4 ms·

The redesign looks awesome, but who's going to pay a recurring $49 just to remove ads? Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Ho

The redesign looks awesome, but who's going to pay a recurring $49 just to remove ads? Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Hope not, love Flickr :-s

jrdn 13y ago
It's $49.99 a year, though. As a fairly heavy flickr user I could easily see spending $4.16/month to remove ads.
- ajays 13y ago
  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it's not just that you don't see ads; it's also that others don't see ads on your photos. The latter can be an important feature for those who use Flickr to create professional portfolios.
  - munkymorgy 13y ago
    The original pro account removed ads while browsing the site, Not from your pages as viewed by others. Plus a lot of the time your Photos are submitted to groups, would adds be removed every time one of your pictures turned up on the page? Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.
    - ajays 13y ago
      Anecdotally, I think it is the case that if you're a Pro user, and someone else is viewing your photostream, then they won't see ads next to your photo. This probably doesn't apply to your photos in other groups, etc. So we both may be right.
- tonyblundell 13y ago
  But surely they don't make $49 per user per year on ads? It looks like they're over-charging on the paid accounts to cover the costs of the free accounts. Especially the 1TB is free, 2TB is $500 deal. And it seems that after proving people will happily pay for premium features, they've now sent an email to all their customers which essentially says unless you have over 1TB of photos with us (which is pretty-much no-one), you may as well cancel and use the free account instead. It seems like a very bizarre structure to me and I can't see people subscribing to it which is a shame as IMHO they've just vastly improved what was already by far the best product in its market. I Hope I'm wrong.
gizzlon 13y ago
I would if I used it a lot.. Extensive ads ruin a lot of webpages to the extend that I just stay away.. Yes, I know I could use adblock etc., which helps, but the design and layout is still much worse than it could be. It's worth paying a small amount to fix sites I use a lot. Also, it's the principle of the thing. If they can't see that their site is totally f#¤ useless and ugly, I'm not going to bother with them.
- tonyblundell 13y ago
  Maybe I'm in a minority, but I genuinely don't care about seeing the ads. I'd never pay for them to be turned off, unless perhaps if it was a small site or community that I wanted to help out / donate to. Oh, and the audio ads in Spotify, I'd pay in blood not to hear them :D

The redesign looks awesome, but who's going to pay a recurring $49 just to remove ads? Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Hope not, love Flickr :-s

jrdn 13y ago

It's $49.99 a year, though. As a fairly heavy flickr user I could easily see spending $4.16/month to remove ads.

ajays 13y ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that it's not just that you don't see ads; it's also that others don't see ads on your photos. The latter can be an important feature for those who use Flickr to create professional portfolios.
- munkymorgy 13y ago
  The original pro account removed ads while browsing the site, Not from your pages as viewed by others. Plus a lot of the time your Photos are submitted to groups, would adds be removed every time one of your pictures turned up on the page? Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.
  - ajays 13y ago
    Anecdotally, I think it is the case that if you're a Pro user, and someone else is viewing your photostream, then they won't see ads next to your photo. This probably doesn't apply to your photos in other groups, etc. So we both may be right.
tonyblundell 13y ago
But surely they don't make $49 per user per year on ads? It looks like they're over-charging on the paid accounts to cover the costs of the free accounts. Especially the 1TB is free, 2TB is $500 deal. And it seems that after proving people will happily pay for premium features, they've now sent an email to all their customers which essentially says unless you have over 1TB of photos with us (which is pretty-much no-one), you may as well cancel and use the free account instead. It seems like a very bizarre structure to me and I can't see people subscribing to it which is a shame as IMHO they've just vastly improved what was already by far the best product in its market. I Hope I'm wrong.

gizzlon 13y ago

I would if I used it a lot.. Extensive ads ruin a lot of webpages to the extend that I just stay away.. Yes, I know I could use adblock etc., which helps, but the design and layout is still much worse than it could be. It's worth paying a small amount to fix sites I use a lot. Also, it's the principle of the thing. If they can't see that their site is totally f#¤ useless and ugly, I'm not going to bother with them.

tonyblundell 13y ago
Maybe I'm in a minority, but I genuinely don't care about seeing the ads. I'd never pay for them to be turned off, unless perhaps if it was a small site or community that I wanted to help out / donate to. Oh, and the audio ads in Spotify, I'd pay in blood not to hear them :D