Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo buys Flickr

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the funny-announcement dept.

Businesses 156

FLickLover writes "Yahoo is buying Flickr for an undisclosed amount. The rumors of the deal have been doing the rounds for weeks now. On the Flickr Blog Ludicorp folks are talking about the deal and how it impacts the community. "We can finally confirm that Yahoo has made a definitive agreement to acquire Flickr and us, Ludicorp. Smack the tattlers and pop the champagne corks! Woohoo! " This is the third high profile Blog/RSS related buyout of 2005. Live Journal was bought by Six Apart, while Ask Jeeves snapped up Bloglines." Update: 03/21 12:49 GMT by H : And my favorite comment on it comes from Ben Hyde's blog. Genius.

cancel ×

156 comments

first post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993445)

flicky this. nicker will auto-link a URL Important Stuff # Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993599)

OWNED!!! 26th post mate!!!

excellent! (-1)

smitty45 (657682) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993446)

I think this is such a great thing!

Re:excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993541)

Me too!

-------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

Re:excellent! (4, Funny)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993608)

RTFA; they're buying Flickr, not AOL.

So will they finally get rid of that stupid thing (2, Insightful)

sulli (195030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993447)

that makes all the photos Flash? Drives me nuts.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (0, Redundant)

frumin (696489) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993491)

I concur.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (3, Informative)

huphtur (259961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993499)

sulli: just turn off javascript, it works fine without.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (2, Informative)

SirSnapperHead (854099) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993786)

Why? Because it stops you from downloading the photos to yr desktop cause you couldn't be arsed doing a screengrab. Can't see what other reason there would be to get annoyed at this, and maybe that's just what they want. The slideshow application is fantastic IMHO, and yes it uses Flash.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993830)

If you examine the source code to Flickr pages, the image URL is provided as an argument to the flash plugin -> it's possible to get the JPEG directly without capturing the screen.

Having said that, I hate all things Flash - including this. For those of us who have flash turned off / disabled, it's extremely inconvenient. There's no reason that an online image viewer should need to use it. Period.

(And one of the main reasons I have flash turned off is that often sites use flash plugins that consume as much CPU power as they can. I refuse to allow a poorly coded website to consume my CPU cycles, especially when I'm working on a battery powered notebook computer).

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993916)

whats actually flickr

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (4, Interesting)

cmallinson (538852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994087)

If you examine the source code to Flickr pages, the image URL is provided as an argument to the flash plugin -> it's possible to get the JPEG directly without capturing the screen.

I hate all things Flash - including this. For those of us who have flash turned off / disabled, it's extremely inconvenient. There's no reason that an online image viewer should need to use it. Period.

First of all, you went to the trouble of finding out that the image url is passed to the flash application, but did not realize that they provide that URL in a link next to the picture? Did you also notice that they provide the URL to alternate sizes of the picture as well?

Secondly, Flash is NOT REQUIRED to use Flickr. Turn Flash off, and it still works.

So tell me again about how inconvenient Flickr is to those who are too good for Flash.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (1)

Snwbeast (21484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994054)

I use the Mozilla Flashblock plug-in and hate having to click on the icon for every single image. It's just an image already, why on earth would it need Flash? I've managed to build a large gallery of images on my own website and never had to use Flash once, maybe they couldn't figure it out?

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (1)

me at werk (836328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994421)

With flashblock, right click the flash and click Allow Flash from this site. I did it for Flickr and H*R, which just makes the internet awesome again.

Also, the flash has some very nice uses, such as "Add note" and you can add notes to parts of a photo do make a 'diagram overlay', which is really useful for our mockups of the new SpreadFirefox.com.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (1)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993816)

There is the "All Sizes" button above the photo or "Different Sizes" link at the lower right of the photo which allows you to choose 6 different sizes.

Example [flickr.com] :
(75 x 75) Square
(100 x 67) Thumbnail
(240 x 160) Small
(500 x 333) Medium
(1024 x 683) Large
(3072 x 2048) Original

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (1)

SirSnapperHead (854099) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993926)

...which only appears if the Flickr account holder decides to allow downloads.

If not you can still see the Flashified photos but you cannot view any other sizes and easily download photos.

There are obviously other reasons for using Flash here - the preloader is nice and clean, and obviously more efficient than using some horrible DHTML solution.

