Flickr transmogrifies 1TB free user data limit into 1,000 file limit

[HEXUS]

SmugMug, which bought Flickr from Yahoo in April, will implement the change from January.

Read more.

[EvilCycle]

Time to take some massive multiple HDR panoramic montages stitched together over 2GB in size each, and then store 1000 of them to instantly double (or more) the amount of space instead of limiting it

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

What a con. 1000 pictures is nothing. At 30MB each it only comes to 30GB.

[Output]

I had indeed missed that Yahoo (or "Oath" now I guess) had sold Flickr.

Not that I ever used Flickr, so this never affected me either way. CAT-THE-FIFTH certainly makes a good point that the limit can be reached with a much lower amount of space than was previously allocated for free, but obviously there needs to be something to convince someone to pay.

This may prompt many to migrate to another service instead.

[Saracen]

Time to take some massive multiple HDR panoramic montages stitched together over 2GB in size each, and then store 1000 of them to instantly double (or more) the amount of space instead of limiting it

They probably wouldn't care, because for the handful (relatively) that do that, millions of users won't. And 6 months down the line, they'll find a pretext to ditch the 'troublemaker' accounts.

How many times do we have to see this kind of thing before people wise up to the fact that technology companies absolutely must demonstrate huge user growth rates. It's the only way to get investors and the only way to get thst growth is with sweeteners, or bribes, if you will.

But once they've hit user 'critical mass' ..... all bets are off.

So .... milk it while you can, then move on when you don't like changed ground rules. Or pay for quality hosting from the get-go.

[Corky34]

It still baffles me why we seem to depend so much on third parties to store our data and provide us with 'services', it's not like the technology isn't there to give every home their own personal web, cloud, or whatever, server. Although having said that i guess it's a cost thing.

[spacein_vader]

It still baffles me why we seem to depend so much on third parties to store our data and provide us with 'services', it's not like the technology isn't there to give every home their own personal web, cloud, or whatever, server. Although having said that i guess it's a cost thing.

Upfront cost maybe. But assuming you have an internet connection at home anyway the marginal cost is minor. The real issue is the knowledge to do it.

I have a server at home. It's not really a server. It's a base model dual-core pentium with 8gb of DDR3 on the cheapest motherboard that supported 8 SATA ports with RAID. The cost for that, a case/psu and 120gb SSD for boot was less than £250. From there on the cost is just whatever size and quantity of storage drives you want and possibly a domain name which will cost less than £10 a year.

The challenge is getting to understand Linux/BSD/FreeNAS (or paying £££s for a suitable windows licence,) and configuring it to be webconnectable, secure and able to be your cloud storage/whatever else you want it to do.

Unless IT is also your day job it takes a while to learn. It's rewarding though.

[EvilCycle]

...But once they've hit user 'critical mass' ..... all bets are off...

Absolutely! Happens with every decent free online service ever, whether that be changing the rules or bringing in advertising and then releasing premium accounts, business is business as they say. That doesn't stop it leaving a bad taste in consumers mouths though! So yes, either pay up or move on!

[Saracen]

It still baffles me why we seem to depend so much on third parties to store our data and provide us with 'services', it's not like the technology isn't there to give every home their own personal web, cloud, or whatever, server. Although having said that i guess it's a cost thing.

Partly a cost thing, though it's not that expensive to buy a cheap, home NAS or adapt an old PC as a home server. Outside of communities like this one which, by and large, are either knowledgeable tech-savvy users, or people interested enough that want to learn to be tech-savvy, I'd bet a large proportion of users would respond to suggestions of a NAS, or "personal cloud" with "Huh? Wossat?"

Knowledgecisxa thing, too. And time, and being bothered.


When a company offers to do it for you, and free, it's at least superficially very tempting.

But just like the adage, if you can't see what the product is you are the product, I'd also add "there ain't no sucb thing as a free lunch".

When companies offer sonething "for free", they have an agenda. That agenda might be benign, like offering home users a "personal" version of their pro product just for goodwill, or to promote name/brand recognition, or it might be a tempter to upgrade to the paid-for variant .... or it might be a far less benign agenda, but there will be an agenda.

[Saracen]

Absolutely! Happens with every decent free online service ever, whether that be changing the rules or bringing in advertising and then releasing premium accounts, business is business as they say. That doesn't stop it leaving a bad taste in consumers mouths though! So yes, either pay up or move on!

Completely agree on the bad taste.

They're a bit lihe drug dealers ... or so I hear. You might get free samples or 'cut' intro prices, but once you've been sucked in and are nicely hooked snd reliant, even dependent .....

[LSG501]

Upfront cost maybe.

Could be something as 'simple' as an offsite backup for 'peach of mind', I've uploaded my mp3's to google music purely for backup even though I can access the nas it's all stored on from outside my network etc too, not that I'd actually miss 2/3's of my collection these days lol.

[John_Amstrad]

Do you remember THE ONE, THE FIRST THAT TAUGHT such market tactics??

[Dashers]

It still baffles me why we seem to depend so much on third parties to store our data and provide us with 'services', it's not like the technology isn't there to give every home their own personal web, cloud, or whatever, server. Although having said that i guess it's a cost thing.

I think it's the tight and slick integration with mobile phones, which is trickier to reproduce with home brew. And then the social aspect. Flickr is a social photography network, not just a private cloud backup. If you want to share your photos with other photographers, that's harder to do with your own storage.

[Saracen]

... Flickr is a social photography network, not just a private cloud backup. If you want to share your photos with other photographers, that's harder to do with your own storage.

That's fair enough, and goes some way to explain why I've never felt the need for it.

I do share a few photos with others, but feel no need to share with the general public, or photographers I don't know. Most of my photography is for print purposes, and the bulk of that is macro. The only people I share most of it with is those that see the prints.

Oh, except those, usually taken on commission, to which I've sold the rights ( or some thereof), which generally aren't macro.

[Snarf]

I think most people used Flikr to share their photos and discuss, rather than just for file storage. I could be wrong though...and I' don't think too many people use Flikr for anything at all these days. Sounds like they just need to cut costs because of low revenue.