Comments on: Flickr Video Arrives

By: JimK

JimK — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:39:43 +0000

@Ben: While I get that, I *don’t* get why anyone would introduce such a lame-duck, half-programmed video service *now*.

I wasn’t comparing it *just* to YouTube, BTW. I was referring to the dozens and dozens of services out there that do video about a million times better. Yes, one place to upload might be convenient, but the video is essentially useless. They should have kept it in development until it was more fully programmed, IMHO.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:25:52 +0000

@JimK, Dave, Yahoo et al�

I agree with Todd, This service has nothing to do with being a YouTube rival. Its about letting people who upload there photos to flickr and have a camera that shoots video, be able to upload there data to one place. It also lets users tag/geotag everything from one trip, in one place.(try explaining to mom, that your photos are on flickr.com/username and the videos are on youtube.com/username, instead of just bookmarking one place on there pc to see all of there childrens photos and videos). And like Todd pointed out, Yahoo can see that vast majority of its users are uploading from cameras that can record video

By: Todd

Todd — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:52:37 +0000

@JimK, Dave, Yahoo haters et al…

Why did thye add video? Ummm cause they can see from the log files the majority of photos posted come from cameras that also take video? EXIF data? Hello?

By: Dave Zatz

Dave Zatz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:38:02 +0000

Yeah, I’m with Jim… Though, I suspect they had to try to make a video land grab. Could be too late. I still don’t get why Yahoo killed the top worldwide photo destination. Which is neither here nor there.

And speaking of duplicity, do I really need another desktop(ish) video media player (Adobe)?

By: Vaibhav

Vaibhav — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:22:37 +0000

@JimK – a LOT of people share your thoughts:

http://www.onlineobservations.net/protests-on-flickr-video/

By: JimK

JimK — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:58:40 +0000

I just don’t see why anyone would want a half-crippled video service polluting the service. flickr does one thing great. Now it does two things and one of them is remarkably lame.

With so, so SO many better video sharing choices…why now? Why flickr? What’s the point of 12fps video, for *anything*? I just don’t get it. at this stage, a video sharing feature has to be at least as good as those it competes with, and this is very much *not*, even as a first attempt.

My $0.02. YMMV.

By: Brent

Brent — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:19:56 +0000

I really think we’ll see some fun content on flickr video. Some have been negative about it “too short of time limit”, “don’t want video polluting photos” etc. but I think photo and video will complement each other nicely. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the API plug-ins after developers have had time with it.

The cat video is pretty funny – reminds me of a few nights I stayed up way too late….

By: Dave Zatz

Dave Zatz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:09:23 +0000

That cat should definitely have a restricted drivers license!