Re:So will they finally get rid of that stupid thi (1)

Fuzzle (590327) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994306)

So if the owner of the picture has decided to not allow downloads, the Flash applet prevents you from doing so without a fair amount of extra effort. I think it's serving it's purpose quite well.

They've renamed it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993449)

Now it's Fl!ckr

Re:They've renamed it (0)

LuxFX (220822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993662)

No, it's Fhoocker

The Creation of Spam Sig Opt Out (-1, Offtopic)

Spam Sig Opt Out (869192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993450)

Ive spent lots of time, maybe too much, pondering the phenomena of the free iPod sig. At 4:13 pm on Saturday, March 19th I had a moment of clarity that put things in perspective. People with free iPod sigs are useless. This was a startling discovery. I had previously been aware that they are both annoying and spammers, but it had never occurred to me that they would also be useless.

Allow me to explain for the non-pyramid scheme spamming users who still read this site. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who upon seeing a "'free' iPod" sig gets as angry as when I see a homeless person who is obviously able to work harassing cars and washing windshields in a busy intersection for liquor money. These people, spammers and beggars are the scum of the earth. They smear your windshield with their dirty halfassed non-attempt at cleaning and put out their grubby palm for a handout all at the same time.

People with free iPod sigs are the windshield washers of slashdot. They put up useless groupthink compliant babbleings or piss-poor mirrors to slashdotted sites to ingratiate themselves with equally stupid moderators. Their hope is to get modded up and fool some equally pathetic other user into joining their spammer pyramid scheme. But pyramid scheme participants have something in common with black market human brains. They are pretty stupid. Intelligent people are smart enough to work a real job to pay for their toys or at least know that it is not appropriate to spam on a site where every 5th story is about the scourge of spamming. As a general rule smart people don't join pyramid schemes.

Here-in lies the largest problem with free iPod spammers: they are stupid. They post stupid things. They add nothing to the discussion. With their every useless spam sig post this site slides further and further into the toilet. Of course not having a spam sig is by no stretch of the imagination the sign of an intelligent, valuble poster, but having a spam sig is almost always the sign of an utter retard. I could post examples but I think just causal browsing of slashdot is enough to demonstrate that what I have said is true. To drive the point home though, check out http://developers.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] . Notice how in the stories that didn't make it to the home page there is not_a_single_spam_sig. not one. I rest my case.

How do we fight the scourge of 'free iPod' spammers? In the past I have gone through the site methodically replying to free iPod spammers as AC, reminding them that spammers suck. I frequently included my own fake sig which read like:
--
Free iPod sigs are spam. You are a retard. [slashdot.org]

This approach was somewhat satisfying and kind of effective. The downside is that my IP address is now banned from posting anonymously, and will probably be banned from posting logged in soon. In the time I have had to sit by and watch as retard spammers ruin this site I have had the opportunity to think of another way: my Final Solution. I have created this account, Spam Sig Opt Out, for use as a filter against the increasing torrent of spammers that this site has attracted. To use this filter, simply add Spam Sig Opt Out as a 'friend' and set the 'foes of friends' modifier to -6 in your preferences. Feel free to report users with spam sigs in my journal. With every addition this site gets more readable. It may be too late to save this site from the spammers, but that doesn't mean we have to read their garbage.

Re:The Creation of Spam Sig Opt Out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993812)

actuly the smarter people are at the top of the pyramid.

Yarrrrrrrr! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993451)

There be new bubbles to burst in thar sea!

LOL (-1, Troll)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993473)

Man you young whippersnappers come up with witty lines like that like two seconds after the 20 second filter thingy stops. Anyway I'm just gonna ride your early post to get some traffic to my elite badass no login high res artsy pr0n site that can be found in my sig.

Yahoos' Dark Helmut (5, Funny)

NoGuffCheck (746638) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993452)

Prepare ship for Ludicorp speed!

My Flickr account password (2, Funny)

Linuxathome (242573) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993628)

I have an account, the password is:

1...2...3...4...5

Brilliant! Just like my luggage combo.

Re:My Flickr account password (1)

cuteseal (794590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993861)

Comb the desert! Lol... :D

What luggage is that? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994109)

1...2...3...4...5


I have a couple of Samsonite suitcases, they only have three-digit locks. Where did you get luggage with five-digit lcks?

Flickr? (-1, Flamebait)

trans_err (606306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993471)

Would the editors mind at least explaining the titles of the posts? I know the article link is right their but it'd be nice to even know what I was getting into.

Anyone care to explain what Flickr actually is and why I should care?

Re:Flickr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993501)

No, no one cares to explain, because you've obviously been asleep at the wheel for the past few months.

Re:Flickr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993504)

It's a hot photo blogging web service.

Re:Flickr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993509)

It's an amateur porn [flickr.com] site.

Re:Flickr? (0, Troll)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993523)

I hate to seem inflamatory, but it's pretty clearn from the article text that Flicr is an RSS Feed agragator. Is your inference engine broken?

Flickr allows you to... (1)

Schwarzchild (225794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993539)

upload your photos to the internet so that other people can look at them and laugh at you. :)

Re:Flickr? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993542)

Anyone care to explain what Flickr actually is and why I should care?

There's this thing called Google. Maybe you should try it out?

I wish I could make that much moola.... (4, Insightful)

Rick and Roll (672077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993524)

It's really amazing how a couple of good ideas and some initiative can turn into such a big buyout. I haven't signed up for an account, because I don't do much picture-taking, so I don't know about all of the features that helped them to make it. What I do know is that there have been many companies trying to make money of the same concept for several years.

I think the difference between them and I is partly that there was more than one competent computer scientist and partly that they understood the users so well because they were users. I can't imagine someone putting together such an excellent photo suite that wasn't into photography.

The one thing that I have in common with them is that I can think of clever ideas for implementation.

So basically, their achievement was a combination of having an excellent development team, being users (domain knowledge), and being able to utilize the latest and greatest technology to create a truly innovative product.

Anyway, I am a little jealous, but if the creators of Flickr are reading this I would like to say "Congrats."

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

PepeGSay (847429) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993656)

Well, it seems to me to be a web implementation of Photo Album from Adobe, with some Web cruft slapped on.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11994304)

Well, it seems to me to be a web implementation of Photo Album from Adobe, with some Web cruft slapped on.

Perhaps you missed the part where your pictures are actually on the web, and you can share them with people. I don't call that "cruft" so much as "the whole fucking point".

The only thing the two have in common is that they involve pictures. They are two very different things.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993857)

You certainly do talk highly of yourself without much to back it up. That's the difference between you and them.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

janbjurstrom (652025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993869)

Perhaps this is a "big buyout", but I honestly don't think so.

The Ludicorp people themselves speak of their money troubles (on their Typepad, no less, weblog) "It means that we'll no longer have to draw straws to see who gets paid."

So, my take is that while they do have a vibrant, growing, etc. community of photosharing/social networking, they do not have a sustainable business model.

A lot of energy and buzz, no profits.

I.e. Yahoo might not have paid through the nose for Flickr. And now it'll be subsumed in the Yahoo 360 [yahoo.com] corpus (whatever that turns out to become).

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (2, Informative)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994046)

Perhaps this is a "big buyout", but I honestly don't think so.

The Ludicorp people themselves speak of their money troubles (on their Typepad, no less, weblog) "It means that we'll no longer have to draw straws to see who gets paid."

So, my take is that while they do have a vibrant, growing, etc. community of photosharing/social networking, they do not have a sustainable business model.

They may not have a sustainable business model because they never needed one. This isn't Stewart's first buyout: he always called himself 'one of the winners of the Internet lottery'. During the dotcom bubble he created one of those 'follow your ex-schoolmates' sites, that by accident got very popular in India, so was sold off the some party that liked that demography (how's that for outsourcing?).
[beware: I do not posses magic checkbook-x-ray-goggles so I might completely miss the mark here]

It always seemed to me like he used that money to develop the things he wanted to develop more than the things he thought would bring revenue. There was certainly no money, but a lot of fun in gameneverending [gne.net] .

And I don't think the developers will rest quietly after this buyout, no matter how small or big it is. You'd better prepare for more fun in the future.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

janbjurstrom (652025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994489)

Yeah, it is a business model in itself of course - creating something that has "potential (possibly)!" written all over it, and selling it to the highest bidder.

Well, if they're doing something neat (which I think flickr is) and are having fun doing it, more power to 'em.

A little history (1)

Schwarzchild (225794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993877)

You're right about them having an excellent development team. One of the founders founded the 5k prize which was a contest to see who could create the coolest web app in 5k bytes. That contest has since been absorbed by SIGGRAPH.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

danharan (714822) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993932)

They didn't just understand *users*, they also understood *communities of users*.

A lot of companies tried to make money in the same area, but few had the same concepts: build something for the user experience, make it easy for users to share, allow users to create their own taxonomies, open wide your API... this isn't about luck or coding smarts- although they certainly were necessary. I would describe it as a different philosophy or ethic.

Seems there's money for us enterprising geeks, if we quit creating copycat apps. It's going to take a little imagination, and probably some of the ideas that the Flickr crew used.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

frostman (302143) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994094)

I'm jealeous too of course, but I think these folks deserve it. And I take heart, as I too am working on a new web technology (sorry no link, "stealth" mode still) in a related area.

I don't take many photos but I finally signed up for a Flickr account simply because I think their app is really, really cool. A couple random notes from my notes file:
WHY FLICKR ROCKS (or at least seems to)

+ entered a *crowded* space (photo sites)
+ with a *new* trick (tag-based organization)
+ and a *non-sucking* version of a standard trick (sharing)
+ plus a *cool* twist (flash image annotations)

....proving once again that a good idea done well can still get far.

the image notes are just such a fucking great idea (wish i'd thought of it).
i discovered these by just mousing over pictures (normal surfing behavior i think)
and seeing the boxes appear. VERY natural.
I could be wrong about it all, but those things occurred to me a few days ago.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994188)

While I completely agree with you, I think you're missing out on a rather key element of their success.

Blogosphere support

Yes, I know uttering the word "blogosphere" is going to make many people deeply, deeply irritated (and perhaps with good reason), but I don't think Flickr (and Ludicorp) would be anywhere as successful without the frequent linking and press from popular blogs like these:
  • Kottke.org
  • BoingBoing
  • Stop Design
  • Adaptive Path's Blog
  • The founder's of Six Apart
  • etc...

It's kind of like Google, several years ago. Yes, Google was the best at what it was, but it also had an intagible "it" factor, and that was fueled more by word of mouth than by anything else.

Re:I wish I could make that much moola.... (1)

dr.badass (25287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994390)

So basically, their achievement was a combination of having an excellent development team, being users (domain knowledge), and being able to utilize the latest and greatest technology to create a truly innovative product.

Most importantly, they were more interested in creating something that they wanted to create than they were in making money off of it:

"The game and styles of playing the game are what matter because they produce identities people care about. Likewise, a business develops an identity by providing a product or a service to people. To do that it needs capital, and it needs to make a profit, but no more than it needs to have competent employees or customers or any other thing that enables production to take place. None of this is the goal of the activity." -- from Ludicorp's "Corporate Philosophy" [ludicorp.com]

Makes Sense (5, Insightful)

nzgeek (232346) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993553)

I think this makes a lot of sense. First Oddpost (for desktop-like webmail), then Flickr (for desktop-like photo management). If they can pull this together, I can see it being pretty cool.

I've been curious about Google's attempts to do email (introduce a new paradigm and confuse users), and photo management (buy a desktop product - wtf does Picass have to do with web?), but I can see some sense of coherence with Yahoo's (both web-based with slick/easy UIs).

Interesting times.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

fingon (114710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993632)

Looks like you're unaware of the Picasa-Hello-Blogger triangle, probably the easiest way to maintain private photo collection and put part of it on the web (in your blog ;>).

The rest of Hello seems bit pointless - picture chatting? Come on.. But the nice desktop picture management combined with easy blogging of selected pictures is nice.

Web interface ISN'T everything and Picasa is closest thing to iPhoto on wintel PC.. and if you're some Linux nut who thinks that everyone wants to use KDE/Gnome program with 1/10 of the features+usability and 10* the bugs, think again.

For the record, I DO have Linux on my desktop TOO, but it still is ways from Windows and won't be home end-user thing in this decade. For Joe Sixpack et al, that is.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

bladx (816461) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993710)

I agree...
Google has made an excellent product with Picasa2, and it is related to the internet.

Re:Makes Sense (2, Informative)

alphakappa (687189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994410)

"I've been curious about Google's attempts to do email (introduce a new paradigm and confuse users), and photo management (buy a desktop product - wtf does Picass have to do with web?)"

