Flickr why pro

I paid to upload them. Now imagine flickr quadruple their prices, I don't want to pay, they delete my uploaded images that I paid for. I don't want to upload anymore for free I just want the images to be able to be viewed, kinda like I'd died. I don't like that scenario, so I don't join in the first place. It's no skin off my noise I'm just putting it out there that if they wanted my business they would have to remove the threat of deleting the images that I paid for uploading. Yes, and If you rent an apartment and you stop paying rent, they move all your stuff out.

That's how it works. You didn't pay to upload, you paid to host them for a fixed period of time. When that time is up, you owe more rent or you have to move out. That's your interpretation of their payments, not mine. It's called compromise, they want more money I'm saying how they could get mine.

I'm not a frequent uploader, I hardly got followers, but I check out Flickr daily. So I also subscribed recently to keep it going a bit longer. I consider it as a contribution, because I'm not optimistic when the CEO is asking everybody for money. Too bad. It's been great as a free service, perhaps the best in the genre. I don't recall seeing any ads on it until about 6 months ago. They are really annoying and would provoke me into paying or moving on. I nearly capitulated to the recent discounted offer, but I was looking at Explore over the holiday period and it was utter trash.

It should be a showcase of the best. Instead it was embarrassing. I put my credit card away. I don't think it is unreasonable to pay a subscription for quality services online. Flickr is close, but they need to do something to get me over the line.

Raising the prices is not that something. Quite the opposite. After 14 years of a Flickr Pro membership, I am thinking about alternatives. Smugmug just disqualified itself with this ongoing greed.

What else do we have? I want something for easy image hosting for less than 10, images. I don't need an online shop to sell any of them, but collections or albums; also free viewing for any non-member. I think if you start shopping around, you'll find good image hosting isn't as cheap or easy as you want it to be. They don't appear to be greedy, they appear to be struggling to pay the bills. Many think they will go out of business due to a faulty business model.

How easily you insult a business you clearly know nothing about. Pay or don't but being the insults are just silly. I've been a free user of Flickr for a long time. I don't use if for backup but as a portfolio for the photo's I like the most. For backup purpose I have a NAS. Works just fine. I'm thinking about a payed subscription, just because it's a great platform I don't want to lose.

It's a great place to store your photos, you can save them at full resolution and recover them by keyword, unlike just having a disk archive service. I've been a Flickr Pro member for a long time, but I have to say the continuing price increases are hard to swallow, particularly when Flickr doesn't seem to be the place companies go to buy photos any longer.

I used to make quite a bit every month, but that absolutely died maybe 5 years ago. When I used to tell people to look for my photos on Flickr they used to say "ok", now it's "what's that? Where else are you going to get that deal? I think they need more than one price. Maybe make it so non subscribers lose things like getting to be in explore, have a limited number of groups they can join, only get to have a photo be in say 3 groups, maybe only allowed to upload 1 photo a day , only allowed to display medium sizes, not be able to download anyone elses photos, ect.

Depends on how much money do they need to keep afloat. You can strip the features down but how many people are really going to pay? Many might find they just want to share casually with others with this past time hobby of theirs.

Flickr will not survive by simply trying to squeeze more and more money out of existing subscribers. The need new ones. A lower price with real incentives to pay has a much better chance of achieving that than the current strategy.

I know what you are saying. Most users just will not pay for these services. At the end of the day maybe it would become a premium account and a lower price account with limited features, with a very very very limited free account if that.

Then activity might then drop a lot off than now. Maybe with a Smugmug approach with a community feel. Due to the nature of their work, they need to use server farms with plenty of storage across different countries.

Then you have the need to maintain existing code, e. This is before you start thinking about lawyers and admins. It does not help that their HQ is in the bay area, where they compete for devs talents with big tech.

Having said that, tens of millions might be a far stretch. Unless it includes interests from plenty unpaid loans.

Nobody writes their own EXIF parsers. It all comes as libraries. I don't think any of those companies do anything else than simply using any of the existing EXIF libraries like libexif or libexiv2. If you look at what new features Flickr came up with in recent years, it's also unlikely that they do a whole lot of programming at all. It may be expensive to maintain all that ancient code, though. But development cost can't be their main problem.

As you may know, libraries often, when they get update, end up breaking existing API calls. Yes, it is a trivial task for most, but it is something that needs to be done and tested. It would appear to me that Flickr's executives are milking the company empty with their sky-high salaries.

Storage is one thing but bandwidth is another. I guess a vast majority of the traffic is from visitors and free users in general. When you start getting in the GB or TB of content delivery and millions of http requests each day, costs can quickly pile up. Now, I have to ask myself, did I get 40 times the value from the camera as I might have being on that site? You may have a point, but I'm fairly sure it only recently increased substantial in price, wasn't it about 30 a year?

I am open to correction, but as a pro user for years I remember thinking 50 was too expensive, which I hadn't done in previous years. LoneTree1 Well the real issue is they are doing it wrong. What have they added over the years to compel people to subscribe as the price goes up? Nothing really. Flickr's fundamental problem is they give away the core features that make the service valuable.

It be like if Netflix let you watch 10 movies and 5 series a month for free. Flickr needs much more limitations on free accounts and lower entry price to remove some of those restrictions. The current strategy of just trying to get a little bit more out of current subscribers most of whom are probably old guard types who've been paying for years is not going to save them in the long term.

The price given by Stefan is incorrect - it's the regular price, without rebate for current Pro users. Stefan Hundhammer Write to Flickr support, they must have made a mistake. I don't post online very often anymore, retired from Pro since , however , we are photographers, we spend tone of money on lenses, bags, filters, GAS.

