[johnha]

I'm happy to pay to avoid the ads, the stats are interesting and I'm nearing the 1000 image limit. It's a convenient, single location for me to share or embed my images and the costs are tiny compared to the rest of my photo budget.

[D1N0]

$10 increase == greed?


Steve

This is a recurring cost, my income doesn't increase with 20% each year.

[Rondec]

It costs money to host this sort of a site, both in terms of the storage involved and the work to keep the site running smoothly. I warrant that most of the users of Flickr are still non-payers. As I have said elsewhere, odds are that Flickr is going to have to curtail their accounts (limit number of photos even more) in order to encourage more folks to pay. It isn't like there are a lot of other sites out there that offer something similar for cheaper.

As far as it goes, assuming you also have photos stored at home, if Flickr goes off the deep end and continues to raise prices astronomically the worst that happens in two years is you drop the service and do your own thing. Sure, the photos go away, but that isn't a huge deal, except that it does leave a lot of links with dead ends here on PF.

I doubt Flickr is going to raise prices dramatically more though. Right now, they are feeling their way a bit -- trying to find the right price that will keep as many paying customers as possible but still generate decent revenue stream. They also need to figure out how to monetize free accounts. It isn't like Facebook where every fourth post is an ad, but certainly it feels like they could generate a bit more revenue from those as well.

[D1N0]

Flickr should limit the number of images in a free account and offer a cheaper subscription for people who do not need unlimited or very many. A $10 subscription for more than 100 images to 1000 would not set anybody back a lot and would be enough for most people. It is more than enough for a show case and you would not have to charge to pro subsrcribers so much. I now have just over 2000 images on my Flickr. I'll probably be hard pressed to get to 10.000. Just charge more for people who need more. I don't want to pay for people who use Flickr as a back up for their millions of images. I want to pay for what I use.

[aslyfox]

Flickr should limit the number of images in a free account. . . . you would not have to charge to pro subsrcribers so much. I now have just over 2000 images on my Flickr. I'll probably be hard pressed to get to 10.000. Just charge more for people who need more. . . . . I want to pay for what I use.

they do limit capacity for free accounts

and it costs more for those who want to exceed that amount

you are asking for them to set up a perfect account for you that isn't as costly as they charge for the pro account

[D1N0]

they do limit capacity for free accounts

and it costs more for those who want to exceed that amount

you are asking for them to set up a perfect account for you that isn't as costly as they charge for the pro account

I know the deal...I want them to change it. I am not an idiot. Don't treat me thus.

[aslyfox]

I know the deal...I want them to change it. I am not an idiot. Don't treat me thus.

hmm

I believe I said, in essence, that you wanted them to change the deal to fit you

[D1N0]

hmm

I believe I said, in essence, that you wanted them to change the deal to fit you

Yeah because I am a customer and not a slave and if it doesn't fit I hike.

[aslyfox]

Yeah because I am a customer and not a slave and if it doesn't fit I hike.

that is a fair option

perhaps if you are able to find an acceptable alternative to flickr.com, you might consider posting such information in this thread ?

Flickr Alternatives
Now that Flickr is hiking its price I thought it would be interesting to talk about their competitors. . . .

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/173-general-photography/401878-flickr-al...#ixzz6BlUS8GPv

[RGlasel]

I warrant that most of the users of Flickr are still non-payers.

Quoting from the letter Don MacAskill, CEO of SmugMug, sent me in December, "This community is home to more than 100 million accounts and tens of billions of photos" and "Hundreds of thousands of loyal Flickr members stepped up and joined Flickr Pro, for which we are eternally grateful," which indicates that at least 99% of Flickr accounts were free a month ago. I am dumbfounded why Flickr management is taking steps to discourage the 99% from upgrading to some kind of paid account (by making it more expensive to do so than it was a year ago, when the 99% decided to stick with free) and giving the worthwhile 1% an excuse to consider switching to a competitor. Flickr isn't magic software that no one else is capable of developing a worthy competitor to, if a stable, well-funded company decides that those hundreds of thousands of paying Flickr accounts are worth pursuing, SmugMug will lose some business. Not 100%, at first, but if SmugMug doesn't figure out how to attract new customers, its Flickr business will leak until it is all gone.

[stevebrot]

This is a recurring cost, my income doesn't increase with 20% each year.

The solution is simple. Assuming you are a current pro account holder, change to a free account and stay under the maximum usage terms. Alternatively, move your images somewhere else where the costs are lower and the terms more agreeable.

FWIW, while I don't use my account to promote (push traffic to) a separate gallery site for sales, most working pros in my circle do so. The cost for Flickr ($5/month) is a fraction of that for the commerce-enabled Web site that it might feed traffic to. I might add that "Loyal Site Supporter" status on Pentax Forums is only $1 per year less.


Steve

[photolady95]

I just took advantage of the two year pro account. I've seen the prices of other sites and they're not in my budget. I also have more than 3,000 photos on Flickr and even though I have those photos backed up on my computer in three 1TB drives, if Flickr was to go away, I'd have to find other means to show my photos here and also to my family, I'd find that very annoying!

[Rondec]

Honestly, the main reason why I do Flickr is for the purpose of sharing here. I don't really have activity otherwise on my account there, I don't think my photos are that great, and I definitely am not using it to sell photos to anybody else. So, I think I should be able to write off the fee as a charitable deduction.

Boy do I feel altruistic at the moment...

[swanlefitte]

What are the costs? I know there are many things. So how about for a former pro account with 500 pictures where the user has died and had the account frozen? The photos get 1000 total views a year. Would deleting these accounts free up money. Alternatively would deleting these accounts lessen the value of the Flickr community. The former is mostly tangible but the latter is pretty intangible.
Does anyone have any answers? Without them it is all guess work. I suspect with all the complexities of such a huge site it is all barely refined guess work on making a successful monetized model.

[Des]

I just extended my Flickr membership for an extra two years for CA$123 (US$94). Seemed a reasonable price.

I took out a one-year Flickr Pro subscription in November 2018 for $US34.99. It renewed in November 2019 for $US49.99. I clicked the link on my Flickr page to "Lock in 2019 pricing" and it is asking $US111.90 for 2 years or $US57.50 for 1 year.

Any idea why it is more than the 2019 renewal price?