Care to explain how gmail confuses users? Google's stated motto is to organize the world's information. For me, Picassa helps organize my photos and it does a kickass job of it. If you still need a connection between Picassa and the web, there's their 'Hello' service that lets you blog your pictures directly.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

nzgeek (232346) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994597)

I'd argue that mom and pop email users would be a little confused by the conversation thread collapse thingy in Gmail. If you haven't seen oddpost, it's very very similar to outlook/express/thunderbird, with a tree for folder navigation etc., but all done in jscript & css.

Sure, I think Google's tools are cool, but I think Yahoo has the better ingredients for something totally integrated (if that's what people want...)

Think of an outlook-style web interface (oddpost), with folders for search (Y!), images (flickr), news, rss, blog, etc...

Flickr is very cool and I hope it stays that way. (5, Interesting)

jbum (121617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993562)

I'm a big fan of Flickr, which if you haven't heard of it, is a community-oriented photo-sharing service. Their photo-sharing API [flickr.com] has enabled me to quickly assemble some nifty things such as this Colr Pickr [krazydad.com] and photo mosaics [krazydad.com] . However, I must admit I have mixed feelings about this acquisition, perhaps due my experiences in the late 90s, in which I found myself in a continual battle with new corporate overlords.

If you read the posts that founders Stewart and Caterina have been making in the Flickr Blog [flickr.com] , and elsewhere [flickr.com] , it's clear that they truly believe that this acquisition is for the best, and I don't doubt that both the Ludicorp folks and the Yahoo folks have the best of intentions.

Just as small children sometimes accidentally mistreat beloved pets, large groups of people with the best of intentions sometimes break things. Flickr currently has the feel of a 'mom & pop shop' and it is hard to believe that this state of affairs will continue with the influx of more money & extra management. But let's hope so!

The Ubiquitous Response (1)

holophile (869385) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993563)

I'm waiting for the "I'm surprised Google didn't buy Flickr" posts. Think about it... Blogger and Picasa with a Hello link to Flickr... it only makes sense. I guess next we'll see the "Google announcing Flickr-like service rumor"

Re:The Ubiquitous Response (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994333)

I was about to say something like that.

It has interested me that over at Blogger.com (a Google property) they haven't immediately come out with their own photo-blogging spin-off. Google mean time acquired another photo company (who's name I forget) that only works for Windows (Hence I don't use it) and they have been recommending that non-Windows users use Flickr instead (which I have).

Now I wonder what Googles response will be? Continue recommending a Yahoo product?

Seems to me there is significant risk in this photo-blogging thing. The industry hasn't even digested the changes precipitated by Gmail yet. All of a sudden they are tripping all over themselves to give away online storage again. A gig, multiplied by 100 million users. Pretty soon you are talking some serious storage requirements there.

Flickr gives away storage for 100 photos. Is that enough? I might decided not to even bother with the free option... and I might or might not want to actually pay for the service. If I send them $30 and upload every huge photo that my monthly quota allows, are they going to make any money? If a few million people do that are they going to make any money? Will they have enough storage? Will their servers grind to a halt (the way Gmail is already starting to do)?

While I hate to discourage the "investor class" from giving away the store, it seems to me there are still a lot of perfectly valid TEXT based applications that would not need so many resources but would be just as valuable to the average person as photo-blogging.

My theory has always been that Google would eventually come out with a free online equivalent to Word and Excel (feature limited no doubt) that would allow most of us to not only dispense with those Microsoft products, but also no longer have to copy our documents from one PC to another. Nothing ground breaking here... but during the last Dot-com bubble, it was only provided as an offline Java program and the online storage was limited to 100 meg or so, after which you had to buy more space. Google, using the Gmail technology, and the server-farm behind it could offer a LOT more for free, and probably convince me (and others) to fork over a small annual fee for added space/functionality. That value proposition along with the NEED to have as opposed to the NICE to have features of photo-blogging is what I think may separate Google from the rest. (Or I could be totally wrong about this).

My other reaction regarding Yahoo, is that they tend to buy things and then change their mind about them only a short time later. Broadband.com I think was a fairly interesting place to download movie clips until Yahoo got them. They also do a lot of joint-marketing deals that don't last long enough to be more than bait and switch deals IMHO. I use, and even pay for some of their old-line core services... but I always take a wait and see approach when they launch something new (especially if it involves buying a company).

I'm confused (1, Offtopic)

netdur (816698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993566)

what the differents between flickr.com and photos.yahoo.com ?

Re:I'm confused (2, Funny)

Colol (35104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993697)

what the differents between flickr.com and photos.yahoo.com ?

Flickr isn't used almost exclusively to host members' amateur porn. ;)

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993969)

what the differents between flickr.com and photos.yahoo.com ?

Community tagging, open API, RSS for everything

zerg (1, Funny)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993567)

How do you get bought by Yahoo and then scream "Woohoo?"

Re:zerg (1)

Rirath.com (807148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993613)

'How do you get bought by Yahoo and then scream "Woohoo?"'

Indeed... I'd shout "Cha-CHING!"

what's a flickr program for your own server? (1)

seringen (670743) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993571)

I'm only somewhat interested in flickr, but i'm more interested in what's a good server/platform for photos on my own computer. Is there something with all the flickr features?

Re:what's a flickr program for your own server? (0, Troll)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993806)

No, but that's the great part of open source! You get to add them yourself!!! See how wonderful that is? And the best part, if it's under the GPL, you'll have to give it all back to the community! See how open that force is?!

(Yes, yes. I know what I said about the GPL isn't 100% true)

Re:what's a flickr program for your own server? (2, Informative)

uss_valiant (760602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993884)

Gallery2 [sf.net]

See Forums->G2->Development->Sticky Thread for Demo Sites
G2 is beta, quite stable since alpha.

Re:what's a flickr program for your own server? (2, Informative)

netsharc (195805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993942)

I know of Photo Organizer [k-i-s.net] and Photos [alexking.org] (original name huh?), check them out.

Re:what's a flickr program for your own server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11994476)

Try Gallery :o)
http://gallery.menalto.com/ [menalto.com] [gallery.menalto.com].

Will Yahoo eat this up? (4, Insightful)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993604)

The Flickr guys say that they'll remain separate. I fail to see how much say Ludicorp have left seeing as this appears to be a total buyout.

Yahoo! will do what they have always done, and subsume the functionality into their own, and slap it's own design on to boot. Unfortunately, unlike the Borg, Yahoo! does not look cool. The design of Yahoo! is as poor (both in ugliness and usability) today as it has always been. One of Flickr's many strengths (apart from the obvious technological ones) is that the designers always seemed to recognise the importance of *white space*. Flickr makes my photos look good. It looks professional, but it doesn't take the focus away from the photo. If Yahoo! forces the its unique brand of boring, cluttered onto the site, the usability and visual appeal is going to go down the drain. And isn't visual appeal part of why we take photos?

Geocities was no looker [archive.org] that's for sure, but at least it looked like it had some creativity left in its soul.

Yahoo! stopped that cadaver kicking [archive.org] .

Re:Will Yahoo eat this up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993878)

Soul means nothing. Usability is everything. Yahoo's website (for Geocities, at least) is sleek. The old Geocities was ugly and unusable.

Re:Will Yahoo eat this up? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993897)

Woah there. I'm not sure what part of Yahoo you're refering to, but in general Yahoo is one of the better designed websites / portals.

Their web applications (mail, calender, address book) are superbly designed - and their content pages (search.yahoo.com, maps.yahoo.com, news.yahoo.com, etc) are very clearly laid out and easy to read. Compare and contrast the equivalent pages to MSN or Google and you'll see the difference. I also like that they use consistently simple color schemes - generally black text on white. It's much less headache-inducing if you're tired. It's one site I can trust to never use yellow on red text (like, say, foxnews.com).

Anyway, as a Yahoo fan (and someone who actually pays to use some of their advanced features) I'm happy that they'll be using some of Flickr's ideas / technology to improve Yahoo photos. I'll probably start using it a whole lot more when their 360 blogging service launches soon - assuming they've managed to keep it as simple and easy to use as all their other web applications.

BTW, am I the only person who thinks the person who designed the Flickr logo must be colorblind? The blue and magenta decor is so 1980's.

Re:Will Yahoo eat this up? (1)

Lewisham (239493) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993953)

I'm referring to the Yahoo! that has a front page which is entirely made of links, and the Yahoo! that has half page adverts. They simply don't seem to understand...

MSN is a nightmare, no doubt about that one. I don't understand you comment about Google, I find it excellent.

ludicorp? (1)

shrewd (830067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993610)

ludicrous corporation?

SE's (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993614)

The major search engines will pick up the majority of RSS/Blog based tools this year to intergrate or just to 'have'.

