Awww, the best kind of warm and fuzzy! :-))

Seriously though, it doesn’t surprise me that this would happen. SmugMug acquired Flickr for a reason, and it wasn’t to continue serving up goodies free of charge such as 1 terabyte storage. They bought customers to profit from. They’d be fools if they left things as they are now.

Personally, I think whatever is bad for Flickr is good for Ipernity. ;-)

"Personally, I think whatever is bad for Flickr is good for Ipernity. ;-)"

I certainly hope so.

Awww...so cute.

I haven't been paying attention to what's going on on Flickr. I'm only there for SSC. I'll stay as long as it's free since I will only pay for Ipernity. :)

I can't agree with you more about the "improvements" all the time that are anything but improvements." This happens everywhere just when you've gotten things figured out and it drives me nuts! :D

I'm on Smugmug and Flickr too.
These are and will be different shoes.
Ipernity was nearly down because of too many free riders and so was Flickr.

On Ipernity we only have little over 1300 paying Club members, a ridiculous number compared to Flickr. Hard to believe that Flickr will face more difficulties to survive than we on Ipernity.

Watch this interview with the founder of Smugmug. In him I would trust way more than in managers from companies like Yahoo or Oath:

twit.tv/shows/triangulation/episodes/351?autostart=false

and also read here - a compendium of the answers of the Smugmug CEO

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157700044866142

Flickr is not more lack of improvements than Ipernity. For improvements you need money. And this is true for both - Flickr and Ipernity.

My impression is that HE understands photography and photographers opposite to Melissa Mayer!

Are you implying that if Ipernity had more money, they'd be constantly "upgrading" the site all the time like Fl*ckr? I certainly hope that isn't the case. If something works, why continually update it simply for the sake of constant change?

Thanks for this post. I'm new here, and because of all that is going on at Flickr. I'm also on Pixels.com, and before I chose them I looked at Smug Mug for a photo business website and didn't like the business model. I was on Flickr every day since 2007, and just canceled my Pro membership to a free account.

The reason is that SmugMug is bringing their business model to Flickr. Flickr is not Smugmug, and shouldn't be. What makes the new terms at Flickr high cost and low value like SmugMug, is that its all about money and there is no regard for the loyal members and their contributions, as well as all the founders and people who've made and kept Flcikr alive. The new terms should be for new members going forward but, as you can see, as it stands they are pushing too many people away.

I'm going to like it here, in fact I already am. I'd rather give my money to ipernity because the 'why' and the 'how' and the 'what' for the most part is decided by the members who know and use the product.

I can't see "myriads" of problems nor I see them imploding.

BTW: I was funding to help Ipernity to survive, but I was really surprised, learning that we have only about 1300 paying members; hard to believe that this will have a future. So I see the problems more here on this side. Let's hope the very best

No, not constantly "upgrading", but many years nearly nothing happened. The look is a little bit old-school, https should be at any site, not only for lock-in.

So many groups - mostly founded ten years ago - are no longer curated, because admins are off since a long time. So sometimes I feel, looking into some groups is a waste of time.
Nobody cares about people who are spamming one photo into 50 or more groups, whether it fits or not. But I admit that I have no idea how to fix this.

Every time when things are changing there is a shitstorm. There are always people who disagree with what is changing.
So years ago there was a little Exodus to Flickr and there are still "Ipernity survivors" at Flickr and vive versa.

"Every time when things are changing...."

Change merely for changes sake is what I oppose - it serves no purpose but to keep people off balance. When Flickr went through that big fail back in May 2013, several users complained that it was too much and didn't work. And lots of users called people names who voiced their opposition to those "bloated" changes; and they said that just because a few thousand people complained, that doesn't mean much. Well, I don't remember even that many people complaining about the old look before the May 2013 change. Why were so few of those commenters allowed to foment change when many more commenters after the change couldn't get heard?

What really soured me the most about Flickr was that I liked the way it looked and worked, (and it did work, now it does not), prior to May 2013 - and - just two days before the big change, I renewed my membership for yet another year and then got something else than what I had paid for. I felt cheated and ripped off.