i don't know what your problem is here
if you want flickr's premium services, pay for them.
why should you get them for free?
do you think you're entitled to something?
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 12:30,
archived)
why should you get them for free?
do you think you're entitled to something?
I don't want their premium services
I just want them to be more upfront about what's (not) included in their free account.
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 12:51,
archived)
why would they advertise things they don't do or don't include?
it's not really good business acumen, and certainly wouldn't do them any favours.
For a majority of the users, the free account is probably enough. For those who would use it to a greater degree,
surely it is their responsibility to question and seek out information prior to using it, to make sure it meets their needs.
That's why info. is there in their FAQ. They do appear to be a business, and not a charity.
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 12:56,
archived)
For a majority of the users, the free account is probably enough. For those who would use it to a greater degree,
surely it is their responsibility to question and seek out information prior to using it, to make sure it meets their needs.
That's why info. is there in their FAQ. They do appear to be a business, and not a charity.
They don't have to emphasise that you don't get a free cake
but it would be good of them to emphasise that you don't get more than 200 pictures, because that's the kind of thing you might expect to get by default.
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 13:01,
archived)
Again, they are a business,
and they're gonna advertise what they can do for you, not how they can limit/stifle/cut back the overall service.
That kind of thing is always reserved for the small print - or the FAQ in this case. Every reasonable size business does it.
If they said, 'get a free account with 200 pics' the first thing most people would do is google for a site that had a higher number or unlimited uploads,
thus doing flickr out of potential business. I agree that it would be 'nice' of them to do it, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it :)
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 13:04,
archived)
That kind of thing is always reserved for the small print - or the FAQ in this case. Every reasonable size business does it.
If they said, 'get a free account with 200 pics' the first thing most people would do is google for a site that had a higher number or unlimited uploads,
thus doing flickr out of potential business. I agree that it would be 'nice' of them to do it, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it :)
That's what Rob said.
If the annoying part was written out in big red letters and highlighted in yellow, people would be warned away from flickr. Of course we can't expect them to advertise it like that, it would be bad for business - except that keeping this stuff in the small print makes them slightly arsey, and having it pointed out that they are slightly arsey is potentially worse for business, depending on whether the idea "flickr are slightly arsey" catches on or not. Which is isn't doing in this thread, I must admit.
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 13:10,
archived)
All adverts should consist of the company name superimposed on random noise.
Saves effort.
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 13:15,
archived)
Very true
Which is why I'm pointing out what's there for other chumps like me who who don't read every single line of text in the FAQ before signing up for something :-)
( ,
Sat 2 Aug 2008, 13:06,
archived)