from Hacker News

Why we’re changing Flickr free accounts

by renchap on 11/1/18, 2:18 PM with 216 comments

  • by Skye on 11/1/18, 5:03 PM

    While I understand why they are adding a limit, the concept of just deleting the photos over the 1000 limit just unsettles me, and will almost certainly cause link rot, which is both sad and annoying when I encounter it.

    I don't know what my dad will do, he's been using Flickr for quite a few years now, he used to pay for pro, but then stopped doing so after Yahoo bought Flickr and started breaking the UI. He has over 1000 photos, but I am not sure if the pro features are worth the price for him. Fortunately he has local backups of every photo, but it does feel like his photos have been held to ransom. He probably would be willing to pay some money (but less than the current pro) just for the extra storage (and none of the extra features), from what I understand.

    To conclude this wall of text, I understand why they're doing it, and hopefully it will make Flickr sustainable, but I feel the way it was done will cause problems when it happens (if it only stopped an account from uploading if it had too many photos, that would help a lot to avoid link rot), and might also cause problems in the future (while morbid to think about, if a pro user dies, they won't be able to pay and a bunch of their images will just get deleted, which could be bad for their families)...

    EDIT: fix a few spelling errors and tyops

    UPDATE: my dad's response to this is that he will pay for pro to keep his images online. In general, he doesn't feel like Pro is intended for him because it has features he doesn't really care about, he only cares about the storage and community stuff, not the statistics and software stuff.

  • by renchap on 11/1/18, 2:39 PM

    SmugMug is really bringing back sanity into Flickr, good to see this after the Yahoo fiasco.

    I created Talegraph [1] as a platform to tell stories with your pictures, and it has been hard for us to explain to users why paying for the product is the only way to ensure your pictures will stay online and private. Paying for what you use & privacy is not something normal people are used to, but this is the only sustainable way imo.

    [1] https://www.talegraph.com

  • by superflyguy on 11/1/18, 3:06 PM

    They're giving 3 month's notice of the automatic deletion of any photos over the 1000 allowed free ones. Not much time and sure to catch out people who don't log in/check their email frequently (including their spam folders) or who have technical problems (crap upload speeds, no capacity to download and store gigs of what might be the only existent copies of photos). I wonder if they'd be better of holding onto the soon to be deleted content for a lot longer, as they're hardly likely to go bust continuing to host it a little longer. I guess moving them to a non-free account would feel a like like extortion but surely this is worse - photos which were uploaded many years ago lost forever.

    Much as I try and avoid using Google, I stick with them for the free email and unlimited photo storage.

  • by robotbikes on 11/1/18, 2:26 PM

    So in summary Flickr is giving free users hosting for 1000 photos of unlimited quality vs. 1TB of free storage to refocus on photography vs. data mining for advertising. Makes sense to me.
  • by muststopmyths on 11/1/18, 3:46 PM

    Stopped paying for pro a few years ago because of arrogance and hubris that was common in the web darlings of the last ten years. Couldn't get a simple customer service request answered without snark or condescension. Garbage redesigns of the layout and refusal to listen to feedback meant you were paying for storage and nothing more (pretensions about "community" notwithstanding).

    On the other hand, my limited interactions with Smugmug have been stellar. I really like those guys and wish them luck.

    The joy of Flickr was exploring the random pictures from ordinary people. I could care less about the heavily Photoshopped "prosumer" stuff that seems to be more popular on the platform. I liked seeing natural skill at composition instead of digital post-processing.

    Unfortunately, it looks like SmugMug wants Flickr to be more like SmugMug, so I don't see myself buying back into pro.

    Flickr to me was mostly about sharing my photos with friends and family before facebook killed that use case. I don't use facebook much any more, but no one else in my circle uses Flickr either.

    Deleting photos over the limit is a bit annoying though. I seem to remember in the past they just made them temporarily inaccessible if you let Pro lapse for a bit (while travelling or whatever).

    Time to whip up something that will compare what I have uploaded on flickr (4000+ photos over 12 years) to what's on my local backups so I can download what I have to and forget about the rest.