I predict FeedBurner [feedburner.com] will be one of the next to go

Now I know how to get acquired by Yahoo! (1)

DoctoRoR (865873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993623)

Do some nifty programming in a scripting language, and name my company something ludicrous, something related to insanity or laughter.

I will promptly rename my company:
Insanocorp
or
HysterInc!

Tragic? (4, Insightful)

Free_Trial_Thinking (818686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993624)

Am I the only who thinks this is a tragety(sp)?

Flickr was cool because it wasn't too commercial and wasn't in your face with signing up for shit. I can only picture what will happen under yahoo ownership ...

(fade into fantasy sequence 1 year from now)

You go onto Flickr, there are links everywhere for signing up for yahoo junk. I try to upload a photo, but instead I am taken to a page where I am solicited to sign up for something called "Yahoo groups". I try to do a search for a certain tag, but instead of pretty pictures, I get half a page of junk ads and then maybe some layout of pictures that's unusable for some reason. I could go on and on.

I just hope my beloved del.icio.us never sells out.

Re:Tragic? (1)

Uart (29577) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994262)

Agreed.

I am not fretting what sort of Yahooisms will invade Flickr. How does this affect my account? Will I now have to go to "Flickr.Yahoo.com" to see my pictures? Will I have to have a Yahoo account?

Etc. Etc.

Independence (like ignorance) is bliss.

blogs suddenly becoming big business... (1)

Eternal_Flame (822984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993663)

"Live Journal was bought by Six Apart, while Ask Jeeves snapped up Bloglines."

This makes me pause and ponder the imact blogs in general have had in recent years. Suddenly, many previously supressed voices are jumping out into the world via the web and companies like Flickr, and large corperations such as Yahoo are jumping for the opertunity too buy them up. I remember not so long ago blogger/blogspot were bought out by Google. Interesting perspectives from places you wouldn't usually see them are now suddenly easily accessible via the web, and the older large corperations are just as quickly buying the creators out. I wonder, will the big companies such as yahoo and google do with the blog-related communities and sites like this? And will Yahoo let Flickr remain as-is, or incorperate it into itself as a part of the Yahoo home page?

Re:blogs suddenly becoming big business... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11993822)

You're thinking too much. Blogs are a fad, just like personal web pages were back during the dot-com bubble.

Re:blogs suddenly becoming big business... (1)

Eternal_Flame (822984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993864)

Yeah I know, but my real question is where will the fad end?
Will they simply burn out, or will the companies that seem to be buying them attempt to continue to promote them, etc.

Re:blogs suddenly becoming big business... (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993962)

Personal web pages were (still are?) hard, blogs are easy. And it's all about networking nowadays, comments, trackbacks, RSS, Blogrolls, FOAF, it's fascinating to see how the internet is making a new social network.

Smack my _____ up. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993696)

Smack the tattlers and pop the champagne corks! Woohoo!

Not Woohoo.. Yahoo. You're so not making a good first impression with the new bosses.

I won't even ask what a tattler is.

Re:Smack my _____ up. (1)

shiflett (151538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994100)

The tattlers are the reason people knew about this before they announced it.

Pricetag? (1)

popo (107611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993724)


Any rumours on the grapevine for what the buyout price was? And what the terms of the deal were?

Re:Pricetag? (1)

chachob (746500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994697)

What the hell, I'll start a rumor for "the grapevine":

price: 20 bucks
terms: yahoo pwnz flickr

Pass it on.

Keeping up with, then shooting, the joneses... (4, Interesting)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993725)

Perhaps I'm excessively cynical, but I can't help but wonder if along with Flickr Yahoo is acquiring any patents that could be used to chase competing photo-sharing products out of the market... like Yahoo is doing to XFire [xfire.com] already...

New bubble sighted; investors "Dumbstruck" (1, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993726)

Or just dumb. This is like watching a train crash in slow motion, for the second time. Blogs don't do anything, they don't matter, they serve no purpose other than to make their writers feel better about themselves (and each other in that great big mutual back-pat that is the blogosphere). In other words: they're just like all those great investments that fuckwits made in the .bomb bubble.

Corrected headline: "Yahoo waves goodbye to pile of cash"

TWW

Re:New bubble sighted; investors "Dumbstruck" (2, Insightful)

HyperChicken (794660) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993835)

I don't know much about Flickr, but I don't think it's a blog company. They deal with images, I thought. You upload them, people view them. Right?

Although I do agree that blogs are just a fad.

