211–220 of 384 posts
This was already mentioned with Facebook Home, but it'd be great if UI designers and developers would actually spend some time on their target platforms to learn the UI conventions instead of copying iOS as-is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed that this is why Yahoo is pricing it this way -- but I imagine it won't stop the pricing feeling "wrong" to many people. "Why should I pay $500 a year for just a little bit more than I what I was getting for free?" I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a go…
$42/month is pretty cheap for 2TB storage. $499/year gets you just 500GB in Dropbox, for example. And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..
A while back I was getting nervous about what Yahoo was going to do with Flickr, so I signed up for a $60/ year SmugMug account.
On the technical side of things, transferring the data out of Flickr wasn't a problem at all. If I remember correctly, importing ~9000 (~42 Gb) of photos from Flickr took less than an hour, and preserved almost all of the meta-data I had in Flickr (sets, collections, tags, etc.). It was so fast I almost didn't believe it. Of course 1 Tb would take a while even at that speed.
The bigger problem is getting people to use the new site. My Mom, for example, still goes to my Flickr page.
I'm down right angry. I loved the old flickr interface. It was simple and usable. Now it looks like a less functional google+. Flickr's job is NOT to be a fancy photo viewer, it's supposed to be a photo organizer. Looks like yahoo just screwed up the last good thing they had. This will be my last year with this service (I've been a member since 2004 and have had a pro account for several years now).
Give it time. That is the archetypical reaction of a user being confronted by change (angry is else hard to explain). Flickr's job isn't that easy to be defined. It serves many purposes: Being able to upload and store images there, to organize them, but also to view them of course. Having a new UI putting the images first seems quite reasonable given that definition of flickr. Besides, the old interface was neither s…
On the ux side bringing the pictures to the front is pretty reasonable. Unfortunately it stops with a masonry (which is questionable in itself) and a profile header. Everywhere else it is just too noisy, smells like marketing and distractions that stop you every minute from enjoying the pictures. Just look at the home page with the "sign up" popup.
Yahoo needs designers and style as badly as acquiring the next thing every year...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 1 TB is free, but an extra 1 TB is $500/yr?! I'm not sure I understand that. On another note, I (surprisingly) like how the disemvoweling is becoming synonymous with the Yahoo brand (with Tumblr now as well). What seemed stale is starting to seem fresh again. Playful, almost, like a wink to Web 2.0 -- though I imagine it could be perceived as being out of touch too, if they don't play it right.
It's just under the standard $500 authorisation limit for big corp credit cards. It also makes the $49 per year offer seem cheap.
So far, the response from Flickr power users looks overwhelmingly negative: http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633547442506/
Well I'm a power user (8,000+ photos) and I love it. I guess it helps that my most recent photos are ones that I actually edited...on other days, I might do a photo dump of something dull, which would make for an ugly looking homepage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
roughly, very roughly - 90%+ of the people on the 1 TB plan will likely use < 20 Gigabytes (at least over the next couple years), and probably 99% will use less than 100 gigabytes, whereas close to 100% of the people on the doublr plan will be using at least 1 Terabyte.
best explanation of their pricing structure yet. What's stopping people from creating multiple accounts and use flickr as a cloud backup system for free?
The bulk of the people who want to host 2 Terabytes of Photos will be fine paying $500/year, those who aren't can create multiple accounts. (Those who just want Local+Cloud backups are probably better served by just buying a 2 TB Hard Drive for $90, and backing up with backblaze for $50/year
Now, to get all the same benefits that I was getting for $25/year, I can just degrade to a free account? I guess this assumes that there are a lot of mobile users now and installing ad-blockers on mobile is much more difficult.
Still, what a strange decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Flickr Pro user, this upsets me. 300MB is like what, 20-odd full-sized JPEGs? A month? With no way to lift that limit even if paying? Ugh.
I wish people wouldn't downvote others for simply reporting on what they see. It's not your fault Fickr is live editing their page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
best explanation of their pricing structure yet. What's stopping people from creating multiple accounts and use flickr as a cloud backup system for free?
Agreed that this is why Yahoo is pricing it this way -- but I imagine it won't stop the pricing feeling "wrong" to many people. "Why should I pay $500 a year for just a little bit more than I what I was getting for free?" I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a go…
As for what I believe, I REALLY hope Yahoo keeps it up, but I like rooting for the underdog...ditch the contract with bing searches, and redesign the homepage already. Keep up the good PR...now back it with the good products