  • by mherdeg on 11/1/18, 2:51 PM

    I have been using Flickr to archive my photos since 2013 when they announced a 1TB limit for free users, and have been paying them $50/year since 2016 when they limited availability to Pro users for their first-party auto-upload tool ( http://flickr.com/uploadr ).

    It did seem like the 1TB limit was too good to last when it was announced 5 years ago.

    Still, it's a relatively inexpensive extra archive for my photos (400GB) that supplements other backups. The archive is sorta searchable and kinda good for sharing with family and friends.

    I haven't really used their social or community features (the Explore experience, the magic donkey, and the pandas are all alien to me -- https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/361974994 , http://code.flickr.net/2009/03/03/panda-tuesday-the-history-... ).

  • by blueadept111 on 11/1/18, 9:22 PM

    This is the death knell for Flickr. I've relied heavily on Flickr advanced search to find nature photos of particular plant and animal species. This new policy will undoubtedly results in many photos being deleted, and therefore limiting the search results. Their large archive of photos is/was a real asset, albeit one they haven't been smart enough to monetize effectively. Deleting these photos is just another small step in the slow disintegration of the site, sadly.
  • by shittyadmin on 11/1/18, 2:28 PM

    > In 2013, Yahoo lost sight of what makes Flickr truly special and responded to a changing landscape in online photo sharing by giving every Flickr user a staggering terabyte of free storage

    Well, that's one way to make the only remaining feature of your product sound like a bad thing...

  • by kerneltime on 11/1/18, 4:07 PM

    I am quite happy about this. I have been a paying user for a long time, after verizon bought yahoo, I scrambled to figure out an alternative plan. Flickr was my sole backup after my laptop.

    Summary, use flickr/smugmug to host and share pics that are curated (get rid of unwanted pics when uploading there). Use iCloud (paid), Google(free) and client side encrypted amazon drive to backup all pics (yes 3 backups and I do not trust amazon's free picture tier not sure what they will do with it, already bitten by them changing plans). Yes, I know Google gets what it wants ability to process my pics.. sigh.

    I want to have an honest relation with my service providers, I pay them for a service they give me and I am their customer. Not going to reiterate what has been said numerous times about not being a customer if the service is free..

    Flickr is giving up on "growth at all costs and monetize later" model to "we have a good quality focused service but you have to pay..". I would rather pay. The only problem I am now paying for both flickr and smugmug..

  • by yesimahuman on 11/1/18, 2:34 PM

    I'm a fan of Flickr, and for me the community is the reason I upload my photos there. If this makes Flickr sustainable and lets the team invest in improving the product and fostering the community, I think it's a great move. Plus, seeing highly curated feeds is what people want, not just a dumping ground for every frame in your roll/SD card.
  • by andyjohnson0 on 11/1/18, 3:03 PM

    "First, and most crucially, the free terabyte largely attracted members who were drawn by the free storage, not by engagement with other lovers of photography. This caused a significant tonal shift in our platform, away from the community interaction and exploration of shared interests that makes Flickr the best shared home for photographers in the world."

    I don't have a problem with their decision, and I'll certainly upgrade to pro in the next few weeks. But I also don't use Flickr for "community interaction and exploration of shared interests" - I just want to be able to create albums and put photos in them. So the storage was useful and the ostensible reason for the change (reversing the "tonal shift") doesn't entirely convince me.

    But this isn't unexpected, and I think the purchase by SmugMug was a good thing. I just hope they can stop randomly losing my photos after this...

    (Edit: s/convince/entirely convince/)

  • by 2sk21 on 11/1/18, 2:47 PM

    I really like this. I want to have an honest relationship with a service provider. I pay them for their service and they don't steal my data or reuse it in any way.
  • by owenversteeg on 11/1/18, 7:52 PM

    So I've had a Flickr for a while, and not just for the free terabyte - I just started using that about a year and a half ago. But it's now a pretty ingrained part of my life, particularly using the Flickr app pretty much like my photo gallery. I've got tens of thousands of photos there, and I've encouraged my friends to use it too because it's a great app, the uploading works fast and well, and it's better designed and easier to use than other photo apps in my opinion.

