+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25
IT News Thread, Yahoo unveils the new Flickr with 1TB of free space in Other News; Originally Posted by LosOjos The difference is, you can only upload JPG's, which makes the whole thing pretty useless as ...
  1. #16

    HarryMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bedford
    Posts
    1,127
    Thank Post
    55
    Thanked 216 Times in 163 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    The difference is, you can only upload JPG's, which makes the whole thing pretty useless as a backup service
    But it was never meant to be a backup service.

  2. #17


    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the server room, with the lead pipe.
    Posts
    4,638
    Thank Post
    275
    Thanked 778 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Exactly! I don't know what people are complaining about. The same amount of storage from Google would cost ~£79.09 ($99.99) per month. There also isn't anything stopping you from opening a second Flickr account for free if you need more than 1TB.

    Btw, you might be interested in Filr.
    Because the cost jumps significantly if you have > 1TB of photos vs paying the old fee and using whatever you like. It turns a "hey, why don't I pay <£30/yr for pro Flickr access into" "ok, that's more than double my Technet sub".

  3. #18

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,452
    Thank Post
    1,439
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 798 Posts
    Rep Power
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by stevenewman View Post
    But it was never meant to be a backup service.
    I know, that was my point, @Arthur and @dhicks seemed to be suggesting it was a very well priced backup service, my point is, it isn't a backup service! Unless of course you only want to backup JPG versions of your photos, 1080p copies of your movies in 1GB chunks and nothing else!

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    90
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by pete View Post
    Because the cost jumps significantly if you have > 1TB of photos vs paying the old fee and using whatever you like. It turns a "hey, why don't I pay <£30/yr for pro Flickr access into" "ok, that's more than double my Technet sub".
    Anyone that has a current Pro subscription can just carry on using that, so no change for current customers unless they want it.

  5. #20


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,877
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,669 Times in 1,968 Posts
    Rep Power
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    I know, that was my point, @Arthur and @dhicks seemed to be suggesting it was a very well priced backup service
    Where did I say it was a backup service? It obviously isn't.

  6. #21

    dhicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    5,624
    Thank Post
    1,240
    Thanked 778 Times in 675 Posts
    Rep Power
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    The difference is, you can only upload JPG's, which makes the whole thing pretty useless as a backup service
    Drat - many thanks, I didn't realise that. You're right, that's not going to be much good as a general backup / store place for a school's photos. Can you control the quality settings on the JPEG compression used, does anyone know? I wonder if that's how they're offering so much storage space for free - they compress your images in a way which suits them and their storage backend.

  7. #22


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,877
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,669 Times in 1,968 Posts
    Rep Power
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by dhicks View Post
    that's not going to be much good as a general backup / store place for a school's photos.
    Which format(s) are your school photos in? Raw?

    Quote Originally Posted by dhicks View Post
    I wonder if that's how they're offering so much storage space for free
    Flickr are counting on most people never using all of the space. As I am sure you are aware, that's how shared web hosting providers like Dreamhost work too. They know that 80-90% of their customers use such a tiny amount of space they can get away with offering unlimited storage and bandwidth for $8.95 per month.

    Quote Originally Posted by dhicks View Post
    Can you control the quality settings on the JPEG compression used
    No (you would adjust the quality before you upload the photos).

    The new interface and new pricing should make Flickr a lot more competitive. On top of that, Yahoo has promised an advertising campaign to promote the site and win new users. Flickr is now getting the love it has long needed.

    For free users this is clearly massive upgrade. In fact, it's an astonishing new pricing model. You have to hate ads an awful lot to pay $50 a year just to remove them. That's twice as much as Pro cost, but without any of the extra features that Pro offered (removal of limits, detailed stats). And if 1TB really isn't enough—it's hard to imagine that Flickr has many users for whom it isn't—the next storage option isn't cheap and unlimited, as it is in Pro.

    All in all, it seems that the new Flickr is designed to do one thing in particular: discourage people from buying any of the upgrade options so that they keep viewing ads instead. Subscriptions are no longer the point. Yes, there's a token effort to continue subscriptions, but $500 a year for an extra terabyte is never going to be a big seller.