Re:New bubble sighted; investors "Dumbstruck" (1)

smitty45 (657682) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994097)

blogs pointed out the Kryptonite lock fault, and it cost the company $10 million in lost revenue.

In 10 days.

some fad, that is.

Re:New bubble sighted; investors "Dumbstruck" (2, Insightful)

wootest (694923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994179)

Flickr isn't a "blog" company, they're indeed a photo management company.

"Blogs" are being adopted at lots of places because they mean *communication*. The proverbial angst-ridden teen talking about his/her lunch and how life sucks is communication as much as team members inside a company making decisions is communication. "Blog" is just a buzzword for communication, and it's good in that it has gotten people to adopt it; the form itself may or may not be a fad depending on if some greater way of communication shapes up.

(Personally I think calling this a fad is arrogant - people kept captain's logs and personal diaries centuries ago. But it all hinges on the definition of "blog" and "fad" respectively, I guess; If you mean that people will not start as many "blogs" and that they won't be as hyped in a few years, you may be right.)

Seems pointless (1)

zecg (521666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993825)

Yahoo is damn well a stronger brand than Flickr is at the moment - and they are saying it is to be kept separate. And it's not as if Flickr's functions are patented or as if Yahoo didn't have the infrastructure to pull it off themselves. I fail to see what they gain by buying Flickr, instead of making their own YImages or something. Anyone?

Re:Seems pointless (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994013)

And it's not as if Flickr's functions are patented

Can Yahoo now patent Flickr's functions? If so, they may not have bought Flickr. They may have bought prior art (had they tried to patent Flickr's functions people could shout "prior art". It's likely there is prior art anyway, but Yahoo probably figured the crazy US legal system wouldn't care).

Re:Seems pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11994026)

"if Yahoo didn't have the infrastructure to pull it off themselves"

yeah, but they didn't. and it takes more than infrastructure to do what flickr does.

Beta (1)

cuteseal (794590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993886)

So, will they ever get out of beta stage? :D

Undisclosed amount? (1)

DosBubba (766897) | more than 9 years ago | (#11993903)

It's 25.6 million [yahoo.com] US dollars.

del.icio.us is next. (1)

jefft (13574) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994029)

Along these lines, I bet the horribly named del.icio.us [del.icio.us] is next. It's a a kind of like Flikr for bookmarks, which could actually be a lot more useful than something for photos.

Here's my prediction (2, Interesting)

melted (227442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994357)

Yahoo service will not be all that successful and Yahoo management will drive it into the ground. A year later MSN will release something similar, but it will be a half baked unimaginative piece of shit that's 10 times worse than Yahoo Flickr (or whatever its remnants are called). Then Google releases their own picture gallery service and eats their breakfast, lunch and dinner with their first public beta.

Re:Here's my prediction (1)

mieses (309946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994471)

i agree. it's doubtful that flickr will be able to sustain the same level of creative development under the yahoo umbrella.

Yahoo sucks (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994367)

Does anyone know of another photo hosting site with similar capacity (infinte storage, decent monthly upload) to Flickr?

In a related story.... (1)

bill_911 (39606) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994387)

Before the Fouth of July OS X will no longer work on Flckr.

Change the name please? (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994412)

Anyone else think of boogers when reading Flickr? Maybe it's just my disgusting self. On the other hand, I'm sure there are some illuminating pictures of the activity on the service.

Crap (2, Insightful)

Bronz (429622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994479)


I for one do not welcome Flickr's Yahoo overlords. I was actually flirting with the idea of subscribing to Flickr after trying it over the last few weeks. Now I fully expect to see a dramatic decrease in the site's responsiveness and a dramatic increase in obnoxious ads.

I for one welcome our new search engine overlords! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11994486)

I just hope Flickr doesn't go the way of... well, everything else Yahoo seems to get ahold of.

all i have to say... (1)

rinoid (451982) | more than 9 years ago | (#11994601)

Is, so much for folksonomies, or other cool stuff happening.

Don't worry, soon Yahoo will have it choked up with ads, code that only runs in IEWin, and any notion of community, folksonomies, or some other cultural shift by design is GONE forever.

Hooray to SixApart for adjusting their license model -- they are keeping the spirit alive, allowing their creation to continue to cause more of a cultural shift, by design, than many others. OK, I know you like WordPress... and it's fine too but it's still totally free so it doesn't necessarily apply here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...