|
|
There have been a lot of suggestions relating to a middle-ground account option that would cost less.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And there will be such a mid-tier account, some day.
(In the meantime, even if you valued the Flickr software at $0, Flickr is still much cheaper than the bare cost of hosting: no bandwidth or storage caps, and 1GB upload a month - Flickr's about 1/4 the price of most web hosting.)
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
thanks quad and Stewart for the feedback. i look forward to future options, and i'll continue to support the site. neato... :]
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No problem if you live in Europe and convert dollars to euros. LOL
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
$100 Australian dollars? I assume I'm being stupid or something, but according to this currency converter - www.xe.com/ucc/ - it works out to $57 Australian.
Is that really that expensive for a whole year's worth of photo hosting?
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ jals... well yeah... still too expensive for me. you're not stupid, though. :] a mid-range service would suit me better.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I've recently started using Flickr, and it's absolutely wonderful. But, 1GB per month is just absurd for most people. I got my pro account and uploaded almost all of my photos from the past two years in a day -- about 700MB. I know there are people that take a lot more pictures than me, but I know there are people that take a lot less, too. If I can't take 1GB of pictures in two years, I doubt many people can do it in a month...
There needs to be a smaller plan...
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Okay, jcroft, from now on you're only allowed to upload 200MB. :-)
You seem to be assuming that lowering the allowed bandwidth would result in a lower cost? Bad assumption!
P.S. My camera generates more than 3MB per image on average, and there are people with higher-resolution cameras than mine. Still, I use only a fraction of the 1GB allowed. I've voted for changing the description to "unlimited" so that misunderstandings don't come up quite so often. Bandwidth is hardly the single biggest feature/factor in Pro pricing.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Changing to "unlimited" is a bad idea. Flickr is already playing word games by giving us unlimited page views and storage space, since there is no such thing as an unlimited hard drive, etc ;)
Sorry, just a peeve of mine to some extent, heh. I know they can keep adding hard drive array's, etc. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to keep moving the way of "unlimited." There's a large/strong userbase in the hosting community that as soon as they see the word "unlimited" they move on to the next host.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The difference between "1GB" and "unlimited" upload bandwidth is, for 99% of people, nothing at all. On the other hand, a not-insignificant number of people latch onto the "1GB" label and protest that they shouldn't have to pay for upload bandwidth they aren't going to use, despite the fact that upload bandwidth is one of at least seven different benefits of a Pro account.
There will always be edge cases, and those are a concern, but I suspect that if the 1GB upload bandwidth cap were lifted, less than one person would use 12GB in a year. More than 1GB in a given month, sure. But twelve months in a row? I doubt it.
I wouldn't change my upload habits one bit, and I suspect 99%+ of users are the same way.
And it's not free, after all. What's the worst case scenario? I'll come up with one:
Bandwidth costs shoot through the roof, despite the current trend in the other direction. At the same time, 20-megapixel cameras become commonplace and a host of heavy shooters all sign up and decide to use flickr to host every image they've ever shot, instead of just "the good ones." As a result, flick is looking at red ink because the Pro account revenue isn't covering the mounting bandwidth costs. What can flickr do?
Solution: Raise the cost of the "Pro" account substantially, and create a "Semi-Pro" account at the current price that is just like a Pro account except that it has a bandwidth cap that is higher than whatever 80% of paying subscribers are using. For most people, nothing changes. For the bandwidth hogs, they either leave and take the high charges with them, or they pay to cover the higher charges when they next renew.
Not so bad, is it? And that's the *worst* possible case!
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah, I have to admit I was mincing words to a certain extent. I agree with you for the most part. Words like "unlimited" just need to be used carefully I guess is all I'm saying.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It might be a good idea to change the "1 GB limit" phrasing to "virtually unlimited", and whoever wants more details can easily learn about the 1 GB limit.
There *should* be a limit, even if only to prevent attacks.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If someone was like abusing the unlimited whateverness, couldn't Flickr just make it so the upload speed is reduced or something (by this i mean they set it so that if someone's been uploading over 3GB of pictures non stop for the last 24hours or something more appropriately crazy, then it throttle's the bandwidth right down to 5k or something, so that way it's effectively limiting how much that person can upload without having an official limit)? Also, the fact that photos can only be 5MB each means there's a limit to how ludicrisly fancy photos people can upload.
For me, the main thing I'm paying for in Flickr Pro is being able to store, organize and share all my photos using the cool Flickr interface. The actual upload limit doesn't bother me, as long as I know it isn't going to cause me problems in not being able to upload photos. However, I do agree most people see the '1GB' as what they're paying for, and so we need to find a way of emphasising the other features as what they're really paying for.
A mid-tier option would be nice though, cause when I try to get friends uploading to Flickr they usually use up all their 10MB before they've really gotten into Flickr proparly enough to seriously consider paying for it, and by the time next month comes around they forget all about uploading pictures and just use Flickr to look at mine. That said, as more and more people start using Flickr, people will keep coming back to see other people's pics, and then hopefully they'll upload a couple of months in a row and then start thinking about going Pro :)
Maybe a three-month Pro option would be good. I feel bad buying people Flickr subscriptions as gifts, cause I feel like it's almost more for me than them since it would make them feel obliged to use Flickr lol, but then a 3-month cheaper subscription could be bought as a gift along with something you'd get them anyways as a gift and would hopefully be long enough for them to try it and like it. Since the photo-stream reverts to 100 pictures and 3 sets on a free account, it means people can't really upload like mad in those 3 months and then use all the pics they uploaded when they where Pro with a free account. If anything, hopefully people would subscirbe so as not to have wasted all the time they spent uploading and organizing photos when they had their Pro account :)
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
you make some good points, joe. i agree with your last paragraph - a 3 month intro would be great. :]
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree, too. I remember what it was like to be poor, perhaps a good start would be allowing people to pay monthly or quarterly rather than once every year or two.
Since storage is "unlimited" theoretically one who allows their pro accout to lapse could still have all their photos, even if they had to reorganize them into 3 groups.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe Flickr could do a group sharing plan, sort of like friends and family minutes sharing with cell phones?
A flickr group plan with 1gb of anytime uploading.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> Maybe Flickr could do a group sharing
> plan, sort of like friends and family
> minutes sharing with cell phones?
Yeah, I can see that family argument:
"Whaddaya _mean_ the whole gig is used up?"
"Well, Janie had some photos to show her boyfriend, and Spike had a new - "
"But it's only the _third_!"
"Now, dear."
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Since storage is "unlimited" theoretically one who allows their pro accout to lapse could still have all their photos, even if they had to reorganize them into 3 groups
Yes, but I think what would happen is that all except the 100 most recently posted images would become invisible until 'pro' account was reactivated. Not sure what would happen to the sets but presumably all would go except 3 (oldest? newest?)
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe Flickr could do a group sharing plan, sort of like friends and family minutes sharing with cell phones?
Once someone said something in one of these Forums about how they share their account with someone and one of the developers said something about how you're not really supposed to do that, so I don't think they really like that idea.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
dubmill: it removes all the but the three newest.
Now, whether they just get deleted or are disabled is another question. Hopefully, they merely get disabled and are there again once the account is Pro again.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Disabled.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes, only one person should b using an account, but we are planning on offering group discounts. We haven't worked out the details yet, but it will probably happen around the same time we go out of beta and introduce the mid-tier plan.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Paying a few bucks a month for the Flickr service is ridiculously cheap, IMHO. It's worth it for the storage space alone, let alone the features, the community, and lord - the fun!! As a web host reseller myself, I can tell you it is really no picnic to provide that kind of storage at that kind of price.
Look at $40ish per year and think "expensive" - look at $3-$4 a month and think CHEAP! Just forego a couple of sodas, 1/3 of a pizza, half a pack of cigarettes, a beer at the bar (half a beer if you're an urbanite), what have you. Think of how easily you really waste $40 a year on stuff that is far less cool or useful than Flickr.
I swear I don't work for Ludicorp. :)
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
$3-$4 a month is cheap in terms of US salaries. There are many countries in the world in which that amount is equal to significantly more than a third of a pizza.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I agree that the cost per year is too hight. I paid it, yeah, but I may not next year. It depends on features, etc. I agree a middle-ground paid account would be great. I'm still keeping my photos at Fotki.com beause they are $30 a -YEAR- and you get unlimited storage and ftp uploads as one of the many options. It's not as flashy as Flickr, but I like it. There is alot I like about Flickr that Fotki doesn't have, which is why I'm here and why I'm pro. But even the beta price was hard to pay and I'm not sure I can justify it each year. It's hard to beat Fotki's $30 per year unlimited storage, imho.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I would be interested to know how many flickr members already have a web page/blog elsewhere. I know I (and all my friends) do, and that makes the "but you don't have to pay for bandwidth/hosting" argument moot for me.
I love flickr, and I love having a pro acct, but even I feel like it's priced slightly higher than I'm comfortable with. That's not to say it's not *worth* it...but it does mean that if my current financial/life situation changes, it'll probably be my first luxury to go.
Sometimes it seems like your focus is on packing flickr with so many excellent features that it becomes worth what you're currently charging. That's not a bad strategy, and it is becoming cooler (= more valuable) all the time.
Still, I wonder what flickr users would tell you if you asked them what features were most valuable to them and what flickr felt "worth" to them, and tried to find that point of diminishing returns in terms of features.
Just a thought. Luckily I got a pro acct for Xmas, so I'm happy for a good long while.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
ok guys is there anyways for paying for it other than using a credit card?