    The new pricing will make it a lot more viable for snap-happy casual users, which must surely be the point, but Facebook has become a dominant monster in this space. Flickr has its advantages—for example, it lets you upload full-size images with no resizing or recompression, and it has a clearer position regarding photo licensing. While these are important to photography enthusiasts, Yahoo's real job will be to make them appeal to the Facebook generation. The new site and pricing are a start, but there's much more work to do if Yahoo wants to make Flickr the photo destination it once was. (Source)
    Last edited by Arthur; 23rd May 2013 at 07:26 AM.

  8. #23

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,452
    Thank Post
    1,439
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 798 Posts
    Rep Power
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Where did I say it was a backup service? It obviously isn't.
    I was referring to this exchange:

    Quote Originally Posted by dhicks View Post
    2TB of space for under £30 a month? That's comparable with Amazon Glacier, and with rather better photo-related features. Can you open institutional accounts for schools and similar, does anyone know? I'd check but their website seems to be down right at the moment...
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    Exactly! I don't know what people are complaining about. The same amount of storage from Google would cost ~£79.09 ($99.99) per month. There also isn't anything stopping you from opening a second Flickr account for free if you need more than 1TB.

    Btw, you might be interested in Filr.
    Just wanted to clear up any confusion about exactly what can be backed up. Yeah, £30 pm for 2TB space is cheap, but you don't have the freedom to use that space for anything you want like you do with a real cloud storage service

    [BTW, I'm not being an arse, genuinely! Emoticons have gotten to the point of being almost sarcastic...]

  9. #24


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,877
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,669 Times in 1,968 Posts
    Rep Power
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    I was referring to this exchange
    I think you're getting confused. The storage I was referring to was the new unified offering from Google for photos, documents and e-mail. Once you have used up your 15GB you have to buy more (if your photos are more than 2048 pixels wide) and it's more expensive than Flickr.

    Google is clearly leveraging its massive cloud capabilities to try to make Google+ the best home for photos online — and attract users to a social network that's struggled to carve out its own niche in a world of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Most of the changes are focused on making uploading and sharing photos — a very tedious task — less painful. The company has already introduced photo-friendly features like unlimited uploads for photos under 2048-pixels wide, a fullscreen picture viewer, and 15GB of free space for photos that break that limit, and with all of the additions today it looks like the company has put together a very compelling package. (Source)
    See also: Can fancy photos and lavish linking help Google+ take off?

    The storage @dhicks was talking about is just for backing up/archiving files.
    Last edited by Arthur; 23rd May 2013 at 10:21 AM.

  10. #25

    dhicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    5,624
    Thank Post
    1,240
    Thanked 778 Times in 675 Posts
    Rep Power
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    The storage I was referring to was the new unified offering from Google for photos, documents and e-mail. Once you have used up your 15GB you have to buy more (if your photos are more than 2048 pixels wide) and it's more expensive than Flickr.
    Heck, now I'm confused. I'm looking at storage from the point of view of backing up a school's-worth (5TB upwards) of images, video and assorted associated files - as LosOjos points out, the storage that Flickr now offers isn't really going ot be suitible for that. I was hoping I'd be able to use it as a cloud-backed storage repository, where I have a local server sync stuff to a Flickr account for backup purposes, but I'd need to do that with PNG, TXT and assorted other files, not just JPGs. I'm currently investigating Amazon's storage engine - I'm installing Eucalyptus on my own server to see how GBs of file uploads translates into Amazon's I/O operations. Can you buy a single (5TB) wodge of storage from Google, or does it all have to be assigned to a specific user?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30th November 2012, 05:48 PM
  2. [MS Office - 2010] Suppressing "You are about to save your document to one of the new file formats"
    By AngryTechnician in forum Office Software
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20th August 2012, 11:53 AM
  3. Vermin Media users with the new routers
    By synaesthesia in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th September 2010, 11:40 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 5th March 2009, 03:22 PM
  5. Multiple internal website access with one ip from the net
    By binky in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th November 2006, 05:14 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •