[wrs]

Pre-2013 Flickr was a really fun place and I want to go back to there. So I love the initiative and direction here.

However, I lost the thread of the argument at the penultimate paragraph. If the “vast majority” of current free users will still qualify, why will this change the community in a significant way?

[danso]

The users in the free tier are now given a hard ceiling of 1,000 photos, so it would seemingly dampen their future ambitions to use Flickr as a social stream or bulk archive.

[wrs]

I get that, but apparently they weren’t hitting that limit anyway. So is this a purely psychological tactic? That’s fascinating...kind of leveraging the psychology of an “unlimited” cellular plan but in reverse.

[danso]

It might be psychological on Flickr's end too, as developers no longer have to propose new features that have the requirement of scaling with a high-resource-consuming free tier.

[wrs]

But that's my point — how is the resource consumption changing if hardly anybody is kicked out? Is there a tiny number of people storing a terabyte of photos each? But if the number of people is tiny, how can that be affecting the community feeling?

[pkaye]

Those few people who store petabytes of videos was enough for even Amazon to boot them off their storage product.