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

Whatever happened to Flickr?

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#211

Post by skinnymuch »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #192
skinnymuch wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While booting one of the original cofounders, Noah, who had the Twitter alpha code on his laptop at the time. Ruthless.

Noah then formed a new startup; Olo, a white label delivery platform for restaurants. It’s publicly-traded and worth $3B! https://www.olo.com/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/olo/

He made it out! You made my day. Nah. My month! The backstabbing and minimizing and rewriting of history that happened with him and Twitter is such a trigger for me lol.

Edit: Unfortunately, that’s a different Noah Glass. Olo was founded in 2005. Noah was working for Odeo in 2005-2006. We can only imagine what the other cofounders would’ve done to Olo based on how he was thrown out of Odeo/Twitter.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#212

Post by throwaway946513 »

mkr-hn wrote: post #202
nullifidian wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DSLRs have been replaced with mirrorless cameras, some of which are full frame and no less capable.

These are mostly replacements rather than first cameras. It's still a shrinking niche relative to smartphone photography.

From the looks of it, most people I know who got their first DSLR, including myself, got used or hand-me downs from other photographers who were upgrading their setup for a newer and better body.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#213

Post by marwis »

aix1 wrote: post #169
leephillips wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s good, but the part about losing access to the original files, if true, is a deal-breaker.

I'm not certain that's true either (if "Original Quality" is turned on[1]) but haven't tested it. That said, I personally only use Google Photos as a sharing site and do archiving offline. [1] https://support.google.com/photos/answer/6220791

Sorry, I should've mentioned this problem applies to images downloaded via API

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#214

Post by marwis »

leephillips wrote: post #160
aix1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe the claim about EXIF location data is accurate -- please see my comment above.

That’s good, but the part about losing access to the original files, if true, is a deal-breaker.

In theory you can download them all via Takeout but that tends to stop working for huge image libraries.

Seems like the only way might be via web scraping.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#215

Post by can16358p »

myko wrote: post #205
can16358p wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they absolutely don't need to have it.

They don't, but it shows how far behind they are competitors like TikTok who do have a functional iPad app

They aren't behind. They don't need it. Why bother maintaining another app when almost all the intended audience is on iPhone and the app (albeit simulated and not with a great experience) works on iPad anyway.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#216

Post by dpark »

bborud wrote: post #210
dpark wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s fair. It’s the same struggle that Bartz had and Yang before her. As you said, there were sharks on all sides. Yahoo was no longer the leader in anything significant once Google showed up. Even in hindsight it’s hard to see a winning play for Mayer’s Yahoo. Even if Mayer had been visionary enough to build something like Chrome at Yahoo, Google would have beaten them to delivery or overwhelmed them short…

I think a winning play would have had to be based on some of their existing strengths rather than start something entirely green-field. For instance, there was a surprising amount of good platform technology at Yahoo! that could have gone somewhere interesting with more juice behind it. (It was managed like a means to and end, not an end in itself. This is what set companies like Google apart from Yahoo, Lycos and al…

> I think a winning play would have had to be based on some of their existing strengths rather than start something entirely green-field. For instance, there was a surprising amount of good platform technology at Yahoo! that could have gone somewhere interesting with more juice behind it.

I’m curious what you have in mind. I don’t see what they had that they could have built a multibillion dollar company on. And that was the real challenge. They needed to build a core business worth at least several (10-20?) billion to fend off an inevitable hostile takeover breakup.

> The problem with Yang, Bartz and Semel was that none of them were the kind of people who "get it". They were not part of Internet or tech culture so they lacked all instinct.

It’s weird lumping Yang in with those others. Yang definitely was part of Internet/tech culture. He founded Yahoo and was responsible for the bulk of the value of Yahoo, as it came out of his investment in Alibaba. But he certainly made a lot of missteps as well.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#217

Post by bborud »

dpark wrote: post #216
bborud wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a winning play would have had to be based on some of their existing strengths rather than start something entirely green-field. For instance, there was a surprising amount of good platform technology at Yahoo! that could have gone somewhere interesting with more juice behind it. (It was managed like a means to and end, not an end in itself. This is what set companies like Google apart from Yahoo, Lycos and al…

> I think a winning play would have had to be based on some of their existing strengths rather than start something entirely green-field. For instance, there was a surprising amount of good platform technology at Yahoo! that could have gone somewhere interesting with more juice behind it. I’m curious what you have in mind. I don’t see what they had that they could have built a multibillion dollar company on. And that…

All of the value of Yahoo was in the bits they could sell off. Yang did that right.

That makes him a good/lucky investor. It doesn’t make him (or Filo) someone who gets it.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#218

Post by antifa »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #29
tomcooks wrote: post #25

Yahoo, that's what happened. Yahoo and their stupid Yahoo login.

Flickr was perfectly fine for years after the Yahoo! buyout that really made no change besides mandating the usage of a Yahoo! account to log in. I still have my Yahoo! email used just for that (unlike then-competitor hotmail, Yahoo! accounts didn't self-destruct after two weeks of inactivity). The real damage came later.

I'm not sure what you mean, I've lost my yahoo account permanently due to inactivity.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#219

Post by hiptobecubic »

leephillips wrote: post #63
colecut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google photos is also pretty cheap and convenient.

Google storage is 2 TB for $100/yr. Flickr is unlimited for $72/yr.

IMO they serve very different purposes. Google Photos has very good search and collaborative album building. The result is that you can take random photos of your life and still get value out of it later. It's not archival quality, but it's extremely accessible, which makes up for it, imo.

Re: Whatever happened to Flickr?

#220

Post by dpark »

bborud wrote: post #217
dpark wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a winning play would have had to be based on some of their existing strengths rather than start something entirely green-field. For instance, there was a surprising amount of good platform technology at Yahoo! that could have gone somewhere interesting with more juice behind it. I’m curious what you have in mind. I don’t see what they had that they could have built a multibillion dollar company on. And that…

All of the value of Yahoo was in the bits they could sell off. Yang did that right. That makes him a good/lucky investor. It doesn’t make him (or Filo) someone who gets it.

> It doesn’t make him (or Filo) someone who gets it.

I don’t know what this means. If “gets it” means “capable of growing a $40 billion company “, then the set of people who “get it” seems exceedingly small.

Post reply on HN