Questions, and Opinions, About Flickr

My column this week about the new, revised Flickr has generated plenty of responses from readers.

When researching the column, I read thousands upon thousands of complaints from users of Flickr, the online photo gallery, trying to pin down what, exactly, their beef was. Unfortunately, a huge majority just said, “I hate the changes,” without indicating specifically why.

As noted in the column, the largest population of offended Flickr fans consists of professional photographers. They deeply object to the friendlier, less technical presentation of photos. Here's one example:

“When you click a photo to open it, the photo now has a black background instead of white. If the photo has lots of black in it, you can no longer see clearly where the edges are.”

Well, fine - but couldn't you argue that the old presentation (white background) presented the same problem with photos that were mostly white?

In any case, it seems as though it would be easy enough for Yahoo to give members a choice (black, white, gray), and put this one to bed.

Here's another comment: “One thing I don't understand at all: the new mechanism for assigning a key photo (a representative thumbnail) to a photo set. On Picasa, it's really simple and works really well. On Flickr, you never know what the result will be; when you center the representative photo in the little frame, that's not what you'll actually see when you view the set. It's often chopped off at the top.”

True enough. It's a dumb bug. Yahoo should fix it.

And then, there's this complaint: “I can no longer download a photo.”

Yes, actually, you can. It's not much simpler than it was before, though. Click to open a photo. Right-click it; from the shortcut menu, choose one of the “View all sizes” options (like “Original”). Now you see the “Download the Original size of this photo” link, which you can click to begin the download.

And this: “The dispute with Flickr on the part of users has to do with the rug being pulled out from under us.”

It seems clear that the suddenness of the switch is causing some of Flickr's member unhappiness. When Facebook or Gmail changes its layout, for example, there's often a transitional period where you can adopt or reject the new design. But that's not so in this case.

That's probably because the auto-renewing Pro members get to keep their unlimited storage. If people had known the change in policy was coming, they would have rushed to sign up for that deal. And clearly, Yahoo would prefer that most people to sign up for the one-terabyte free account instead.

“If Flickr's free one terabyte of storage is such a big deal to you, why didn't you mention Shutterfly? It offers unlimited free storage!”

Holy cow - because I didn't know that!

Shutterfly is aimed more at letting you turn your photos into prints, mugs, mouse pads and other personal goodies than at serving as a social network for photo fans (like Flickr). But in terms of the storage deal, you certainly can't beat unlimited and free.

Finally, I was amused and surprised by the number of readers who e-mailed sentiments like this:

“What offends me most is that you presented your OPINION as though it's FACT. You've written your own bias in a news story.”

To me, it seems that some people fundamentally don't understand the function of a critic. Drama critics, movie critics, restaurant critics, music critics, tech critics - all of us, it seems to me - are hired specifically to present our opinions.

I would never describe my weekly columns as “news stories,” even if there's sometimes a news element. They are reviews meant to guide readers toward products that, in my opinion, are good or bad.

You can certainly disagree with a critic. Sometimes, knowing that you almost always disagree with a certain critic is just as helpful in guiding your buying decisions as always agreeing.

But in the end, a reviewer is entitled to like the new Flickr just as much as longtime photographers are entitled to hate it.

Either way, the incredibly generous amount of free storage on Flickr (one terabyte) and attractive new presentation of the photos are worth a look - and the substantive complaints of the Flickerati are worth listening to. That means you, Yahoo.

Making Windows 8 Better

Windows 8 has been something of a flop. It's selling even worse than the much-loathed Windows Vista did, and the entire PC industry is feeling the pain.

Microsoft is listening. It's hard at work on Windows 8.1, which it says will be much better. It's expected this October.

You can see a video of Windows 8.1's highlights. As you'll discover, there's not much new in Windows 8 - just the tiniest tweaks. Incredibly, forehead-slappingly, Microsoft seems to be completely ignoring the two elephants in the room. It won't bring back the Start menu (you'll still have to install one of the free third-party Start-menu-restoration apps), and it won't split up the desktop and TileWorld environments.

Yes, two. To understand these two halves of Windows 8, you can read my review. But the gist is this:

“TileWorld is fantastic for touch screens… Conversely, Desktop Windows is obviously designed for the mouse. Most of the menus, window controls and buttons are too small for finger operation. Unfortunately, in Windows 8, you can't live exclusively in one world or the other.”

Each of the two environments, on its own, is very good for its intended purpose; Microsoft's big mistake was to mash them together. The solution, I wrote, is simple:

“You know what would have been perfect? Keeping the two operating systems separate. Put TileWorld and its universe of new touch screen apps on tablets. Put Windows 8 on mouse-and-keyboard PCs. Presto: all the confusion would evaporate. And the good work Microsoft did on both of these individual operating systems would shine.”