    The rapid phase-out period unnerves me, personally. If I hadn't seen it, and bam, all but 1000 of my tens of thousands of photos were deleted, I don't know what I'd do. Yes, I know, have backups - but moving and organizing tens of thousands of photos takes time and energy. I've also got miscellaneous friends and family that I now have to tell about this change, to download their photos and keep them somewhere else.

    I just wish there was a cheaper option for those of us who want to keep our photos on Flickr. $50/year is pretty high; you can get a 1TB hard drive for $38 on Amazon. If there was some kind of intermediate tier I'd really appreciate it.

    I know that you want to increase community engagement, and I think that's a noble goal, but consider this: you've got a great photo tool, and some people want to use it for their own personal photos without engaging in the community. In my experience, the uploadr works faster and better than Google Photos or other apps I've tried, and I prefer the interface to other apps. Why not just charge what it costs to run? According to Backblaze [0] disk space now costs them about 2 cents/gigabyte. So about $20 for a terabyte. Now I realize there are costs associated of course - bandwidth etc, maintenance, whatnot - but I'm sure you could profitably offer a limited plan for less than what the current Pro plan costs.

    In any case, good luck with Flickr, I'm rooting for you guys.

  • by tzfld on 11/2/18, 9:10 AM

    I'm an active free user with over 10000 photos. Not had intention yet to upgrade to pro. It's simply more cheaper to buy two-three external hdd-s for multiple backups than paying annually for a backup service.

    I somewhat expected this decision, because 1TB free storage sounds to good to be true from the very beginning. I know, I will loose all my edited photos, geotags, edited descriptions and all my additions on flickr. I've uploaded publicly thousands with them of points of interest and with free to use licence, but seems that there is nothing to do. All the photos will remain buried in a forgotten hdd, somewhere in the bottom of a case.

  • by tokyodude on 11/1/18, 6:35 PM

    I'm all for these changes and went to go sign up for Pro (was since Flickr started until about 2 years ago)

    But, .... it seems like they're jumping the gun here. I went to go resign up for Pro but you still have to do it through your Yahoo account!!!

    I don't want yahoo even associated with my flickr account but I could find no way to disassociate the yahoo account.

    Shouldn't they fix that before rolling out this change?

    (or maybe I missed how)

  • by sfilargi on 11/1/18, 6:34 PM

    $50 annually just to store and share photos is a bit too much for my use case. Half of that would definitely justify it. But I am a very light user.

    But other than that I am 100% on-board with this strategy. Get done with the "free" accounts already.

    Haven't bother to go through the T&C but I hope they have clause that say they are not allowed to use your data for data-mining/advertising.

  • by httpsterio on 11/1/18, 3:46 PM

    As a hobbyist photographer 1000 photographs is not a whole lot and I can't justify a pro account when I mostly just use it for storing my edited photos. A terabyte on the other hand is too much to give away to free users.

    Then again, from a business standpoint I welcome the decision. I'd rather have a free place to host a 1000 photos than no Flickr at all. I welcome their stance alleged stance of treating users as priority rather than as just advertisement data generators.

    I say alleged because I don't know how well these promises of users first are applied in practice but I'm hopeful.

    At least they are upfront about it so kudos to Flickr for that.

  • by ocschwar on 11/1/18, 10:20 PM

    I have to admit around the time they went to 1TB free, I stopped taking serious pictures and just used Flickr to be the default backup for my phone camera.

    Now whe I go to Flickr I see a lot more photo plagiarism by throwaway accounts, to say nothing of dank memes.

    If Flickr offers better integration of their photo storage with blogging platforms and the like, it would be very well worth the Pro account. And by concentrating on helping peopel who gather photos for public presentation, they'd be offering a service that isn't quite like the shutterbug demographic they want, but is still on the same tenor.

