Comments on: Yahoo extends Flickr with videos

By: qwsaa

qwsaa — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:38:50 +0000

will yahoo sell itself to mic?
http://www.runescapewin.com

By: r murdoch

r murdoch — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:27:20 +0000

you gotta pay to upload? pfft The sooner yahoo dissappears, the better. It serves absolutely no purpose at all anymore

By: Demonsweat

Demonsweat — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:46:56 +0000

Opinion:
Yahoo could have used a streamlining effort long ago. Now they add some more crap to it.

I think my Grandma uses Yahoo. I always frown when someone tells me their address is crusty@yahoo.com.

Will flikr videos come up in Google searches?

By: pRs

pRs — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:58:45 +0000

Flickr shouldn’t compete with youtube or any other video site.

They’ve got something special with the pics, adding the video just sweetens it up, but the 90sec+subscription seems a bit off.

If they’re worried about it filling up with endless amounts of useless video which youtube is full of, they could perhaps limit it to directors, photographers, etc…

Keep the quality on par if you know what I mean.

The average account with home footage & etc could have a 90sec limit, while other more professional video enthusiasts could have many more options & privileges.

By: Protoculture

Protoculture — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:40:09 +0000

Flickr is one of the best photo sharing sites today. Although it would be much better if they just stick with it.

By: Artur

Artur — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:06:00 +0000

90 secs of video? It’s a mistake for SURE. Lol

By: lolwhat

lolwhat — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:54:55 +0000

lol what? 90 second videos? wtf is that?

By: Me

Me — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:21:20 +0000

Why do most people only read the first few lines (or posts in forums), stop reading, and then presume to post utter crap. If they’d have actually read the text, they could actually post something useful. But I guess that’s too much for the average 13year old leecher boy from next door.

By: hirmu

hirmu — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:59:06 +0000

@6 Flickr is primarily for pictures, the video feature is just a bonus, it’s not meant to compete with Youtube and the like.

And for images, Flickr is pretty much the shiznizzle. For $25/yr (which is about 5 euros or something with the current market) you get unlimited storage, amazing APIs, craploads of 3rd party tools and proper access controls all with a nifty UI.

By: uraloser

uraloser — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:35:03 +0000

I don’t see why someone would want to pay for something more limited (only 90 seconds) than you can get for free at Youtube etc. Only way to attract users from Youtube is to allow higher resolution, generous length limit, faster servers, for free.

By: Rls_Log_King

Rls_Log_King — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:24:21 +0000

youtube pwns flickr…nuff said

no more comments needed

By: Me

Me — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:04:08 +0000

@2.

I don’t think you read the text. Those people you name in your listing don’t seem to me as the kind of people who’d pay 25 bucks for a subscription AND another thing is the limitation to 90 seconds per video.

By: Me

Me — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:58:20 +0000

Is it just me or shouldn’t the title be ‘Flickr’ instead of ‘Flicks’. Or is it some sort of pun I don’t really get because I don’t have any kind of humor.

By: therapix

therapix — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:57:36 +0000

oooh, that sucks, seriously…
It was the best photography website, and now it will be full of anime, videos of people falling from their bikes, camwhores, chocolate rain, and so on…

By: Psilan

Psilan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:37:38 +0000

Seriously…who cares?
So many video sites. Does this have to be on here?