Here are their newer plans --
Free-Accounts:
+ 1 Terabyte of photo and video storage
+ Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo
+ Upload 1080p HD videos of up to 1GB each
+ Video playback of up to 3 minutes each
+ Upload and download in full original quality
Ad-Free accounts: (older pro-accounts are gone!)
+ $49.99 per year
+ All the benefits of a free account
+ No ads in your browsing experience
Doublr-Plan(extra 1 TB space):
+ $499.99 per year
+ 2 Terabytes of photo and video space
+ You get all the benefits of the free account
On another note, I (surprisingly) like how the disemvoweling is becoming synonymous with the Yahoo brand (with Tumblr now as well). What seemed stale is starting to seem fresh again. Playful, almost, like a wink to Web 2.0 -- though I imagine it could be perceived as being out of touch too, if they don't play it right.
The Flickr Pro account 24.95/yr for "unlimited storage" was an easy purchase. When you login with your Pro account you are suggested to downgrade to the new 1TB (ad) account.
For 49.99/yr I have to ask myself, do I really need this ? what are my other options.
However, if I were signing up for an account today, I would most likely not purchase a paid account - my main reason for paying for an account was to get past the "only your last 200 photos are visible" limitation. That said, if I actually used my flickr account for business purposes, I would not hesitate to pay $50 per year to remove ads from my photos. I suspect many professionals would agree.
The bulk of the people who want to host 2 Terabytes of Photos will be fine paying $500/year, those who aren't can create multiple accounts. (Those who just want Local+Cloud backups are probably better served by just buying a 2 TB Hard Drive for $90, and backing up with backblaze for $50/year
Stats are gone anyway with the new account types.
I would imagine, at that price point, it would drive people to use multiple accounts despite the irritation -- and that ultimately, because of that irritation, they might leave the service. Not a good situation for anyone.
If you are such a heaver user that you need more than 1TB of space, you are unlikely to want to split your account into two and your would probably be unlikely to balk at spending $500 per year on what would be for you a business service.
And you'd find it quite hard to leave a service after you've uploaded 1TB of data to it..
A while back I was getting nervous about what Yahoo was going to do with Flickr, so I signed up for a $60/ year SmugMug account.
On the technical side of things, transferring the data out of Flickr wasn't a problem at all. If I remember correctly, importing ~9000 (~42 Gb) of photos from Flickr took less than an hour, and preserved almost all of the meta-data I had in Flickr (sets, collections, tags, etc.). It was so fast I almost didn't believe it. Of course 1 Tb would take a while even at that speed.
The bigger problem is getting people to use the new site. My Mom, for example, still goes to my Flickr page.
It's a very, very small number of people (though they certainly exist) that have photo libraries of > 1 Terabyte. And, and an almost insignificant number of people who have 1 Terabyte of curated pictures. (I.E. Eliminating Dupes, Poor Composition, Focus/exposure issues, etc...)
Flickr as backup doesn't make sense - backblaze, at $50/year, makes a lot more sense. Perhaps this is Flickr's way of encouraging people to start using them as a curated upload site, and not as a backup of their entire photo library.
I suspect you meant MEGAbytes ;-)
I've built an image library for a FTSE100 company. $499 per year for storage and access to a decent API would have looked pretty cheap to be honest.
I've seen nothing that says that's changed.
The actual TOS make no mention of whether you can have a business account or not. In face the best practices page specifically provides guidelines for businesses.
"This guide is intended to help organizations—such as businesses, groups and non-profits—get the most out of Flickr."
I'm tied into iPhoto on a very full SSD and am longing for a way out.
If you're specifically looking for Flickr, a little searching shows me this page, which mentions an (unofficial) iPhoto plugin: http://www.flickr.com/tools/
When I looked at the limits page it was updated to list all the new plans, but it also mentioned a 300MB/month upload limit for free accounts (in two spots, I seem to recall, but at least one, and then it was gone.)
You get 1TB extra i.e total 2 TB + no ads.
Some interesting observations -- the cost of Free account for Yahoo is -- 450$ per free-user/year.
So, lets be prepared to get ads all around. :)
Now this is like -- 1TB online storage = 450$/year, doesn't make sense now.
Can't help but think their money men might be about to screw this up. Hope not, love Flickr :-s
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.
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
Pretty sure it is not a business feature to show a clean page but a viewer option for distraction free viewing.
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.
This makes the entire 1 TB craze seem like a giant farce.
Edit: It appears they have removed the limit, disregard.
"Dear [name], as a Pro member continue to enjoy the benefits of unlimited space, an ad free experience and stats."
"Smile [username]. Flickr gives you one free terabyte of space. Share your photos in full resolution. See what's new Pro members, your subscription remains the same."
It seems Pro is still here.
As I understand it, accounts that were originally a gift, like mine, don't get the recurring transaction treatment. This makes sense, but only up to a point, that point being where the owner of the account renews it with a different credit card and it becomes truly "theirs".
I am not sure that flickr gave this scenario due consideration, there must be a lot of people who received pro as a gift but have since paid to renew it will be unable to benefit from the reduced "grandfathered" price of $25.
Well, sort of. There's no mention of bandwidth on the new limits page, other than it was previously unlimited under Pro. They apparently haven't completely updated their FAQ page...
* Starting on 5/20/2013, we will no longer be offering new Flickr Pro subscriptions. After that point, the following things will happen: *
* Recurring Pro users currently have the ability to renew. *
I wonder if Yahoo/Flickr are really going to take that good a care of their existing pro users?
Your Flickr Pro subscription:
1-year Pro at $24.95 Your Pro account will renew automatically on 3rd September, 2013
I only see: "Upload photos of up to 200MB per photo"
http://www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157633531669359/pag...
(1 TB) / (300 (MB / month)) = 291.271111 years
1000 / (0.3 / month) = 277.777778 years
Ugh.
It'd take 291 years to fill up the 1TB allowance: https://www.google.com/search?q=1TB+%2F+(300+MB%2Fmonth)
(Also looks like there's a missing </ul> on that limits page, there.)
Edit: Looks like the page is being edited right this moment - the page used to list the 300MB/month limit but was also mentioning the new account types, at the same time. Guess they forgot to review all the text