Hi, I'm Michael Mistretta, a student passionate about technology, photography, and design. Welcome to my online home where I write about technology, reviews, and my thoughts and opinions on technology-related matters. One of the problems with web apps is they get updated on the server end. The user has no choice to “upgrade” to the new features or hold back - you’re upgraded whether you like it or not. This becomes particularly difficult when you have many different kinds of users using a popular service.
The news is out. Flickr now does video. The last 18 hours have been a buzz with tweets and blog posts regarding the new feature. Pro photographers are outraged that Flickr is not “remaining true to the photograph”. Some are disappointed over the implementation - having 150MB and a 90 second limitations. I understand where that frustration is coming from. It’s hard to watch one of your favourite social networks go through a change. After taking some time to look at it over the past few hours, I for one am very impressed over the implementation.
Before we go any further, let’s make something clear.
It’s not a Youtube competitor. If you want an alternative to Youtube, use services like Vimeo, Viddler, or BlipTV. These services have much less restrictive limitations. You can upload HD footage, and not be worried about the duration.
Part of the problem is in the way it was covered by the media. Really, it should not even be called Flickr video. It should be called Flickr with video. Their focus is still the same - photos. Video is simply meant to compliment the photos. As I think back to many of the photos I’ve uploaded to Flickr from concerts and events, I imagine how some video could have helped to compliment the pictures. With the increase in the number of consumer cameras and cell phones that take video, it is a surprise Flickr hasn’t done this so this sooner.
Flickr isn’t “caving into the pressure” and “abandoning true photography”. If we thought like that, we’d all still be using film. No, Flickr is merely expanding the definition of what photography is, by adding another element - video.
Why 90 seconds?
Undoubtedly, the most complained about limitation of this new service is the 90 second time limit. Actually, the change to 90 seconds was a last minute decision as revealed by Paul Stamatiou who was one of the few early beta testers. Originally, the time limit was set to 60 seconds.
The million dollar question is why?
For the same reason that I love Twitter. There is a certain value in brevity that can not be defined easily. The major problem with videos on Youtube is that there is no editing. People just ramble on and on. Twitter is different though. You only have 140 characters to get your point across. You only mention the most important things and cut out the garbage.
Inevitably, the same thing will happen with Flickr. It will not become a place for video shows or music videos. Instead, it will become a place that, much like twitter, where you are free to express yourself and what you are doing visually. Before, you could only do this through photos. Now, you have photos and video.
I’m sure there will still be those who hate the idea of having video mixed with their photos on Flickr, and will somehow find a way to blame this on Microsoft. But I, for one, am excited about Flickr video, and cannot wait for it to come to devices like the AppleTV and the iPhone.
Good job on this one Flickr.
Many consumer point and shoot digital cameras have capability to record short videos. These videos are relatively low quality to preserve storage space. Some cameras limit the length of these videos to keep space clear on the storage media. Often, the limit is 90 seconds or less (if it isn’t a model that does unlimited). This is very likely the reason for Flickr’s 90 second limit. It’s also very likely that the only reason that Flickr introduced this feature in the first place is to make space for these videos taken by these specific cameras.
I think this is a great Flickr feature, and if I still used Flickr, I’d be happy to have it.
Comment by David — April 9, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Good summary. I’m with you and the implementation. This is the perfect addition to the Flickr services already offered.
Comment by chris — April 9, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Well, I disagree with your enthusiasm for the 90 second limit, but I’ve disagreed with people before and we’ve all gotten over it. But I think it has nothing to do with art and everything to do with flickr not having the storage capacity to offer it unlimited. Which also might answer my more important question (seeing as I’m not a Pro user on Flickr–and never will be): Why offer the video capability only for Pro members?
Comment by Lee — April 9, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Lee: I was going to mention this in the post. I’m actually surprised that they are allowing 150MB files. Especially when they are only 90 seconds long. This leads me to believe that the limitation is not server space or bandwidth, because if it were, they could have lowered the limit to 100MB, which is what Youtube has.
Comment by Michael Mistretta — April 9, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
I couldn’t agree more. People on the intartubes tend to react far too hastily to changes like these. In my humble opinion, video is the perfect compliment to anyone’s gallery. For example, if you have a lot of followers, you can post quick updates (video blog style) to Flickr, and save the hassle of setting up a YouTube account or whatever.
Bottom line is if you don’t like it, don’t use it.
Comment by Henning Stedtnitz — April 9, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Thanks for clearing that up. I ignored the whole Flickr doing video buzz because I’m a little fatigued from hearing about all the video sites popping up. Glad to hear video on Flickr is like Twitter.
Comment by Daniele Rossi — April 9, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Great post, Michael. I think Flickr’s video feature is far from perfect; it’s definitely something different from the rest. The 90-second time limit may frustrate some, and please others - it’s just something that Flickr users will have to put up with. I’m glad Flickr isn’t trying to be another YouTube - there are enough of those already.
Comment by Stephen Chinnadorai — April 9, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
I think the whole thing is a bad idea. Flickr should have stuck with photos.
Comment by Kevin S. — April 9, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
agreed. i think it’s a really cool feature. i think it will allow people like me who are into both photography and video to share the best of both worlds.
Comment by Mostly Lisa — April 10, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
I started writing a comment here, but then I got so into it that I made it into a full blown blog post: http://nicklog.com/post/31423805.
Comment by Nick Humphries — April 10, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Lee: Only Pro accounts have the luxury of video. I thank God (or whoever is up there) that Flickr didn’t let everyone to have this. Those who have Pro account, like our brilliant Michael, care about the quality of things they upload. I’ve seen too many crappy videos on Youtube that I find user experience is nearly non-existence. At least Flickr’s direction will do some quality assurance.
Comment by Adam — April 12, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
I personally welcome the change and agree with most of the things you have said. Now all I need is a pro account so that I can take advantage of it….
Comment by Steve — April 13, 2008 @ 3:05 pm