The thing with Flickr isn't that it is no longer awesome, but that it is no longer fashionable. [email protected]
Adam Rifkin stashed this in @caterina
Giles Turnbull writes:
Flickr remains, in my opinion, a superlative community for photographers. Primarily because it puts photography first.
It does this by making the photo the primary content unit, and allowing it to be presented in many different ways. When you upload a photo to Flickr, it sits in your photostream by default. You can add it to a set if you wish, giving you a means of creating something analogous to a traditional photo album.
Giles says Flickr offers a service, in exchange for money.
Which makes it like Dropbox, Evernote, WordPress, and LinkedIn: Freemium.
The relationship offered by Facebook (which is one place many people turn to for photo storage these days) is different. Facebook says: "Give us your photos! We'll look after them, we promise. Oh and, since you said you liked ChocoSnacks, we're going to show other people an advert that uses a photo of you and a link to ChocoSnacks. Cool? Cool."
I know which of those relationships I would rather have.
Flickr costs money, which makes it less fashionable than sites that claim to offer more for nothing. But to me, Flickr is the better choice. It has never stopped being awesome.
The question for all the people who want Flickr to get better is, how could it be better?
At least on Flickr, you are the customer.
By comparison, on Facebook you are the product: