Slashdot Mirror
Flickr to Grant Commercial API Key to Competitors
eobanb writes "The Yahoo-owned photo sharing site Flickr has come under fire recently for the perceived 'lock-in' that their API creates. Flickr's terms of service state clearly that all photos uploaded to Flickr by users are owned by their respective users, yet Flickr's API only allows uploading, not exporting. Surprisingly, Flickr developer Stewart Butterfield posted in the thread on Flickr: "I actually had a change of heart and was convinced by Eric's position that we definitely should approve requests from direct competitors as long as they do the same. That means (a) that they need to have a full and complete API and (b) be willing to give us access." This means that users will soon be able to freely move data between different photo-sharing sites, like Zooomr (which has already implemented the Flickr API), Google PicasaWeb, 23hq, or Tabblo."
Writing your own scripts is not terribly convenient for most people.
--
RumorsDaily
yet Flickr's API only allows uploading, not exporting.
Umm...
Right-click. "Save As".
For those images that use "protection", I recommed the wonderful "Nuke Anything" plugin for FireFox... Just right-click the image, "Remove this object" to get rid of the transparent image over it, then you can save it.
And yes, for the "didn't read the FP" Nazis, I realize that the API does not equal the actual webpage - I just consider the distinction irrelevant.
not having to abide by silly Terms & Conditions
Paid hosting has terms and conditions too, sometimes as strict as these photo sites.
Great!
Here we finally see the big move happening that's the real mark between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0!
No more individual sites, where your data resides, but interchangebility between websites without all the hassles.
I think lots of other services will follow this example because the resulting freedom will definately be missed when has been tasted somewhere. In the next few weeks I expect to see a lot of other companies open up their API's to allow the same kind of data sharing.
Yes, I am very excited!
Next step will be the availabilty of this extended API for every normal user, so they have real freedom. But that will probably take a year or even longer.
That's not exactly an option if you have hundreds of pictures uploaded and want to migrate.
People with lots of photos. Duh.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Or just use http://flickr.com/services/api/misc.urls.html
"You can construct the source URL to a photo once you know its ID, server ID and secret, as returned by many API methods."
As well as all the usual 'everything should be open arguments' there's a really simple reason why Flickr is right to implement this for their own reasons. It gives them great metrics on where their users are going. If Zoomr uses its api key to request a certain Flickr user's photos, and then that user becomes less active on Flickr, Flickr knows where the user has gone. This way it can see good data on its competitors and take any action necessary by producing features which specifically target one particular competitor.
We're talking about *commercial* APIs guys: a mass transfer of hundreds/thousands of megabytes of data a day to a competitor's site. The personal API keys are fine for doing little cool things on user's desktops, but do not allow such intensive work specifically so someone can poach your customers.
I understand Stewart's reluctance, but I think people on his team have got it right, Flickr has to step up and say "We are the best, and we are going to prove it." Locking customers into your site is the sort of pro-corporate anti-user image that Flickr avoided, and won them such goodwill.
Personally, I think Flickr is still the best. It's clean, it does things well. Zooomr is OK, but it's a complete carbon copy, with some pointless added bits.
Currently I'd say the really defining aspect of "Web 2.0" is be super friendly and offer everything you possibly can, just to get the biggest community and hopefully sell it, or advertise to it.
:)
You may note from my URL that I run a "competing" image hosting site, and have been for years - before these new guys were all around. You'll also notice that we offer the grand total of 1mb of free storage on free accounts (although this will be increasing in the next few months for the first time in years), and yet we have over 23,000 users. But we simply can't compete with Flickr/Google/any Venture Capital backed outfit.
However, we're proudly "Web 1.0" in terms of we're backed by real money and if something is going to cost us more than it will generate to keep the service running, it won't get added. Contrast this with the Web 2.0 method of offering everything under the sun, and you may think I'm nuts. But how long does everyone really think these "unlimited" feature sites are going to be around for? When the Venture Capital finally runs out, it'll be the old Web 1.0 sites that remain. Youtube and flickr etc. are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per week, or even day, just to maintain - and they generate no income. Some of us have been here and seen all this before.
I am sure I'll be modded down on this however, because as a user there has never been a better time to use the web. You can get whatever you want for free, people are fighting to offer you the greatest services that they can all at no cost - and now for you to be able to move elsewhere if you want to. It's also a great time to be a Web 2.0 startup and become a millionaire from venture capital. I just wonder how long all this will last
I don't know why it surprises everyone when they use free services and aren't allowed to do something you want. Like when you use a free email service, and all of a sudden they start charging for POP access. Or with free web hosting, they decide to take away features, or just cut you off because your using too much bandwidth, or the company goes bust. If you want web hosting, you'd be better off paying for it. For under $10 a month, you can get 20 GB of space, 1000 GB of transfer, and lots of nice features like blogs, email, photo albums, databases, and your free to access all the stuff you're hosting by FTP, SSH, or whatever else your host provides. If the free stuff isn't good enough, then cough up some money for some good hosting. It isn't expensive, and will save you a lot of grief.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Here's a bookmarklet that gives you the full-size original photo: "Get Flickr Original."
0 o r +
javascript:%20for(%20i%20in%20global_photos%20)%2
{%20p%20=%20global_photos[i];%20}%20window.locati
n%20=%20'http://static.flickr.com/'%20+%20p.serve
%20+%20'/'%20+%20p.id%20+%20'_'%20+%20p.secret%20
%20'_o.jpg';
Remove the linebreaks (inserted to get around Slashcode-enforced spacing) and you're set. Works in Safari, and I'm assuming Firefox and Opera as well.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
This is very interesting. An important part of the "web-mapping war" relates to two important characteristics: (1) how the API are complete and easy to use and what's the licence, and (2) how well Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Ask, etc. successfully integrates many services together. It is not only about satellite imagery resolution, it's also about the API and licenses and services integration.
;-)
About the new commercial use for Yahoo! Maps and API (from slashgeo):
" Yahoo! Maps now allowing commercial use. From Yahoo!: "Until today, the APIs were available only for non-commercial use unless you applied for an exception. The concept of commercial and non-commercial has gone away and exceptions are no longer necessary in most cases. We have given you explicit Usage Policies to help guide you. Whether on your business website, blog or personal site, you no longer have to ask for permission." There's also a new Official Yahoo! Maps blog "
But that's not the end. Starting this week, the new Google Earth licence does not allow you to install Google Earth at work at all, even for personal use. Again from slashgeo:
"The Ogle Earth blog indicates that if you use Google Earth at work (the free version), you're in illegality. From the site: "1. USE OF SOFTWARE The Software is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Software or the geographical information made available for display using the Software, or any prints or screen outputs generated with the Software in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties. "
Oh yeah, and unrelated to the story but still very interesting, you can geocode your Picasa photos using Google Earth. I'll stop there. See my sig to learn more
Animoog.org
What this does is to allow customers to switch easily between Flickr and/or its competitors. Let's say you have an account with Flickr and want to move to one of its competitors. The competitor would now have access to Flickr's API, so it could write a script which (with your permission, of course) downloads all of your Flickr photos and puts them into galleries in your account with the competitor. This would be easier for most customers than downloading all their files.
Because they require a reciprocal key from the competitor, this would also allow Flickr to build a script to move your images from the competitor to your new Flickr account.
Capiche?