  • by chewz on 11/2/18, 7:11 AM

    Personally I have put on Flickr thousands of photos from my seven years of travels in Asia which are very dear to me. And suddenly I had been given a month's notice to leave or pay.

    I had sympathy for Flickr as community like 8-10 years ago but haven't been using actively Flickr for couple of years - as it became slowly unusable. I had to write my own scripts to import all my photos as their tools stooped being developed 10 years ago. [1]

    At the moment Flickr webpage is quite unusable (if you block aggressive tracking from Yahoo and other 3-rd parties on DNS level), Flickr app is unusable for privacy reasons - installation on Android requires access to identity, contacts and microphone) and logging to Flickr requires giving some weird permissions to Oath (whoever it is).

    So with all the sympathy for the new owners of Flickr I think it is a bit premature to ask loyal users for ransom before putting it's house in order and showing what the new Flickr would be. It is just asking me to pay for the development in unknown direction.

    I got the message and I will not be using their services in the future as they cannot be considered by me as serious and trusted.

    [1] https://github.com/chew-z/Flickr3

  • by k_sze on 11/1/18, 2:42 PM

    I commend the Flickr team for making this move. It takes courage to make this kind of change, when you know you'll take some flak for it (e.g. this very HN thread). At the end of the day, you'll piss off some people, but you know that the decision makes sense and you forge ahead.
  • by kornork on 11/1/18, 5:12 PM

    If community == accounts with fewer photos, and revenue == people willing to pay for more photos, how does getting their revenue from the people who use Flickr in a way Flickr is trying to pivot from support furthering the goal of community?
  • by patorjk on 11/1/18, 2:51 PM

    I really like Flickr. There's a wealth of beautiful images, great groups (even though a lot of the ones I used are dead/dying), and I really like that I can upload uncompressed images. A lot of what this post says rings true, and hopefully they can right the ship on the engagement front, because right now it feels pretty dismal. When I post to Instagram, I get 20 times the engagement. I'm not sure how they fix that, but I'll stay on board as long as they keep trying to improve things. I'd have no problem going pro if I hit the 1000 image limit (right now I'm at 574).
  • by holychiz on 11/1/18, 4:39 PM

    Well-written product announcement! clear explanation of "bad news" for a lot of users, but encouraging for target customers. I hope when I grow up I too can write something like this. :)
  • by theplaz on 11/1/18, 3:24 PM

    @Onethumb: I have ~150k photos on Flickr and a 10 year paid account but I stopped using it ~1.5 years ago when I got sick of their video upload timestamp issues. I have not checked recently if fixed.

    When I upload photos, Flickr looks at the taken date of the photo and sorts them that way. When I upload videos from the computer (using the upload tool), Flickr does NOT look at the metadata to set the taken date. Instead, then taken date is set to the current date meaning the videos are out of order of the photos.

  • by vldr on 11/2/18, 7:42 AM

    WIth the auto upload feature of flickr I can imagine people using flickr as their main photo storage/backup.

    And if they happen to not pay attention to announcements like these they might find their photo's irreverably gone in a few months.

    Moves like this, so soon after the acquisition, with 0 lenience for existing users makes me not trust Flickr/SmugSmug anymore. What will be the next step when they will randomly delete your photo's?

  • by a012 on 11/1/18, 3:24 PM

    If I remember correctly, Flickr used to hide free user's over 200 photos and they'll show up one upgraded to pro. But now they'll delete exceeded photos.
  • by meesterdude on 11/1/18, 3:38 PM

    I'm not going to complain about a company refocusing their profitability and adjusting things - good for them.

    but i think this was horrible messaging. I would have much rather appreciated a more straightforward approach, instead of trying to get me to be excited for being limited to 1,000 images and video. I think it shows flickr still has a ways to go in building trust - because being disingenuous in messaging doesn't build it.

