Why does Flickr offer 1TB of storage for free yet charge $499/yr for 2TB?

Why does Flickr offer 1TB of storage for free yet charge $499/yr for 2TB?

Summary: The answer is that Yahoo! doesn't expect many Flickr users to use anywhere near the 1TB they are offering.

TOPICS: Cloud, Storage

Yesterday Yahoo! revamped its Flickr terms and gave every member 1TB of photo and video storage for free. But the company also announced a new offering called Doublr, which gives users the option to upgrade up to 2TB of storage … for $499 a year.

How can Flickr offer 1TB of storage for free, and yet ask a whopping $499 per year for 2TB?

The reason is that storage when measured by the terabyte is expensive, and Yahoo knows that most Flickr users aren't going to get anywhere near to that limit.

So why is storage expensive? After all, the likes of Gmail and Dropbox have been offering gigabytes of free data for years. What's so special about what Yahoo! is offering its Flickr customers?

Let's put things into perspective.

WARNING: What follows is a simplified view of data, but it serves the purpose of illustrating a point.

When you upload a photo to Flickr – say a photo shot on your iPhone – your picture initially takes about 5Mb of server space. But then Flickr takes this original image and splits it off into smaller resolution files for ease of viewing. Let's assume that these smaller versions take another megabyte. You're now up to 6MB.

But things don't end there. That 6MB of files is stored on a server where, for the sake of data integrity, it is mirrored across at least two disks, so your 6MB worth of files end up taking at least 12MB of storage space in toal.

But don't you also expect Yahoo! to keep backups of your data in case something goes horribly wrong? Of course you do! These are likely taken once a week, probably on a monthly cycle (after a month the old backups are likley deleted), so after a month those 12MB of files you started with have grown to 60MB (the initial photo along with lower resolution images mirrored across two drives, then backed up four times).

You with me? Good, because it doesn't end there.

Anyone storing important data knows that you also need to make sure that you have off-site backups in case anything goes wrong, and these might be conservatively taken every four weeks. The off-site backup will also be mirrored, adding more to the storage burden.

Looking at things this way, and it's easy to see how even 5MB grows into many tens of megabytes. Now think about the 1TB that Flickr is offering and you start to see that the storage that users are being offered is just the beginning.

And a terabyte of server-grade storage isn't cheap, with a 1TB 6G 7,200 RPM SAS drive going for $400. Not only will these drives be better quality drive than those being offered to consumers, they also normally come with no quibble warranty and support. When a drive fail – and given the volume in a large server room, this happens quite often – the replacement drive is usually accompanied by a technician to fit it.

And the drive is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to costs. Servers don't grow on trees, neither do server rooms. The staffing is also costly, as in electricity needed to keep everything humming along and cooled to the right temperature.

Then there's the data backbone needed to shunt this data back and forth, both internally, and to off-site backup facilities, not to mention the data to and from customers.

All this costs money.

This brings me back neatly to the initial question of how Flickr can offer 1TB of storage for free, and yet needs to charge $499 per year for 2TB? 

The reason is that most people never come close to using that 1TB. In fact, they won't come anywhere near to it. Even today, it represents a vast amount if data. A Blu-ray Disc can hold 50Gb of data, equivalent to nine hours of HD video, but 1TB is equivalent to 20 Blu-ray Discs, or a whopping 180 hours of HD video.

Put this storage capacity in terms of digital photographs, and you're talking about half a million snaps. That's a lot. Even at the rate of 500 photos a month, that's still 83 year's worth of uploads.

What Yahoo! did with Flickr wasn't give everyone 1TB of storage, but make it essentially limitless, and turn storage space something the average user need never worry about again. There's a subtle difference.

The 1TB cap is there because Yahoo! knows that there are going to be a few users who will hover around this cap. And it's a safe bet that these folks – probably video people – exist because otherwise Yahoo! wouldn't have bothered to put a cap on storage. The good news is that if these folks are currently Pro members, and continue to keep their account in good standing, they can enjoy unlimited storage. If they don't, they, along with all new heavy users, will have to dig deep.

But to be fair to Yahoo!, $499 is not that expensive when you consider that a similar amount of storage would cost over $1,000 per year from Google.

Storage is cheap, but it's not so cheap that Yahoo! is happy to let everyone have an all-you–can-eat buffet just yet.

Topics: Cloud, Storage

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Please proofread

    "you're picture initially takes" should be "your picture initially takes".
    "about 5Mb" should be "about 5MB"
    "likley deleted" should be "likely deleted"
    "be better quality drive" should be "be better quality drives"
    "When a server drive fail" should be "When a server drive fails"
    "as in electricity" should be "as is electricity"
    "vast amount if data" should be "vast amount of data"
    • U nead ah nam chanj

      From "tim.gaines" to "Adrian Monk"
    • please..

      the quality of these articles tends to be so bad that the last thing i'd be complaining about is typos!
    • Ever heard of spelling and grammar checkers?

      Well spotted tim.gaines.
      If I made as many errors while writing software, I'd soon be out of a job.
      Anyone who's a professional journalist should know how to spell and how to correctly write using good grammar. If not they should at least know how to use a spell checker and a grammar checker.
      Here's another error that tim.gaines didn't spot:
      "that's still 83 year's worth" should be "that's still 83 years' worth".
      My name's not Adrian Monk but I was brought up with the understanding that if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
    • Based on the number of errors

      in this article, I am given to discount everything in the article as riddled with falsehoods...
      Imani Mposta
  • Why 1TB indeed...

    Why do they offer 1TB of free storage? That's a pretty good question. Your answer is most people will never come close to using that much. But you missed one big thing entirely. It is simply impossible because of the 300MB monthly upload limit. 1TB is equal to 1,024 x 1,024 megabytes. 1,485,576 divided by 300 is ~3,495, so it would take over 291 years to reach 1TB.
    • Based on faulty information.

      There is no 300 MB monthly upload limit.
      • My ISP has a download limit

        Going over the limit gets your service "choked" or you pay hefty fees. That's the way it is, here in Australia.
        Even with my paltry 20GB of pics, I'd probably stagger uploading over 2 - 3 months, to ensure my wife can still watch all her Thai sitcoms [via Youtube].
      • Not anymore

        There used to be a 300 MB limit, but you're right, there's not a limit anymore.
        Garrett Williams
    • What monthly limit?

      See http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/ for the terms on all account types. It clearly states unlimited monthly bandwidth for free accounts. There are other limits, but none for monthly uploads. Guess your "name" shows your bias! Please don't post lies!
      • Until one day before that comment

        it was 300 MB per month.
        Source: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/flickrs-new-1tb-of-storage-briefly-stymied-by-old-300mb-limit-50011276/
        Garrett Williams
  • Storage

    You do not store backup of the mirror, also it is doubtful that they are using mirroring they are more then likely using RAID 5, 50, 6 or 60. Which could reduce or increase the cost of the 6mb on the raw storage.
    Clifford Dutka
    • RE: Storage

      they use RAID-DP which is basically 6 but they also use snapshots and a DR site that is mirrored.
      Nicholas Elliott
    • Backups

      Why would they not backup the mirror (assuming you mean RAID 1 array)?
  • math?

    500x60x12x83= 29,880,00MB. But ya, 300 a month kinda negates this whole thing. People still love and respect you, buddy. It's going to be okay!
    Chris Balint
    • Question

      Where are people getting that 300mb a month thing?
      Michael Alan Goff
      • flickrsucks just made it up and people are running with it.

        How else do you think it would have started?
      • Old limit

        It used to be 300 MB per month.
        Garrett Williams
  • aslo

    when a drive fails they will overnight you a new one they almost never will give you a onsite tech unless you bought a box and the the tech is there from the box manf. Also almost all san server has built in compression to save disk space.
  • Snapshots don't have size unless the blocks get changed

    "These are likely taken once a week, probably on a monthly cycle (after a month the old backups are likley deleted), so after a month those 12MB of files you started with have grown to 60MB (the initial photo along with lower resolution images mirrored across two drives, then backed up four times)."

    Ummm....No that's not quite how backups work. These backups don't take any size until a change to the blocks occur which with pictures won't happen unless the photo is edited. Its called a snapshot and Yahoo does use them.
    Nicholas Elliott