That was more or less a pie-in-the-sky suggestion. I didn't really think that Microsoft would take it seriously, after having put so many millions of dollars and hours into creating and marketing this FrankenOS in the first place. Best case, I figured, Microsoft might have the chance to split up the two systems in a couple of years - in Windows 9, for example. Or maybe Microsoft was counting on the mouse and keyboard and the desktop to go away entirely, leaving only TileWorld (formerly known as Metro) to soldier on.

But this week, InfoWorld took the radical step of analyzing Windows 8 and figuring out how it really could be fixed - in this fall's Windows 8.1.

Now, InfoWorld isn't some general-interest publication for consumers. Its mission statement doesn't include striving to be entertaining, as mine does. It's for hard-core technology professionals - system administrators, network geeks.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that the first item in InfoWorld's “How to Fix Windows 8” feature was this:

“Eliminate the duality of Metro and Desktop on every device. They don't work well together, and shouldn't be mixed together. Instead, PCs run a modified version of the Desktop and tablets run a modified version of Metro.”

It made me think: What, realistically, would the downside be of busting up Windows 8 into its two component environments, to be installed separately?

Well, part of the problem is that there are now two categories of software programs. Category 1: the four million existing Windows desktop programs (Photoshop, Quicken, iTunes, and so on). Category 2: the new breed of TileWorld apps, like iPad apps - full-screen, no menus, no overlapping windows, generally simpler than desktop apps. What happens to all those apps?

InfoWorld suggests that in Windows 8.1, TileWorld apps would run in their own windows on the desktop, so you'd really lose nothing. In fact, you'd gain something: the ability to run them alongside your desktop apps without having to switch into a different environment.

But what about Microsoft Office? Right now, these are desktop apps that don't have TileWorld versions. If you had a tablet (which would run TileWorld), how would you run Office?

InfoWorld suggests that Microsoft should cook up a TileWorld version of Office. Problem solved.

What about the learning curve? Now you'd have two operating systems to learn: one on your touch-screen device (Windows TileWorld) and one on your laptop (Windows Desktop).

Well, actually, guess what? In Windows 8, you have to learn them both anyway. If Microsoft split up the two operating systems, you'd have to learn only one version of Windows. You'd have to learn both only if you owned two machines, one touch-screen and one not - and that, as iPad owners have discovered, is really no big deal.

I have a feeling that InfoWorld was, in part, going for blue-sky, headline-grabbing thinking here. (For example, it calls its hypothetical Windows 8.1 “Windows Red,” a spoof of Windows 8.1's actual code name, “Windows Blue.”) Did the editors there really imagine that corporate, slow-moving, conservative old Microsoft would take a step as radical as busting up Windows 8?

Who knows? What matters is that the idea is out there. It's solid. It's doable. The only serious downside to splitting up Windows is the huge servings of crow and humble pie that Microsoft would have to consume.

But you know what? Ask the makers of New Coke, or Apple Maps. Sometimes, the best thing for your customers and your company is to admit you've committed a colossal blunder - and set to work undoing it.

Concerns About Dashlane, and Answers

In my column in Thursday's paper, I reviewed Dashlane, a very cool, free program that automatically enters your names, passwords, credit card information and other details on Web sites.

As usual when something terrific and free comes along, many readers' primary reaction was suspicion, sometimes verging on paranoia. When the topic is as touchy as privacy, well, multiply that by 10.

Here are some of the most frequently e-mailed concerns about Dashlane - and their answers:

You forgot to explain what we can do to recover our passwords when our laptop disk crashes, or the Dashlane program itself gets corrupted.

That's not a Dashlane question. That's a “Why don't you back up your computer?” question. If you don't back up, you should probably subscribe to the $20-a-year Dashlane Premium, which backs up your password stash online, automatically. Or, worst case, you could go to each Web site and click the “I forgot my password” link. The site sends you a temporary new password by e-mail.

What happens if someone steals my laptop? Now they have access to all my Web sites.

As noted in the column, you can't use Dashlane without entering the master password each day. So your password collection would be useless to a thief. But you can also remotely disable the stolen laptop's copy of Dashlane at Dashlane.com. Any access to your data from this device will then be denied.

My wife and I share a computer. We have separate user names for bank, credit card, airline and other accounts. How does Dashlane differentiate multiple user names for the same Web site?

As noted in the column, Dashlane can store multiple name/password combinations for each site. When you arrive at the log in page, Dashlane offers a simple list. Click the one you want.

How does Dashlane make money? You should have addressed this question.

As noted in the column, Dashlane charges $20 a year for the premium plan. (And by the way: I don't object to Dashlane charging. I would, however, prefer a one-time fee, like most software, to an annual fee forever.)

They don't have iPad app? I know I can use the iPhone app on iPad, but it's annoying.

Yes, the Dashlane iPad app should be out soon.

When I die, how will my wife or kids get to all my accounts, especially the financial ones?

You could share the master password with your wife and children. Worst case, again, your survivors could use the “I forgot my password” link on each Web site.

What happens if one uses more than one computer? For example, I have a PC at work and a couple of Macs at home.