  • by saaaaaam on 11/1/18, 11:52 PM

    Flickr was probably the first service I paid money for. I seem to recall shelling out $5(?) a month years back - maybe around 2009, possibly earlier - when I hit the 200 photos limit. I was more than happy to pay that back then, because they were doing something I valued. It was a frictionless way to share photos, and the community was nice. I used to actively go and flick through people’s photos, spending a few minutes each day looking at beautiful photography. I’ve not even attempted to log in to Flickr in years. Yahoo made a royal mess of it - in particular when the Flickr ID had to be tied to a Yahoo ID, I just gave up even attempting to log in. Rubbish. Will I pay again? Probably not. The web has moved on and there are easier ways to share photos now. The communities that were once those little communities like Flickr, united by a common passion and desire to show something special have been poisoned by the meme-driven, glib-comment-ridden everything-in-one-place race to the bottom of bigger social networks. Flickr was the product of a gentler, more innocent time.
  • by Markoff on 11/1/18, 9:49 PM

    funny guys, so instead 1TB of space you are giving me now roughly 5GB on par with dozens of free cloud storages and you think for the money you ask for pro account i won't rather set up my own paid cloud where i have complete control over my content instead of some smugs?

    flickr app it's absolutely horrible, impossible to organize or share photos which i would like to do, but it's pretty much impossible so i just used it as backup, so good luck with your business if you think you will turn those free users into paid with this strategy and i will keep my public photos there for people to see, just going to delete account (10yo+) and finally get rid of yahoo account (at last one benefit from this mess), because apparently photographer enough if i am not willing to pay for sharing few photos andyou think 1000 photos it's enough for years

    and if someone is into real photography they are already long time on 500px, so once again who needs paid flickr? might as well shut it down instead of this slow death and blackmailing users who dunno any better how to transfer photos and set their own cloud

  • by pjsg on 11/2/18, 1:52 AM

    I wonder how many people even use their Yahoo accounts any more. This thread was the first that I heard about flickr changing T&Cs. I don't ever log in, I just have some scripts that add particular photos to my photostream -- I.m up to 1,700 now. These then get shown on particular web pages on a web site that I run.

    I'll probably end up paying for a couple of months of Pro before deleting everything (as it'll take some time to migrate onto another service).

    What frustrates me is that this is the second service that I use that changed it's T&Cs on me this year which needed a lot of work to redo my websites (the other was Google Maps which went from free to $2k/month).

    Flickr needs to make money, but I'll bet the fallout will be bad as this change affects a bunch of users who have no idea that it is coming. Presumably the 3% of free people with more than 1k photos are causing significant costs and Flickr wants to dump them.

  • by AaronNewcomer on 11/1/18, 6:23 PM

    It took me awhile to figure out my old Yahoo login for Flickr. But I finally found it! (had to dig way back into my gmail archives). I definitely will be switching my login when that is rolled out.

    As a paid SmugMug user, is there is discount for signing up for a paid flickr account? I saw that there is a discount to become a SmugMug user listed on Flickr Pro Perks.

  • by enimodas on 11/1/18, 9:47 PM

    Hope they'll be contacting archive.org before deleting those pictures of the free users with more than 1000 photos.
  • by dreamling on 11/1/18, 6:32 PM

    I think this is a positive step forward, actively planning to keep the service sustainable is a solid game plan.

    Having more than 1000 pix means I'm now a pro member again, which I let lapse when storage went to 1 ter. Though, my ~38,000 pics only take up 5% of that terabyte. Some of those 2004 pictures are really tiny. Photography may not be as much of a focus for me now, but those early days were really engaging, here's hoping SM brings some of the magic back.

    Having lots of pictures, and albums has made sorting, managing them much harder with the Organize browser tool. I'm interested how Smugmug will be improving the experience of managing photos and albums.

    Will Organize be getting some of the new direction focus?

  • by dotBen on 11/1/18, 2:46 PM

    As someone with way more than 1000 photos on Flickr, I hope they provide an easy way to export the photos and metadata out.

    I mostly agree with the direction they want to take, I just don't want to be part of the journey and so want to get my photos out.

