Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Yahoo's Flickr Gets Major Design Overhaul, 1TB of Free Photo Storage Space

Why in the world would someone sign up for a $499 a year "Doublr" account rather than just creating a second flickr account?
 
slimbek said:
Just an FYI to all that I believe there is still a 300mb per month upload limit on free accounts... that's less than 100 smartphone pics a month, or 25 SLR images.

And pretty much means it will take you 291 YEARS to take advantage of that 1TB.
Click to expand...

That was an error that remained from the previous documentation, if you recheck Flickr now you will see they have eliminated the limitation from terms and monthly upload is now UNLIMITED. :D:D:D:D

----------
12Iceman said:
Why in the world would someone sign up for a $499 a year "Doublr" account rather than just creating a second flickr account?
Click to expand...

Big business / professional photographer who wants a singular presence and the $499 is just a business write-off.
 
Whoa, I missed the $499.99/year for 2 TB's of storage. $49.99 for ad-free 1 TB storage, 10x that for double??? May as well buy a basic server and throw in a 2+ HDD array. It may be cheaper. :eek:
 
bedifferent said:
Whoa, I missed the $499.99/year for 2 TB's of storage. $49.99 for ad-free 1 TB storage, 10x that for double??? May as well buy a basic server and throw in a 2+ HDD array. It may be cheaper. :eek:
Click to expand...

It's actually easy to understand.

Few people will use the full 1TB they got for free, the majority will upload maybe 100 pictures or so, using much less than 1 gigabyte of storage.

So while theoretically they would need ONE 1TB hard drive per user, they actually will be able to store the files of 500 non-paying users on a 1TB hard drive.

BUT if a user needs more than the free 1TB he got, he has become someone who is causing significant costs for Yahoo, because he DOES need a 1TB hard drive for his files (It's actually more than that, due to 1024 /= 1000 conversion).
So for his second terabyte, he has to pay the REAL cost of having a 3TB HDD for himself in some data center.
 
johnnnw said:
Jesus every user gets a TB? That's insane.
Click to expand...

Sort of. You can only upload 300 MB per month, so that 1 TB would take years and years and years to use up. Kinda pointless. Seems like the "1 TB) thing is mostly marketing. :mad:
 
cocky jeremy said:
Sort of. You can only upload 300 MB per month, so that 1 TB would take years and years and years to use up. Kinda pointless. Seems like the "1 TB) thing is mostly marketing. :mad:
Click to expand...

Read above, it seems that rule has been lifted.
 
Everyone is saying the 300MB/month limit was lifted but I after uploading my second album I was notified that I've hit the monthly limit and am now being asked to subscribe.

So the 300MB/month limit still stands AFAIK.
 
bedifferent said:
Whoa, I missed the $499.99/year for 2 TB's of storage. $49.99 for ad-free 1 TB storage, 10x that for double??? May as well buy a basic server and throw in a 2+ HDD array. It may be cheaper. :eek:
Click to expand...

There may be a correlation between folks having over 1TB of photos and tons of bandwidth usage (i.e., 100's of folks are grabbing large photos. ). Not sure but I doubt it is based on the incremental storage cost increase. You can buy a 2TB HDD for $100. Three would be 300. It isn't just the storage.

I think bigger problem is can get the deluxe business package at SmugMug (www.smugmug.com) for $300. Sure there is no social network features but ..... if actually selling pictures (directly or indirectly ), seems more cost effective.
 
Well I just checked the email I got.

From what I understand, existing Pro users will be grandfathered into the $25/year plan, but instead of a 1TB limit, we still have "unlimited" space. Therefore, we don't need to pay $499.99 for the 2TB plan.
 
daneoni said:
Haha and Google thought they were being generous with 15GB combined storage.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, Google Drive storage can be used for anything - not just photos and videos, but yes - it is a rather huge gap. I really hope Yahoo's move will trigger a race-to-the-top (in terms of free offerings) amongst cloud storage providers.
 
This makes no sense...

$0 for ads and 1TB of space

$50 for no ads and 1TB of space

$500 for no ads and 2TB of space

?

Why would anybody in their right mind sign up for the $500 offer if they can get the same amount of space, ad free, for just $100?

What are they thinking?
 
For 1TB of free photo storage, do people who upload to Flickr's servers actually own their photos still or does this give Yahoo ownership of your photos?
 
Is there a quick way to drag and drop with Flickr? For image hosting and quick URL copy/paste.

----------
MyrokRolles said:
This makes no sense...


Why would anybody in their right mind sign up for the $500 offer if they can get the same amount of space, ad free, for just $100?

What are they thinking?
Click to expand...

Exactly. No thanks!
 
Damn, looks like I picked the wrong month to start paying for a 125GB SkyDrive account...

----------
iMikeT said:
For 1TB of free photo storage, do people who upload to Flickr's servers actually own their photos still or does this give Yahoo ownership of your photos?
Click to expand...

Could be wrong but I thought everyone except Google Drive said your stuff was your stuff.

But then I've never even looked at Flickr until today.
 
Wow....


That's more than enough to backup ALL my photos... and still have 80% free.

Although I wonder how easy it will be to update en-mass. I'll find out shortly.
 
This is really quite cool.

Apple could consider buying Yahoo! - with Tumblr and now Flickr being elevated as creative tools, it would fit with the creation culture Apple used to cherish (and still does, but to a lesser extent.)

iPhoto and Flickr could synchronise deeply.
 
Is it easy to completely lock down a Flickr account rather than have it shared?

I like the capacity and viewability of Flickr but not the sharing community. Would prefer to have it as storage for my photos that only I can see.

I've registered and locked my account down as best as I can see...
 
iPhoto deleting

I am sad,to see that iPhoto still has deleting privileges that i cannot turn off. Once you use iPhoto to upload the photos to Flickr, if you delete a picture from iPhoto it will be deleted from Flickr as well. I want to make space on my laptop by removing photos that are stored online but I can't do that from iPhoto. Even using the Uploader for Flickr app on my laptop will delete Flickr photos if I uploaded them by dragging from iPhoto into the app and then delete from iPhoto.

I have tried renaming sets at Flickr to protect photos - did not protect the photos

The only workaround I have found is to drag photos from iPhoto to the desktop and then upload using the Uploader app from the desktop - not a process that I enjoy.

This is probably Apple's fault due to their control of the software but I want control of my photos and it should be an option in the uploading software or in flickr's privileges and permissions set up.
 
Joseph H said:
This is really quite cool.

Apple could consider buying Yahoo! - with Tumblr and now Flickr being elevated as creative tools, it would fit with the creation culture Apple used to cherish (and still does, but to a lesser extent.)

iPhoto and Flickr could synchronise deeply.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this will get hate - but I think it's a good idea.
 
i just created an account tonight and uploaded around 600 MB of pics so far and I havent received any limit notices or purchase notices so hopefully that's what it is now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back