241–250 of 300 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single VPS for backing up photos? No thanks. Redundancy is going to cost you a lot going this route.
He said there are backups already, this is just an addition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just tired of most of the community aspect of flickr aside from folks I already knew IRL. I found a lot of groupie-ism and, as you note, group stuff that was at least spam-ish. As with other things about flickr, I guess I'm not really sure what the "right" flickr looks like and how you achieve that at profitable scale. And, to be honest, I've never had a lot of interest in community photo meetings and so forth loca…
True, I doubt it's possible to have much of a community at the scale that Flickr is aiming for. You can do it with a niche little photography site, but anything operating at mass-market sizes will eventually turn into a lot of people spamming groups and internet jokes at each other because that sort of behavior feeds on itself and gets you more active users to generate money from. I hadn't checked it out recently, bu…
It's fashionable to bash on flickr because it's "languished" and, one redesign aside, hasn't moved a whole lot in a long time. I've certainly taken casual swipes at them myself.
However, the truth is that--while I can imagine some features I'd like--it works pretty well and has a lot of great photography. At the end of the day, it's entirely possible that I wouldn't like it if they were constantly taking the site in new directions because social or mobile or big data or whatever the current hype is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To come in as an outsider She's a Silicon Valley darling; in what way was she an outsider? > I think the hand she took over when she sat down at the table was bad. I agree with this. > she played smart But not this. During her tenure the company treaded water for a few years, lost nearly all value, and now might be looking to break itself up. Is this the standard we should be holding high-profile, high-priced execu…
An outsider to Yahoo, not Silicon Valley. This feeds into point 2. She didn't make Yahoo a media company, it was already one when she got there. The smart part is meant as not gambling on a Carly Fiorina-type merger to "save" the company. Her deals were smaller and focused, and my contention is she didn't blindly throw capital around (at least in a way that makes headlines) to try to save the company. Value is decide…
If Ms.Mayer is able to sell Yahoo! assets to Google in a profitable way for shareholders, that would be a WIN, without it, her regime is a failure not a total failure, but a failure none the less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an even older millennial (35), I have very fond memories of Yahoo. I remember receiving a two-disk copy of Netscape Navigator from a local ISP at a computer show in early 1995 and setting the home-page immediately to Yahoo. At the time I remember seeing hard copies of "The Internet Yellow Pages" at the local Barnes and Noble, but most search was through Yahoo or Alta Vista. Back then AV had several fewer orders of…
> As an even older millennial (35)... cough Dude, give up the skinny jeans :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X "Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the Western Post–World War II baby boom. Demographers and commentators use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To come in as an outsider She's a Silicon Valley darling; in what way was she an outsider? > I think the hand she took over when she sat down at the table was bad. I agree with this. > she played smart But not this. During her tenure the company treaded water for a few years, lost nearly all value, and now might be looking to break itself up. Is this the standard we should be holding high-profile, high-priced execu…
What should she have done? That's the million dollar question I don't see any good answer to.
When Yahoo finally dies, my main concern is what happens to the @yahoo.com email address I've had for a couple of decades, and which now lives next to my name in countless address books. Does it perpetually forward to an address I choose? Does Yahoo try to charge for this? Do Russian identity thieves buy the domain and make my life hell?
I think Yahoo makes a great case study on how optimizing for revenue per user can kill your brand.
Certainly the end of the beginning. Yahoo!, one of perhaps a handful of companies, was the first "Internet"[1]. Those companies blazed an interesting trail and brought the mainstream population of the US into the "online" world. That they emerged across the chasm that was the dot.com crash, was a testament to the amount of momentum they carried with them. I have a tremendous amount of respect for them, but even with…
When/why do you expect Google to implode?
The issue for Google is that while their search is good, Microsoft has crossed over into the "good enough" space (for the customers, advertisers) and the product (people using the service) are less and less likely to force switch the search engine default to Google. Worse, the back stop efforts that Google has been doing to protect revenue growth have caused many long time users to become dissatisfied with their user experience. Google's portal portfolio (News, Finance, G+, Pictures, and Blogger) and cloud offering (GCE) have not kept up with other offerings in the space they are losing share.
