per year for a paid account. Which I don't intend to do; I'm not using Flickr much at all anymore[1], and I don't feel like paying just so that older pictures of mine will remain accessible. (Cue grumblings about vendor lock-in, holding data hostage, and "I've-altered-the-deal-pray-I-do-not-alter-it-further".)

What this will (likely) mean is that Flickr embeds in my old LJ posts will disappear. So if you come across older posts of mine with pictures that won't show up... this is why.

Side note: if you would like to archive your data, Flickr (to its credit) makes that very easy and convenient. Go to your account, and request your account data; shortly after you should get an email telling you you can download it. There'll be an "Account data" ZIP file containing all metadata, and a bunch of ZIPs containing all the photos and videos you uploaded, in handy chunks of roughly 2 GiB apiece.

  1. Mind, I used to have and pay for a Pro account for many years, so it's not like I've been a free rider all along.
Tags:

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {12}

Pica Delphon (Is one who Builds anything)

(no subject)

from: picadelphon
date: Nov. 18th, 2018 09:22 am (UTC)
Link

I am at a total Blank for the Old Yahoo / Flicker account info, Oh well -sigh- Another one Bites the Dust..

Reply | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 20th, 2018 07:50 am (UTC)
Link

Not quite biting the dust yet, I think, but definitely digging.

OTOH you gotta pay the bills somehow. I wouldn't want to be a manager at Flickr who has to keep their employees paid, their bills paid, and their userbase happy — all the while making at least a modest profit.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Pica Delphon (Is one who Builds anything)

(no subject)

from: picadelphon
date: Nov. 22nd, 2018 03:58 pm (UTC)
Link

Yea, but if you remember Ton's of peoples Pictures Got Copied and Used for Retail Products, So I never used them for Web Back up, I used to use my WEB server for storage...Yay late 90's.. When AOL and Yahoo Spent Billions on Stiff and Company's..What use to Be Server's in Room's, Now a Few Laptops do All the Work..

Reply | Parent | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 22nd, 2018 05:49 pm (UTC)
Link

It's still rooms full of servers --- if anything I think hosting's gotten more complex (and complicated), since you're not just serving static HTML (and other files) anymore, but using a common backend. It's probably still doable for Flickr, they just need to shard their DB ("just", he says... famous last words!), but I often wonder how other companies do it. Querying e.g. Google's index in largely arbitrary ways and getting the results you want, stat, that's gotta be a real challenge.

Reply | Parent | Thread

moonhare

(no subject)

from: mondhasen
date: Nov. 18th, 2018 11:42 am (UTC)
Link

I don’t have a lot of pictures on Flickr, but know some who do. They are moving these to Google, at least for now.

Reply | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 18th, 2018 12:28 pm (UTC)
Link

That's an alternative, if one is willing to feed (even) more data to Google. Can't think of many other alternatives myself, honestly; in the past, sites like Ipernity and 500px used to be peddled as Flickr replacements, but I think these are more for pros who don't mind paying than people who just want a place to store their family photos. LJ is probably right out, and hosting them on your webspace is very 1990s.

Reply | Parent | Thread

ungulata

(no subject)

from: ungulata
date: Nov. 19th, 2018 12:07 am (UTC)
Link

I got around the 200 image limit by making a fresh account each time I reached 200. I'm waiting to see if this strategy will still work when Smugmug's 1,000 limit is implemented.

Storage space is cheap and has been for a long time. Smugmug's strategy here is pretty transparent.

Reply | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 19th, 2018 07:51 am (UTC)
Link

Wait, Smugmug is still around? I thought that black guy was elected in 2008. ...oh wait, different smugmug. ^^

Jokes aside, yeah, I can see that still working, so long as they don't start trying to require people to sign up with unique postal addresses or mobile phone numbers or so.

As for their strategy... I don't begrudge them the need (or desire) to make money. As you say, storage is cheap, but it isn't quite free yet, and neither is all the remaining work that needs to be done to keep a large website running. It's fair for them to want to make money — but it's also fair for others to say thanks, but no thanks, the service you're offering simply isn't worth that much to us.

And in that light, yes, the strategy of twisting the arms of people who have already paid is slightly annoying. I guess it goes to show that the buyer should beware, and consider what he's signing up for. If my gym raises its prices (too much), I'll find another one; no hard feelings, I'm not invested in any specific one. If I want a book, I buy it outright, and if the publisher later on decides that a one-time payment wasn't enough and they need to stay in business... tough luck. But I wouldn't buy a subscription to a book service where I have to pay a regular fee (and pony up whatever amount the seller decides to set) or risk losing access to all my books, including the ones I already got from said service.

Caveat emptor — I can understand that Flickr needs to stay in business, and those who paid for Flickr's service in the past, like me, and now risk the service they paid for being disabled, those people should learn a lesson here.

Reply | Parent | Thread

ungulata

(no subject)

from: ungulata
date: Nov. 20th, 2018 12:43 am (UTC)
Link

On a similar note, I'm surprised Livejournal is still chugging along. ^_^

Reply | Parent | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 20th, 2018 07:48 am (UTC)
Link

So am I, really.

Mind, I have no idea how popular it is in Russia and the Slavic countries right now. It used to be that LJ was largely English-speaking and US-based, and that there was a small minority who didn't interact much at all with the rest. Nowadays we're the small minority who doesn't do that.

I hope it'll keep chugging along, I'd rather avoid having to move to DW. Nothing against DW, mind — it's just that when people move on, they rarely move on to one place. At least DW seems like it would be able to handle the load (unlike Deadjournal, InsaneJournal and Greatestjournal in the past; in no small part because there isn't a whole lot of load to handle anymore, of course), but not everyone would move to DW. And that's doubly slow when there's a slow, drawn-out exodus, as has been happening with my LJ friends base, rather than a single event where everyone leaves — where everyone has to leave.

Sic transit gloria mundi...

Reply | Parent | Thread

Jaffa

(no subject)

from: jaffa_tamarin
date: Nov. 19th, 2018 02:06 pm (UTC)
Link

Apparently I only have 543 photos on flickr, so I'm good for a while yet. My strategy of never really committing to a specific service and just dumping photos that I want to share on whatever site is convenient at the time seems to have paid off.

Reply | Thread

Schnee

(no subject)

from: schnee
date: Nov. 19th, 2018 04:10 pm (UTC)
Link

Diversification — the key to success. ;)

Reply | Parent | Thread