What is Digg?106 Comments
- Footinmymouth, on 04/09/2008, -22/+143"videos can be only 90 seconds in length and 150MB in size "
"Flickr video also differentiates itself from YouTube by only allowing pro users upload videos (it costs $25/yr for a pro membership)...."
Sooooo...you get limited to a min 30....and pay 25$ a year...?.....
How is that awesome? - RuffRidr, on 04/09/2008, -5/+105Personally, I don't like the idea of video on Flickr. Flickr has always been a very cool community. The comments left on photos are often well thought out and intelligent. Contrast that with the average comment you see on a YouTube video. I hope this doesn't cheapen the product that Flickr delivers.
- richardhenry, on 04/09/2008, -4/+68For the majority of people to exhibit their portfolios and similar activities, this is good. You don't want to upload your reel to a site like YouTube, the ads and 'related videos' are distracting and unnecessary. Flickr has never been about sharing funny things you've found on the web .etc, it's all about your own hard work. $25 is nothing for the bandwidth they offer and the quality of the site your stuff appears on. That said, 90 seconds is a limitation that they will hopefully reconsider, and "these limitations may be changed later".
From my point of view, Vimeo is excellent and I'm going to carry on using it for videos. However, people wanting to bundle their videos and photography into one location will probably be pretty pleased with this move. - hollywoodphony, on 04/09/2008, -0/+39This doesn't appeal to me because all my videos are between 91 and 93 seconds long.
- anteyekon4myst, on 04/09/2008, -1/+35Ugh. I go to flicker because it is quiet and serene.
- saucedmike, on 04/09/2008, -0/+25I believe that's why they are requiring a pro membership
- chroko, on 04/09/2008, -4/+26You're right about Flickr comments being in a different class from YouTube, but most of them are still not worth reading. Flickr comments are - almost without exception - one of the following:
* Group spam (this picture wins an award, please add it to my group.)
* Ridiculous fawning (that is the single most amazing image I have ever seen in my entire life.)
* Stupid nitpicking (I don't like this because I hate the color blue.)
* Droning on about how much better the picture would have been if they took it (you should have moved the camera 2 feet to the left, used a different lens - and cropped closer.)
* Unnecessary region spam to the point that you can't see the original image (this part of the image is cool. so is this, and this, and this, and this).
...etc, etc. ie: it really is no different from any other message board. - rgsteele, on 04/09/2008, -2/+21I feel sorry for your girlfriend.
- fkr3, on 04/09/2008, -1/+19It's obviously something they've put a lot of thought into. They don't want to be the next YouTube and they don't need the hassle of people constantly uploading copyright material. Flickr's a great site for what it does and being much more flexible with videos would just pervert it's purpose.
- bitcloud, on 04/09/2008, -0/+15but they do a great job of letting the cream rise to the top...
youtube lets random keywords (hot hot sex) rise to the top and promotes videos...
one is an art gallery and the other is a mall.. - ptFoe, on 04/09/2008, -8/+21When Microsoft buys Yahoo all Videos will be limited to 2MB. All images will be limited to 200KB.
You can avoid these limits by purchasing Pro account for $200 per year.
Flickr will also be renamed to Live-r. - ocellnuri, on 04/09/2008, -1/+13Those 4chan galleries didn't really pop up until Yahoo Photos folded and offered a one-click solution to import your existing gallery into Flickr. Flickr started as a community of photographers, and I believe that they are still the most active and vocal users.
- bratterscain, on 04/09/2008, -0/+12lol. I think you pretty much covered all the Flickr stereotypes. But I do agree with the others. Flickr users generally seems classier than the average image host or video host bunch.
- PATSCRU, on 04/09/2008, -5/+14"Flickr has never been about sharing funny things you've found on the web .etc, it's all about your own hard work."
Oh that's weird...what's with all the user accounts that seem to exist solely to repost random shoops they found on 4chan? - sadpoti, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9hum, seem like vimeo.com but with much harsher restrictions
- halofourteen, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8Turn off your speakers?
- superdoofus, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7there is a difference between videographers and photographers, although the two may not be mutually exclusive across the board.
yahoo! is pressing those within the flickr community with dual pursuits with the throttling of bandwidth as per inevitable superpremium packages that dictate bandwidth limits (up or down. and if it's down, yahoo! is just a straight up greedy bastard). both the vimeo and flickr community will not sit still through prerolls or anything more than banner ads from advertisers and it seems that yahoo! is attempting to lowball the userbase and feel out the demand or coagulate someone's profile into their auspice.
it's rather obvious they copied vimeo's player, so it's not a short guess that they've been watching vimeo's growth and appeal to those that create and circulate original video content. it's just too bad that they rolled it out in such an obvious "fleece the demand" manner when so many are already pleased with having account on both sites.
but also: vimeo should have cut the apron/same overlord strings that tied them to bustedtees/collegehumor a long time ago if they wanted any respect from actual filmmakers and sought to be the flickr-level community of video producers.
all that said: i smell failures. - Livewire, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7finally the "flickr" name makes sense.
- inactive, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6That's why its limited to paid users only, to stop that *****
- bking, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6Some poeple value the community aspect of sites like flickr/vimeo. A private site might be good for a bunch of baby videos to send to grandmother, but hosting stuff on your own domain, tucked away in a dark corner of the internet really hurts the chances that it'll be seen by anybody.
Furthermore, 99% of people on the internet don't even know what a flash video module is. People just want to upload ***** from their cell phones, not buy domains and deal with hosting. - MadOtaku, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6You're a bit off on the demographic of Flickr pro users. It's mainly high-end-amateur and pro photographers. I'd guess the average age of active users to be about 25-35.
- diggik, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7Dee!
http://flickr.com/photos/allspaw/2385550910/in/poo ... - Onyxblaze, on 04/09/2008, -3/+8FAIL
- arjie, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Ha ha ha, as someone who once used Hotmail from a terminal and then saw it bought by Microsoft, I want to say that I find this hilarious. Really people, in context, this is just funny.
- IanCube, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7Flickr's "Slice of Life" idea with this is brilliant.
The 90 second time limit and 150mb size constraint will help users use the Flickr Video service the way it is intended to be used. Not for watching the latest episode of your favorite TV show. Not for catching the latest political speech. Flickr Video is for capturing what photos have always captured — a moment.
While the feature has just launched, it will be very interesting to watch if it takes off as I believe it will, revolutionizing how we share our moments in the online world, or if its brilliant concept will simply be lost in the sea of online video sharing services.
For Yahoo, who many believe made a poor choice in acquiring Flickr in 2005, this may be one of the smartest and most important moves the company has ever made.
http://www.ianmikutel.com/2008/04/09/flickr-video- ... - Torley, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5I wonder what they mean by "Your “beautiful wife” should not be moving." on their FAQ @ http://www.flickr.com/help/video/
- h0zae, on 04/09/2008, -3/+7http://flickr.com/groups/video/
- pox05, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4its only $25 a year...
- Chordinator, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5What is appealing, though, is the 150MB limit for a 90 second file. We may be seeing some decent quality compression uploaded. According to their FAQ it seems they accept most formats including H.264, however not DiVX :(
Also, the resolution seems limited to 500 pixels across or so, anyone know for sure? - inactive, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4one of the worst tries i have ever seen! FAIL
- IanCube, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5I really don't think you'll find that happening. It's just an extension of the Flickr model. The folks at Flickr didn’t just release another flash based video player, they created a platform that would “complement the flickrverse”.
I ended up writing an entire blog post on this and why I think it'll be huge, if anyones interested.
http://www.ianmikutel.com/2008/04/09/flickr-video- ... - Balath, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Because no one's gonna get FlickRoll'd
- onestyle, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5I gots me one :)
I was actually surprised at how good the video quality is! Not bad, considering I already have a pro account.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markjsebastian/
(note: NSFW content in some of my photos) - corsairstw, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Internet speed is still a limitation. While the processing power might be there, widespread high speed Internet is still not a reality. I'm at a university and I regularly have a 30+ megabit connection, but at home I only get 150kb/s. HUGE difference there, when it comes to downloading video.
- JacobVorpahl, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3This is perfect for learning and teaching photography. Now, on groups like strobist, if they are so inclined, they can include a 90 second video showing how they set up the shot and so forth. Or, people could have clips showing how they edited the photo to get a certain effect. For this purpose alone I think this feature is really cool.
- xadious, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3The $25 should prevent a lot of people trying to upload copyrighted stuff as they have something to lose rather than it be completely free. I know it's only $25 but when people have to pay for something, they take care of it more and are less likely to do something that will get them banned. With youtube, you can just open another free account and you don't even have to pass over any real information - here you have money to lose AND you have to give your details in order to make payment.
I think they''ll eventually increase the video length, probably just want to see how this pans out with short vids first. - onedigg, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3The whole point is that it's _not_ YouTube.
By placing express and fairly strict limits on who can upload content, and how long (or short) it must be, they've positioned themselves as anything but a YouTube
The way I see it is that Flickr is trying to build a solid _companion_ to its photo sharing suite, designed around quality homemade clips (rather then what you see on YouTube) - smbrower, on 04/09/2008, -3/+6cool idea, needs some tweaking...its good for people who want short vid clips and photos in the same place
- peestandingup, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Yeah, another lame throw away feature of Flickr "Pro". Pro in this case basically just meaning unlimited storage with the same features as the free accounts get.
Flickr Unlimited is what they should call it. For REAL Pro stuff, give me Smugmug or Zenfolio. - luke16, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Actually, after thinking, i don't think it is such a bad idea.
As long as people put thought into there video, such as this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunstan/2398525947/ - superdoofus, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2quite my point. flickr's video aspect is seeking out vimeo users, and it will tier their usage needs with this feel-out. and as far as the pro community is based, we ftp or ship off dvd's to potential clients on our own dime already and that which we share comes with a press release that includes our metrics and not just user comments from wherever when it comes to web devrivitive numbers. the road that yahoo! is sniffing here is the reverse of craigslist charging apartment brokers for their postings; do not be mislead, they are seeking to gulp up something. but just as digg as been taken over by 4chan or ron paul supporters or whomever, the old users and first adopters will skedaddle and such is the reason that salon and stileproject have proved their tenure.
best of luck. i really mean it. - SmEdD, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvgf3aYS-4I
- sonicularulus, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2i didnt read the difference between year and month...
id digg myself down right now if i could... - gryffon, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3I agree with you RuffRidr. I enjoy flickr the way it was and appreciated the quality of comments and interaction there. I think that this new addition could very easily go either way, in terms of something really good, or something really bad. Time will tell.
With that said, I sure wish I had a video camera to try this out. - Paladin27, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Your thoughts on your blog post about Flickrs new Video functionality are spot on. Good insight!
- elcaminos, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3I think the 90 second rule sucks. I'm into time lapse, which is very photo-related because I create the video from photos, and I could easily run over 90 seconds. Anyway the quality sucks too, for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewandsarah/239959 ... - vmos, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2you don't need a pro account to leave comments though
- emddudley, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2The most recent Flickr blog post should give everyone an idea of what they intended when they introduced the video feature:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2008/04/09/six-twenty-ni ... - rye425, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Came across this one, I'm not a cat person but this is funny stuff.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejacksons/234637138 ... - dOOBiEx213, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Yes, this is ***** useless. Stage6 set the bar too high, and spoiled us all. We already have enough of these "flash" video upload sites...and don't give me that ***** "but flash can do HD zomg!"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is