Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flickr is dead

thomashawk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Flickr is dead

#41

Post by vbone »

acangiano wrote: post #20

I'm surprised he hasn't disclosed it himself, but it's worth noting that the author has tried his own hand at this problem with the site Zooomr.com. Things didn't work out though and the site never took over Flickr.

Exactly, I am at a loss to explain why so many people continue to fanboy this blowhard.

He has expressed on multiple occasions his dissatisfaction but fail to disclose his conflict of interest as well as the fact that if he really really hates the service so much he can take it elsewhere or try to start his own (oh wait, that didnt work out).

Re: Flickr is dead

#42

Post by vbone »

olefoo wrote: post #26

Thomas Hawk has a long history of enthusiasm and rage; if his normal pattern holds expect to see him lambasting Google for not adding his pet (absolutely essential) feature in six months or so. This latest enthusiasm has me puzzled though. I mean Google+ looks like it's great for sharing photos of limited interest that aren't necessarily public. But it doesn't strike me as a good place to present your art to the worl…

The more telling thing is that Thomas Hawk isn't even his real legal name (Google it) so is in BLATANT violation of the Google+ real name policy.

Feel free to report it. I personally don't see why he should get a free pass on this.

Re: Flickr is dead

#43

Post by tmcw »

ugh wrote: post #16
Tichy wrote: post #3

Not that I have high hopes for Flickr, but sampling the trends going on a walk with Google employees is probably a bit biased. As for Flickr: isn't it strange how the products with the worst user interfaces always seem to become the most popular? Same with Facebook.

Both Flickr and Facebook had awesome interfaces when they first became popular. They just didn’t change enough or went in the wrong direction afterwards.

Much the same with Google Plus. It takes serious effort for growth and the infinite strength of 'user needs' not to clobber a good interface with lots of cruft that most users don't want.

Re: Flickr is dead

#44

Post by brlewis »

vbone wrote: post #41
acangiano wrote: post #20

I'm surprised he hasn't disclosed it himself, but it's worth noting that the author has tried his own hand at this problem with the site Zooomr.com. Things didn't work out though and the site never took over Flickr.

Exactly, I am at a loss to explain why so many people continue to fanboy this blowhard. He has expressed on multiple occasions his dissatisfaction but fail to disclose his conflict of interest as well as the fact that if he really really hates the service so much he can take it elsewhere or try to start his own (oh wait, that didnt work out).

Zooomr is no longer a conflict of interest since he no longer works there. Zooomr has been closed to new registrations for ~2 years.

He has never stopped using Flickr, and still thought Flickr was great when he went to Zooomr: http://thomashawk.com/2006/06/why-im-going-to-work-for-zooom...

Re: Flickr is dead

#45

Post by mkr-hn »

vbone wrote: post #41
acangiano wrote: post #20

I'm surprised he hasn't disclosed it himself, but it's worth noting that the author has tried his own hand at this problem with the site Zooomr.com. Things didn't work out though and the site never took over Flickr.

Exactly, I am at a loss to explain why so many people continue to fanboy this blowhard. He has expressed on multiple occasions his dissatisfaction but fail to disclose his conflict of interest as well as the fact that if he really really hates the service so much he can take it elsewhere or try to start his own (oh wait, that didnt work out).

Trying, even if he failed, puts him in a better position to criticize than an average armchair pundit.

Re: Flickr is dead

#46

Post by tmcw »

potatolicious wrote: post #12

The whole photo-sharing space is ripe for a massive disruptor. Photographers and enthusiasts have been drifting away from Flickr for ages, but up until now there's been no offering that's really a suitable full replacement. On the one side you have sites like SmugMug, which has an awesome API, detailed controls over your images... but is devoid of any of the social features Flickr users have grown to love (and loathe…

Totally agreed. 500px's lack of an API is reflective of its whole purpose, it seems: after uploading photos, I had no idea whether the original version was stored. The embeds have one photo size. It's all very focused on being 'in the site' and on your 'portfolio.'

Flickr was the right 'kind of site' for me back in the day, and still works well as a photo service, not a destination. Google+ is a different kind of site - it's a 2011 socialmediaadservingconnecting site instead of a site with any focus or any emphasis on users creating content of value. The 'you are the product' feeling applies to Google+, whereas Flickr I always felt like I was paying for something of value and getting a relatively honest deal. And 500px feels less like a photo service and more like a site builder - something that doesn't fill my 'place to store all of my photos and export them if worse comes to worst' criteria.

Re: Flickr is dead

#47

Post by scott_s »

brk wrote: post #36
bane wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me." Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, bal…

How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location. Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000…

"Oh, that's pretty, that would make a good picture..." click click click click click click

When taking a picture has almost no cost, people take many pictures of the same thing and sort out the best of the bunch later.

Re: Flickr is dead

#48

Post by ja27 »

I'm not going to argue that Flickr isn't dying, but they do have some things that Google+ and Facebook don't have: groups. A lot of groups are a waste, but some well-administered groups are awesome, both for the group photo pools and discussions.

The Strobist group is one example: http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/

Re: Flickr is dead

#49

Post by ja27 »

Terretta wrote: post #13

Except that this gentleman has previously complained about Flickr censorship, yet completely ignores that Google+ is far more restrictive and has already been accused of pulling people's photos (e.g. Lego cleavage[1]) and pulling non "real name" accounts. I don't think he's thought this through. 1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/did-google-ban-cl...

Flickr has had and continues to have plenty of problems over arbitrarily deleting accounts.

Re: Flickr is dead

#50

Post by fourspace »

brk wrote: post #36
bane wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm a bit of a photography buff, a Flickr Pro user for years, and I'm not sure I want my photographs to be in the same place where I update friends and acquaintances about my status. It's an entirely different thing to me." Absolutely agree. I'm a hobbyist travel photographer, so I end up with essentially two kinds of photos: photos of a place, where I try and form a nice composition, post process (crop, colors, bal…

How can you possibly take 20,000 photos in a week? The math just doesn't work out, if you spent only 10 seconds composing a shot (and I'd argue it takes longer than that if you are a "photographer" and not a drive-by "snapshotter") that amounts to 8 hours per day of JUST picture taking, leaving no time to even move from location to location. Also, the average DSLR has a shutter life expectancy of around 100000-150000…

You're assuming he's only taking one exposure per scene. It's easy to take that many photos in only a few days, let alone a week. Hell, I can take 300 shots of my infant son playing around in about 15 minutes.
Post reply on HN