Slashdot Mirror
Flickr Starts Culling Users' Photos (bbc.com)
Photo-sharing website Flickr is starting to delete users' photos after changing its terms and conditions. The firm announced in November that it would no longer be allowing its members one terabyte of free storage. From a report: Under the new rules, there is a limit of 1,000 photographs for those who do not subscribe to the service at a cost of $49.99 per year. One terabyte would store around 200,000 photos with an average size of 5MB. Flickr was acquired by another photo platform called SmugMug in April 2018. The price it paid to former owner Verizon was not disclosed. In a blog in November announcing the changes, Flickr said that "storing tens of billions of Flickr members' photos is staggeringly expensive". It also said by introducing the free storage in 2013, Flickr's original owner Yahoo had "lost sight of what made Flickr truly special" as new users were attracted by the storage rather than the photography.
This will increase the migration speed from Flickr to Google Photos. I doubt many people will switch to the paid version.
If I had known there was a free service with that much space I would have been backing up to it.
Why yes, my photos are very large, abstract, and look like noise. That's because they were painted by AI.
So, they buy Flickr, then intentionally take away what they themselves say was attracting new users.
Somehow I don't think you can successfully monetize an internet platform by taking away people's reason for using it. I will admit I have no idea how to monetize a big pile of everybodies photos, but I would definitely be brainstorming ways to convince people to pay to do cool stuff on the platform with all those photos rather than scrapping the thing that got them in the door.
"Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
Flickr was never intended as a photo STORAGE service. It was intended as a photo SHARING service.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The situation is symmetrical. In a free service, both sides have the same power. At any time, you are allowed to quit using the free service and sign up with a different service. There is nothing the service can do to prevent you from leaving. Likewise, at any time, the free service is allowed to quit offering the service under its original conditions, and re-offer it under different conditions. And there is nothing you can do to prevent this.
The only way to prevent this is to pay for the service for a period of time specified in a contract. Payment constitutes consideration - something given up in exchange for receiving something - and thus creates a binding contract. So if you agree to pay for it for a year (with penalties if you fail to pay), you can lock in the terms and conditions for the duration of your service contract. That's why when a cellular carrier changes their terms and conditions, it releases you from any multi-year contract you may have signed up for. Most carriers instead opt to "grandfather" you in under the old terms and conditions for the duration of your contract to avoid this.
Without consideration, there is no contract, and neither side is obligated to maintain the original agreement terms in perpetuity. (Be careful of this if you let your apartment rent switch to month-to-month. That can be advantageous if you plan to move out in a few months. But if you're planning to stay, it means the landlord can kick you out and replace you with a different tenant. If you wish to stay for a long time, it is in your best interests to negotiate a year-long or multi-year lease.)