11th
Cameron and thousands of Flickr fans can’t be wrong. Why did Flickr introduced video in a half-hearted 90 second way?
Why introduce video in the first place? Flickr is about photography. Improve the photo experience! We still don’t have:
- Private Group Albums for people not on Flickr
- Any photo editing capability, not even crop or re-size
- Color advice on image colorspaces, did you know that your Mac pictures look very different on a PC?
- Customizable slideshows
- and I could go on, and on.
But we did get 90 second video. Why!? Innovation is either done all the way, or you don’t do it. For the moment I plan to ignore that feature. It could be useful at 10 minutes or more, but at 90 seconds it is not.
So how could it be useful? I disagree with people that dislike video per se. Video can compliment pictures, why not a 20 to 1 ratio limit. If you have 20 photos you can post 1 video. 40 photos 2 videos, and so on. The video could comment on the shoot, or provide relevant content. That would make sense, video as an aid to photographs. But 90 seconds is a joke.
camh:
Flickr recently introduced videos on Flickr; up to 90 seconds each, and with video creation restricted to Pro users.
However, there’s a vocal, suitably large amount of Flickr users basically saying…