  • by patrickg_zill on 11/1/18, 2:35 PM

    It's actually a good idea. It forces the user to do some curating of their images, encouraging them to only put their best images online. Which in turn should result in more browsers engaging with the site and photographer.
  • by maxxxxx on 11/1/18, 3:33 PM

    I am fine with going to Flickr Pro but this is also in the price range of a regular SmugMug account. Does anybody know how to decide between the two?

    Also: this is is not the only criteria, but do any of them allow a custom domain?

  • by munificent on 11/1/18, 5:04 PM

    I love everything about this announcement.

    I've been a Flickr Pro user for ages. Flickr was one of the things that got me into photography and improved my skills. I learned how to take better pictures by looking at other photos and seeing what kind of feedback mine got.

    Then Yahoo aquired it and Flickr just fizzled out. I kept taking pictures but it wasn't the same without a community to share them with. It really made me sad.

    I truly hope Flickr can return to the fantastic site it used to be and everything about this announcement reads like they have their head on straight.

  • by inetknght on 11/1/18, 4:00 PM

    > you can tell a lot about a product by how it makes money. Giving away vast amounts of storage creates data that can be sold to advertisers, with the inevitable result being that advertisers’ interests are prioritized over yours. Reducing the free storage offering ensures that we run Flickr on subscriptions, which guarantees that our focus is always on how to make your experience better.

    If one thing were to make me want to consider Flickr's services, this statement alone would be it.

  • by ripsawridge on 11/3/18, 4:36 AM

    Paying customer for years. I got 7000 photos up there -- memories of the best times of my life. Extremely worthwhile service. All these folks talking about "death knell" should maybe think about paying for it if the feelings are so strong. They must really value what is on offer, and how about showing appreciation for what is valuable in your life?
  • by josefresco on 11/1/18, 3:19 PM

    I wonder if the comment about "selling our users" is a swipe at Yahoo!, Google (https://www.google.com/photos/about/), or both.

    Does anyone have data on how Google Photos generates revenue? Is it just a mechanism to upsell Google Drive storage quotas? Or are they also mining the photo meta data?

  • by matt_the_bass on 11/5/18, 9:02 PM

    As much as I’m bummed about this, I do have to admit I’m getting what I paid for. I’m currently anaazon prime member so I’ll probably migrate to that solution for added photo backup.
  • by wrs on 11/1/18, 3:05 PM

    Pre-2013 Flickr was a really fun place and I want to go back to there. So I love the initiative and direction here.

    However, I lost the thread of the argument at the penultimate paragraph. If the “vast majority” of current free users will still qualify, why will this change the community in a significant way?

  • by ryanmccullagh on 11/1/18, 4:04 PM

    Well honestly, any service for which one derives value from should have a monetary value for one. $49.99 per year, or about $4 per month is about the cost of 2 cups of coffee. Totally reasonable if you ask me.
  • by jgh on 11/1/18, 10:04 PM

    Is there a way to download all of my photos? I have 25k in a bunch of albums, and it seems like albums over 5k photos in size they wont zip up to download...wtf? Come on Flickr.
  • by nakedrobot2 on 11/1/18, 2:38 PM

    I'm glad I got grandfathered in with my UNLIMITED storage. Wondering when it's going to end ;)
  • by gchokov on 11/1/18, 4:47 PM

    Goodbye Flickr. :(
  • by proneb1rd on 11/1/18, 10:43 PM

    Raise your hand if you use Flickr today. :-)
  • by gdhbcc on 11/1/18, 2:29 PM

    Tl:dr: storage is expensive, and we aren't going to be giving it away when you're not giving us enough revenue
  • by transpy on 11/1/18, 2:33 PM

    Wow, Flickr is still around
  • by notananthem on 11/1/18, 3:57 PM

    Flickr's stupid front end is what turned me off from them in the beginning. I built my own sites and hosted my own photos because it was cheap and easy.
  • by Double_a_92 on 11/1/18, 2:37 PM

    And that's why you don't use (free) cloud services as your only backup. I thought about storing all my family photos on flicker a few years ago... Would have been useless now.