|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 62
426
« on: September 26, 2014, 13:14 »
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan. It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off. The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
427
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:48 »
I have posted a note about this on the subs thread at iS in the hope that perhaps they will have another look at the copy and layout.
428
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:14 »
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.
429
« on: September 26, 2014, 11:04 »
If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.
It's 129 for a single one-off 1 month. That's 129 for 250 images. According to Sue's post the customer was concerned that the cheapest they can get 30-40 images is 224.75 at iStock vs a minimum spend of 139 at Shutterstock. But the actual figure is 129. So it's cost less at iStock.
430
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:40 »
... It seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page).
As I posted above, it's not at all easy to find.
It would definitely be a good to see all of the pricing options on one page. So I guess I sort of agree. That said, the as low as 99 headline offer is in great big letters and difficult not to notice.
431
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:55 »
Still - why didn't the mod point out the better iS deal?
Lets hope that someone from customer relations contacted the client directly. Assuming the post was not simply someone indignation-trolling for the sake of (it seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page). Wow those 1 month subs are cheap.
432
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:28 »
I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal. It's at Plans & pricing -- click on Choose plan.
433
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:13 »
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is 224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is 139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
That does not seem to make sense - since a one time Essentials subscription valid for 1 month would give them 250 images and costs only 129.
434
« on: September 26, 2014, 08:04 »
Bunhill - How do you request reimbursment?
Presumably (I don't know), contact them identifying yourself as the copyright holder, referencing this thread and including any screenshots you have which which include your original content pirated at their site. Ask them to detail any sales and send you the money. The Google cached version of the page with your image is currently here. You should quickly grab a screenshot of that whilst it is still there.
435
« on: September 26, 2014, 07:24 »
LOL but true
Why LOL ? It's your content they have been selling. They should give you the money. IIRC (and I think it stated on this forum) Shutterstock do that when they find they have been selling pirated content.
436
« on: September 26, 2014, 06:29 »
I got a notice from Canstockphoto saying they have barred the contributor.
They should give you the proceeds from any sales - including what they made themselves.
437
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:16 »
To their credit, DPC has been doing a nice job of responding to disgruntled iStock customers on Twitter and inviting them over to try DPC.
That's cheap of them.
438
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:50 »
If the OP's guess as to the strategy is correct, I think iStock's barking up the wrong tree.
It clearly isn't. The free images thing is very obviously about experimenting with different models and exploring different platforms within a licensing context in which rights are effectively sandboxed.
439
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:45 »
I also don't like the credits from a customer standpoint. It's like they're trying to hide something.
They're not 'trying' to hide something, it's deliberately obfuscatory.
Credit packs, like subscriptions, make good practical sense in most user cases. The people using the pictures are very often not going to have permanent hands-on use of the company plastic. Maybe there is still a case for a credit pack which addresses the needs of people who only need occasional web sized images. Only the people analysing the company numbers know how much that business is still worth today. My guess would be that most people requiring large amounts of web images are going to be better served by subscription. As always, I doubt that social media noise is a representative cross section of actual opinion and sentiment.
440
« on: September 17, 2014, 13:11 »
I'd better hang on to my Leica R4s Mod P and Summicron lenses, then.
I cannot see the R series ever being especially collectible. The ii, iii and m series cameras and lenses are what people collect (but not the M5 !). Especially in China, where all the money is, and Japan. And as well as collectors, the market for the LTM and M lenses is further kept buoyant by their compatibility with digital. The rangefinders are what people think of with Leica. As well as all of the famous pictures shot using those cameras - there are many classic pictures of famous people using those cameras. In that sense it is also a design icon. The R lenses are currently holding their value though because they can be used with mirrorless cameras and for cinematography. The bodies have relatively little value. And I cannot see that increasing because they are not classics. 1960s and 70s Nikkormats might be quite collectible.
441
« on: September 17, 2014, 08:59 »
As well a producing great work cameras - Leica have a long tradition of producing very expensive limited editions. Eg this gold 1932 Leica ii. Similar model sold in the recent Westlicht auction for 312,000. I love the Westlicht auctions. Have a look at lot 22 in that auction (Leica 2500GG w. Leica-Motor MOOEV) which sold for 576,000. Just in case there is any confusion between European and American use of comma vs point - yes that's over 1/2 million.
442
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:28 »
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro. That was a pre Facebook, pre iPhone, pre YouTube world. Once upon a time, when fast internet and digital cameras were new. Little shops and church groups do not need vanity websites or blogs today. The social media is a much more effective way for them to communicate. And they can get the content they need shared and 'liked' via their 'friends'.
444
« on: September 13, 2014, 05:11 »
Do I want to be monitored by someone else? I know, I don't care about cameras, traffic or street or stores. NSA and FBI can read my mail, I don't mind, but would I willingly give an insurance company my data, so they could potentially raise my rates? I think that this sort of health stat monitoring (including what we eat and drink) will become normal. Not just via Apple. Most people will ask why they should pay the same for their insurance as someone who is, say, overweight, drinks too much, smokes or never takes exercise. I am not advocating this - but I think it will arrive gradually, inevitably. My guess is that it will typically be a scheme which you can join - which the insurance company will offer in return for lower rates. What next, grocery store link to what we buy, reported via the phone, so they can track out eating habits? I'm not in favor. How about a car monitor that watches my driving habits and they raise my rates based on that. Anyone who uses a store card, plastic or shops online is already contributing their buying habits to the data which is known about them and which is available to buy. Unless you constantly use cash that data can probably already provide good information about what you are eating. Cash is gradually being phased out. In many countries your car insurance rates will already be based on your driving history. Data from the car is an inevitable next step. (That heart rate app you referenced works by you putting your finger on the camera. It's different from something which monitors and records your heart beat.)
445
« on: September 12, 2014, 14:51 »
It's more trendy and fashion and not really functional or practical at this point.
Apart from everything else, it's a health and fitness monitor. In that respect it's a sensor which can then be linked to apps running on our computers (for most people their iPhone is increasingly going to be their personal computer). So it has potential immediate utility with respect to many people's sport/fitness/exercise routines - many of which will already today involve iPhone apps. I would also expect to see the data it provides being made optionally available over time to our healthcare providers - and, perhaps more importantly, our insurance companies. I think we can look toward a day when the amount of data we provide affects the cost of our premiums. (And if you step out of line or think something negative it will know - and it will zap you).
446
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:37 »
Apple should be fashion company.
They've recently hired senior execs from Burberry and YSL.
447
« on: September 10, 2014, 14:04 »
Wonder what the price on it will be.
Entry level will be $349. It was in the keynote. I will wait until they make it so it's a watch/phone in one thing. Personally I would not want to wear an RF device with the power of a cellphone against my body. Especially if I was in a weak coverage area and the thing was trying to get a signal. The watch by contrast is presumably bluetooth le which is very lower power.
448
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:49 »
I can definitely imagine using it for sport etc. Especially when running and exercising in general. Health and fitness is clearly going to be a big market. There are already very good iPhone apps aimed at sports such as the various couch to 5k programs - also Endomondo and the skiing and cycling trackers. Am also very interested in experimenting with developing for it. The latest version of Xcode 6 out today does not yet include support the watch as a development target.
Personally I love analog watches. My favourite timepiece currently is a steel 1961 Omega Constellation with a nicely stitched leather strap. Just spent all my pocket money having it serviced and cleaned. But I really like how understated it is compared with most mens' watches today. I cannot imagine that an Apple watch will still have any value or be worth servicing more than 50 years from now.
449
« on: September 05, 2014, 12:37 »
I think the reason it hasn't made a bigger splash here is that almost no one uses Bing 
Bing has slightly under 20% of search. That's huge in terms of revenue. Also powers Yahoo which is still the front page of the web for many people (as odd as that seems today). I keep hearing from people I trust that they increasingly prefer Bing. Personally - I find that I use search less and less.
450
« on: September 04, 2014, 17:18 »
That bolded statement is only true if you look for full sized images
Broadly means broadly. It doesn't mean in every single instance.
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