All of that summarizes to "web services are becoming commodities" and while profitable (as Bing has demonstrated) it's not going to continue to be profitable enough for Google to do that and any of the other projects that 90% of the other employees work on.
So first Google will start reporting down quarters because no matter how many ads they cram on a page it doesn't improve their RPM, then start cutting projects internally left and right to cut costs, and then they start cutting more of the benefits, and then they start downsizing groups to stay within the 'profitable' envelope, and like a main sequence star that has run out of hydrogen to burn, the collapse to white dwarf has begun. What Alphabet does at that point will be interesting, but their margins on the G business will only be sufficient to support the G business and not anything else. If they aren't making any money elsewhere then poof.
So when? Can't say, really it depends on them being able to pull out into a sustainable business model on the lower margins of commoditized search. Google seems to understand the threat to the business (given their moves, like Alphabet, changing CFOs Etc.). And they are really smart so if there is a way out they may be able to find it, and they have enough cash to "coast" for a long time (look how long Yahoo has coasted right?) But a lot of these things end up being additive, the shine goes off of working there, a lot of solid people leave and then you can lose the ability to change fast enough to avoid your fate.
Companies that pull it off (re-inventing themselves) are much rarer than companies that auger into the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's so bad about it? The end result is the same as the original plan - one company with a stake in Alibaba, and another company with Yahoo's core businesses and the Yahoo Japan stake.
It's reminiscent of the endgame at HP, where the formerly profitable PC/printer division has been split off from Enterprise - possibly in an attempt to keep at least one afloat. That's not proof of badness, but it does suggest desperation and lack of imagination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll agree with flickr having a lot of good photography, but did they actually fix the community? When I used it, all I remember is that 90% of comments were sparkling banners saying "YOUR PHOTO HAS BEEN AWARTED BEST FLICKR OCEAN SUNSET AWARD MAY 2010! CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR GROUP! JOIN JOIN JOIN!" to the point where it interfered with anyone trying to have an actual conversation. Which was a shame because outside of…
I just tired of most of the community aspect of flickr aside from folks I already knew IRL. I found a lot of groupie-ism and, as you note, group stuff that was at least spam-ish. As with other things about flickr, I guess I'm not really sure what the "right" flickr looks like and how you achieve that at profitable scale. And, to be honest, I've never had a lot of interest in community photo meetings and so forth loca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll agree with flickr having a lot of good photography, but did they actually fix the community? When I used it, all I remember is that 90% of comments were sparkling banners saying "YOUR PHOTO HAS BEEN AWARTED BEST FLICKR OCEAN SUNSET AWARD MAY 2010! CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR GROUP! JOIN JOIN JOIN!" to the point where it interfered with anyone trying to have an actual conversation. Which was a shame because outside of…
I just tired of most of the community aspect of flickr aside from folks I already knew IRL. I found a lot of groupie-ism and, as you note, group stuff that was at least spam-ish. As with other things about flickr, I guess I'm not really sure what the "right" flickr looks like and how you achieve that at profitable scale. And, to be honest, I've never had a lot of interest in community photo meetings and so forth loca…
Flickr decided for a long time to not prioritize the best photo display possible and limited photo size and wouldn't offer things like black backgrounds.
And now I may get an infinite less number views, I don't have to deal with the comments, and photography is no longer associated with gamification (when do I post this for the most views to hit explore, etc).
Flickr has a bit of a "look" to what is popular, and while I'm big on good photo processing and the history of the dark room, what makes it today is often too processed, too HDR, and so on, and playing the "game" is not something I'm interested in.
In the early days of Flickr, people DID look more at all the photos in groups they posted to, and that was pretty great.
Getting more people into photography is great though - just shouldn't be about numbers.