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Freddy - that's a good point. I think there are several features that we still really need, but there are many already (and more to come) which go beyond the line of diminishing returns for most people. That's why there will be more pricing plans in the future :)
I have no idea what the exact figure is, but I suspect that fewer than 15% of the people who have purchased pro accounts pay for web hosting elsewhere.
Amdxp - there's instructions on how to pay with a draft or money order here: www.flickr.com/account_order_faq.gne
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I pay for a whole server elsewhere actually ;) And I still think flickr is worth every penny, and would be concerned that they weren't covering their own expenses if they charged us less.
As for current things still needed -- ordering prints of my pictures stored on flickr. This is something I REALLY REALLY want in flickr. Sort of surprised we haven't heard more about flickr actively pursuing this as there'd be room for them to make some profit on it even if just outsourced to another company.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sort of surprised we haven't heard more about flickr actively pursuing this as there'd be room for them to make some profit on it even if just outsourced to another company.
there's a post from stewart floating around here somewhere about this.
about flickr already having a partner lined up but not wanting to start over christmas because the system might collapse under demand.
something along those lines.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
oh, and i doubt this would only be a superuser problem.
the 'spam' thing might be, but the utility issue would affect all users.
so i'm invited to 8 groups i'm not interested in a day, while an average user is invited to 2 groups they aren't interested in.
it is still noise.
say they join the group, and don't like it or participate {likely}, over time you create users that are increasingly skeptical of joining groups, even the ones they are well suited to.
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think Striatic was talking to us in that last post :)
Posted 90 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
any word on middle-ground payment options?
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I really really think the price is soo worth it. Come on, it turned out to be about 65 Singapore Dollars for a whole year! Man, I can upload ALL my photos and most of all, I have a secure storage for them.. No need to worry about losing them or anything. Flickr is here to stay for me :)
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd wait at least until they're out of beta, svillarosa.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There are few sites I pay to use, but flickr is the best value of the lot in my view. Its becoming a huge part of my life and costs me about as much as I pay for 15 weeks worth of Sunday papers - not that bad.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I feel the price isn't a problem. But for a person with committment issues I find that I hesitate to sign until I can see that I'll really like the service, learn it, use it and get along with the other kids in this sandbox.
I have really enjoyed flickr so far. However, from time to time I sense impatience from experienced members. Maybe newbies like me should have to be relagated to newbie forums so as to not wear out the pros. Sometimes I post topics or respond and it is pretty clear that it was a stupid entry. And there's plenty of people to point it out. But I guess that's how slow pokes like me learn.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Don't worry about the old hands, they just can't remember those first exuberant days of exploration!
More seriously: most of the brusque-but-helpful replies I see around I think are more from the fact they've been repeated so often and it's the most efficient way to do it. Then there's the people who respond the same thing after five similar responses, who I think just enjoy chiming in. Then there's the people who just like calling other people names.
In any case, there's nothing personal involved, because it is how people learn. I don't see a need for newbie forums, that'll just split the community without really helping anything. What happens to newbies in newbieland after a couple of months?
Anyway, we likes you, fredden, we really does. I think with a little counselling and hard work, we can get over your committment issues and move onto a healthy and enjoyable relationship.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
More seriously: most of the brusque-but-helpful replies I see around I think
I also think this is a phosphor issue -- it might be that in my mind I see myself smiling and hear my friendly voice, but when someone else reads the post in the glare of the phosphor, my friendliness isn't there. Think of Brock --he's really a happy- go- lucky, friendly person, but some people just don't get that from his posts. :->
I'd suggest that people assume that it's not personal (as Matt indeed says), that it's not even brusque, that it is, in fact, friendly if only you could see the pleasant expressions and hear the pleasant tone of voice.
Phil
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
However, from time to time I sense impatience from experienced members.
I think a lot of the impatience can be put down to the fact that a lot of the common questions can be answered by reading the FAQ (a general observation, not directed at you Fredden).
I've been on Flickr less than two months and already I get a little frustrated at seeing this type of question asked over and over again, I can understand any annoyance felt by the early adopters who must have answered them dozens (hundreds?) of times...
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
still in the dozens .. for now.
although i suppose there are dozens of basic questions we've answered dozens of times .. and that would put us into the hundreds.
the questions were much more fun to answer in flickr live then they are in the forums.
but i'm not sure that's why we sometimes come off as brusque.
the developers have to answer the same questions all the time, even more than we do, and they stay chipper.. or at least publicly so.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
the developers have to answer the same questions all the time, even more than we do, and they stay chipper.. or at least publicly so.
they're paid to be nice to the punters :-)
but yes, I think the brusqueness is probably more perceived than real; because you've answered the questions so many times you've got it down to a fine art of conciseness which could be mistaken as being terse.
I guess I get frustrated on other people's behalf (a completely pointless exercise of course) because I'm the sort of person who reads the manual first, or at least checks it as soon as I hit a problem.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ matt
thanks, i figured as much but just thought i'd ask.
Posted 88 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads