Now that’s a first! I want to know what people think of this. I wouldn’t use it. All the Photobucket functionality I need is already built into the regular version of Flock. And I want Flickr. It’s an excellent service that I regularly use. I wouldn’t even welcome a Yahoo! version of Flock, because I do use Photobucket too. It’s nice to have both options! I hate to see good companies tearing apart a great Open Source browser.

I bookmarked this on Digg: Photobucket Distributing Custom Flock Browser

Btw, here’s the direct link to the features page (you’re linking to the tips, Mike): http://photobucket.com/flock

Thanks Simran, I updated the links.

Hmm, this does seem very much in opposition to the whole Web 2.0 ‘thing’ that Flock seems to be based on. Maybe this highlights one of the main problems Flock might have in the long-term: if you are unable to add support for the newest site around, it may become automatically outdated once everyone decides a new site is better than Flickr or del.icio.us.

if you are unable to add support for the newest site around, it may become automatically outdated once everyone decides a new site is better than Flickr or del.icio.us.

I think if a better service releases, Flock will work to support it.

Will now every company create its own version of the browser?

Flickr is not completely stripped from this version, it is just disabled by default. You can still go into the settings and add a flickr account.

@ Simran –

I think if a better service releases, Flock will work to support it.

True, but won’t they always be lagging behind in this way? And how open is Flock - will people be able to integrate support for other sites, or will they have to rely on Flock deciding which sites are up to scratch?

Simran: “I wouldn’t use it. All the Photobucket functionality I need is already built into the regular version of Flock. And I want Flickr.”

Two points about what you said:
1. this is browser is not for you. It’s aimed squarely at the MySpace crowd and Photobucket is their photohosting service of choice.

2. Defaults are important because people don’t bother trying to change it. The Flock team recognizes this. Kudos to them not falling into the trap of keeping Flickr as the default, even though they are more Web 2.0 buzzworthy.

I would love to see a version of Flock that makes MySpace browsing easier. It should auto-subscribe to the MySpace blog feed of everyone on my friend list, include a wysiwyg editor to design my custom overlay, prefetch from the photos page eveytime I land on someone’s profile, and include a “always off” switch so I am not surprised by someone’s music on their page.

This is nuts, for several reasons.

1. If it’s aimed at the Myspace crowd, they’re missing a trick. These are people who largely still use Internet Explorer, because it’s there - why on earth would they suddenly start using Flock as a browser? Most of Flock’s features are aimed at the web 2.0 set.

2. It’s a paid development to strip functionality out. If that’s the case, why call it Flock? Why not the Photobucket Browser or something? Removing capabilities will reflect badly on the Flock brand as a whole, given (as someone pointed out above) its supposed web 2.0, democratic read-write-web leanings. Actually, in that respect, I think Flock is generally lacking; we need, as a community, to be promoting more generic open standards.

“Most of Flock’s features are aimed at the web 2.0 set.”

I believe MySpace users ARE the web 2.0 set. However, I agree that it would be difficult to get them to switch browsers. However, if there’s any service that can start a trend, it’s MySpace, and other companies have succeeded by aiming their tools at that crowd

Anyhow have any sense of the referral revenue Photobucket will get for pushing this download?

I’m not sure what everyone is talking about, this excluding flickr and all. I love flock by the way, and use photobucket almost exclusively anyway so it was no big deal. But then I saw this article and have read the comments and can’t help but add that everyone is jumping to conclusions, and I have to assume, without trying it out!

Here’s why. I had the flock browser already and have been using it since right before the beta released. I upgraded to the photobucket edition and love everything about how it works with that account, but since I couldn’t believe that flock would do something like disable flickr or anything like that, I had to test it out. Just like when you initially set up your accounts on flock to connect to, you can go back and add flickr to your accounts. That’s right, not switch to, not turn on, but add.. In other words, now, I can switch between both photo galleries/services on the fly!

If you ask me, they have 100% done the job right! If you don’t believe me, try it yourself! Come on guys, this is the new browser on the block, at least give it a better test first!

FYI: the revenue generated from search via Google to Firefox is no longer “unsubstantiated”, indeed, one of the Firefox developers was on the Inside the Net podcast recently and confirmed that they make money off of the integrated searching.

Quinn, yeah, its the exact amount that isn’t clear. I think $2-3 per user per year is about right.

If Flock already carries photobucket integration, why the stripped version? This is certainly weird. It’s like IE not allowing yahoo or google toolbars to be installed onto it..

Hey folks, just popping in from vacation to confirm a few things:

Flickr functionality is still in the Photobucket edition browser, but not exposed by default. It doesn’t make sense to confuse Photobucket users when they try out Flock; but we’re not turning off Flickr support in the Photobucket edition either.

Flock has an open API for photo services, because we can’t develop support for every service ourselves. Extension developers will find themselves welcome.

Cheers,

Will Pate
Community Ambassador, Flock

Hey Will if you check back again from your vacation…

can you tell us a bit about the biz arrangement behind this?

Symbiosis, referral revenue, investors in common?

Flocks’ branding of openness will very quickly clear up any confusion about limitation. I am a fan. Smart, useful idea. We ran focus groups around our app, and quickly found out that vast majority of urban teens use Photobucket and don’t even know what Flickr is…for them Photobucket is a synonym for online photos not a limited brand.

I think it’s a smart BD move on Flock’s part, but I don’t really see a lot of people jumping on board regardless. After taking a peek at Flock, I really didn’t see why I would be compelled to switch. The rich text blog editor is great, but that’s one small feature which would have been easier for me as a simple FireFox plugin. The photo stream seemed great at first, but I didn’t really understand the point after I tried using it to subscribe to a friend’s Flickr album (also, since it’s contextual in only certain places, it doesn’t make sense as an entirely new browser).

I also disagree that the MySpace crowd can be classified as “Web 2.0.” The average MySpace user sticks to the mainstream unless wowed by a flashy feature like Rock You.

Flock is great! Its design is genius! And who doesn’t love the Mozilla core

I don’t think a “deal” needs to be in place. Flock is OSS so you can just gut it and replace whatever functionality you want and release it. You might not be able to call it “Flock” due to trademark issues of course.

Kevin

Michael said: “Based on unsubstantiated but largely circulated rumors around Firefox search revenue, the two companies can expect $2-3 per user per year from the partnership.”

Time out now, Michael. On your OWN podcast, with YOU as the interviewer the Flock team told you that $2-3 was the number. While that’s not verified, saying it’s “a largely circulated rumor” paints it in a different light than it really should be.