Not sure why you are even complaining about the price increase. Someone has to pay for the operation cost of Flickr. If Flickr doesn't sell your data then you are not their product. If a website manages to lose "tens of millions a year" they could perhaps cut some expenses before rushing in to charge more from their customers.

Like cut a lot of expenses. At the end of the day it is just a website with a storage attached to it. Maybe but many people are just wanting to share their photographs casually. Often I find people I know in person on Facebook don't even click your links.

Paying websites have a small subset of customers. At the end of the day, how realistic is it to have more people paying more. Having belong to camera clubs for over 10yrs. There are certainly those who are serious in their craft and have spent quite a bit of dough.

There are also those who really just have 1 body and 2 or 3 lenses kinda kit. Plus maybe a 8yr old older body. I think Flickr should provide additional features for Pro such as Wedding Photographers, event photographers.

I used to pay ton of money for Pictage when I shot wedding. It is just greed, it was free for years and it was running ok. Now even with the subscription it "loses money" and needs to increase the fee. Probably owners of the Flickr need to buy one more private jet. There is no way in hell I'll pay for the service that uses may own data for free!!! Horrible capitalism.

Yes, pretty much agree. As a small business owner for over 40 years, the average Joe Blow hasnt got a clue what it takes to run a business. Most of what used to be free in the "early" internet days, were free for you and me but a massive cost for the people trying to create a business around new technologies. Remember when Google acquired youtube, youtube was operating at 1M loss each month or about that if memory serves me well. Businesses on internet that have nothing palpable to sell, just entertainement or "social" networking are nearly always being created knowing they'll lose massive money and for an unknown period of time.

Selling data is unfortunately the easy way out. But I'm definitely expecting some kind of ad-market collapse at some point, I think it's a vastly inflated bubble. There is just to many things happening only through data selling. That's too much money. I don't think internet ads, even the most cleverly disguised ones, are generating as much money as they cost.

How about they make the app Instagram used to be. Chronological timeline and a simple UI. They still have enough name recognition to get people on board. This is honestly a great idea. I think that would be a great idea. An Instagram-type app for photographers, not influencers or wannabe influencers, is what I'd like to see.

But someone will always try to game the system. Problem with chronological timeline is if your followers all follow someone like Snoop who post 20 times a day, and you post once a week, your post will never be seen. I really like flickr It's entirely possible everything we are told about Flickr is BS and just to prepare people for the shutdown. I don't see why SmugSmug would want to keep flickr alive. I don't think either that despite expensive, Flickr's cost is in the tens of millions per year unless like someone pointed out, they're quite late on their loans and are piling huge interests.

Can't make the re-up button work. Can't make a new subscription button work. If they need my money so badly, they should hire a new programmer and fix there damn site. First pleading for money, now price increases. Flicker would seem to have lost all hope of viability. They should design some questions regarding what potential subscribers want from Flickr as a photo platform, submit them to dpreview for tuning with the users here yes, the questions , and then post a voting similar to "best camera of the year" , advertise it everywhere, and let us vote.

Then take a look at the results of the vote. So I'm not saying that Flickr should do as we vote here, but they could get a li'l bit of feedback. As a hobbyist, the only feature I would want them to offer is for my visitors, family and friends to be able to order a print on their own without me having to lift a finger. But that's SmugSmug's business now. I used the free version of flickr prior to the change of ownerhship.

I've since stopped using flickr and downloaded all my photos. I'm using Instagram now, which isn't as nice as flickr, but whatever. How could you possibly have loaded more than images to Instagram?

And if you haven't, how was Flickr free holding you back? Flickr is actually a good focused site, but its not run properly. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Valerie Goettsch March 24, March 24, Discounts on Smugmug, Adobe, Phlearn, Blurb, Chatbooks and more Unlimited Space You never have to worry about having enough space because the Flickr Pro account gives you unlimited uploads, storage and bandwidth.

Unlimited Sets and Collections You can organize your photos into sets and collections, which I highly recommend if you have a lot of images. It offers storage for both documents and photos; the photo feature lets you organize your images in albums and select favorites. You can access up to MB of storage free. Subscribe to get the best Verge-approved tech deals of the week. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Cybersecurity Mobile Policy Privacy Scooters. Phones Laptops Headphones Cameras. Tablets Smartwatches Speakers Drones. Accessories Buying Guides How-tos Deals. Health Energy Environment. YouTube Instagram Adobe. Kickstarter Tumblr Art Club. Film TV Games. Fortnite Game of Thrones Books.

Comics Music. Filed under: Cameras and Photography How-to Tech. In terms of size, photo files are limited to MB in size, where as video files are limited to 1 GB. Another albeit edge case restriction for photo files is they can be no more than Videos streaming is also limited to the first 3 minutes, which is rather strict compared to other cloud storage providers that support video.

Although photo formats are limited to three types, Flickr compensates in the photo feature set by automatically creating multiple photo sizes. Besides storing your original photo file 'as is', Flickr also offers the ability to access multiple sizes of the same photo, as illustrated in the bottom right of the following figure.

Different photo sizes are particularly helpful if you plan to take high-resolution photos e. By default, Flickr uses the 'best display size' depending on the medium where a photo is accessed, but you can change this to a fixed size for all photos [9].

Similarly, by default access to the original photo version is always available, unless you disable it [10]. More details about restricting photo access are provided in the next section on shareability. Access to Flickr as an uploader is differentiated if you have a free or paid account. In this area, Flickr is the only cloud storage provider that restricts access to apps, with the intention to charge for them.