If you sign up for Dashlane Premium ($20 a year), your password vault is synched across all your Macs, PCs, iPhones and Android phones. Alternatively, you could install the free copy on each machine, and just export your password collection from one computer to the other, using the steps on the Dashlane Web site.

I like LastPass! I like Roboform! I like 1Password! Don't make me feel threatened by liking Dashlane!

(I'm paraphrasing your questions here.) For various reasons, I think Dashlane is better (it's free; it works on your phone too; it requires fewer steps to use; it's much nicer looking). But you should use whichever program you prefer.

How can we be absolutely, 100 percent certain that Dashlane is itself 100 percent secure? They say they don't have access to our passwords, but couldn't they be lying?

There is no way to know 100 percent. There is also no way to be 100 percent sure that your phone company isn't listening in to your calls, that your credit company isn't laughing at your list of purchases, that your G.P.S. device isn't tracking your every move, that your house isn't bugged, that the government isn't slowly poisoning you, or that aliens aren't puppeteering you from distant planets.

You could take comfort in knowing that if a company really were accessing your secrets, and that behavior came to light, the company would be out of business instantly. You might also take comfort that no bank or credit card company will hold you responsible for purchases made by someone who stole your numbers. Otherwise, if this sort of thing plagues you, you have two choices: take a deep breath, have a modicum of faith and live life - or renounce technology and move to the Amish country.

S.L.R. Advantages at Half the Size

Longtime Pogue readers already know that I'm a huge fan of Sony's recent cameras. This company came out of nowhere - well, out of something like seventh place - to seize the leadership of the industry where it counts: in sensor size.

The bigger the sensor chip in your camera, the better and sharper the low-light pictures. The less blur. The better the color. The more likely you are to get that professional soft-focus background look.

In pocket cameras, there's still nothing that can touch the amazing Sony RX-100. It's expensive, but its sensor dwarfs all of its rivals.

In interchangeable-lens cameras, Sony has made tremendous progress with its NEX family. These are, for all practical purposes, single-lens reflex cameras: huge sensors (APS-C size, same size as in the Canon Rebel line), swappable lenses. Yet somehow, Sony has managed to shrink these cameras to about half the size of the smallest S.L.R. You can easily slip an NEX into your coat pocket, with the lens on.

For the last few months, I've been carrying around the NEX-6 ($650, body only), which is in the middle of the line. (Through June 22, it's $800 with lens, case and memory card.) Unlike the cheaper NEX cameras, it has a built-in flash, a built-in eyepiece viewfinder and a flip-out screen, so you can shoot low-down shots or up-high shots.

In essence, the NEX-6 is a less expensive version of the top-of-the-line NEX-7 ($950, body only). In fact, the 6 has a feature the 7 lacks: Wi-Fi, which lets you zap fresh photos over to your iPhone or Android phone for instant sending. You can also use your phone as a remote viewfinder, or as a remote trigger. I tried out the iPhone Wi-Fi app, called PlayMemories Mobile. It's a little clunky to set up, but it works. (Basically, the camera acts as a Wi-Fi hot spot, to which you connect your phone. At that point, the latter controls the former.)

A few other apps are available, too. A free one lets you post directly from the camera to Facebook over a Wi-Fi hot spot; a $10 one adds time-lapse movie creation.

The NEX-6 also has a newer autofocus system that focuses almost instantaneously in good light, and in maybe half a second in dimmer scenes.

It's been an extraordinary year of events and travel for me, and this camera has been fantastic. It's small enough that it's always with me, but it's camera enough that it rarely lets you down. I've posted a selection of NEX-6 samples on Flickr.

As you flip through them, you'll see a few of the NEX family's specialties:

Low light. With a typical pocket camera, you'll get blur if you try to shoot nighttime street scenes without a tripod. This one does fine.

Soft-focus backgrounds. A big sensor and large aperture make possible this classic photographic effect - one that small cameras usually can't achieve.

Crazy wide-angles. I've written before about how transformative Sony's Sweep Panorama feature is. Now becoming common (it's even built into the iPhone, for example), it lets you swing the camera in an arc to capture a huge wide panorama. But if you turn the camera 90 degrees, you get a huge tall photo that doesn't seem like a panorama at all - just a sweeping, amazing vista, as though you had the world's widest-angle lens.

Food, people, critters, landscapes, and architecture all benefit from these features. Battery life is 360 shots, which is excellent for a mirrorless compact like this one. You charge it over a USB cable, although you can buy a dedicated charger for $60.

There are some things that need fixing. Here we are, in something like the sixth generation of these cameras, and Sony is still using a ridiculously awkward menu system. I wish the screen would flip all the way forward, so you could use it for self-portraits. I wish you didn't have to switch between Photo Playback and Movie Playback modes. Why can't movies and stills be mixed together, as they are on any other camera?

I used the 16-50mm power-zoom lens (about 3X zoom), which is remarkable for the way it collapses flat when the camera is turned off. It does a beautiful job of zooming while you're filming, quietly and smoothly. But I really wish it didn't distort anybody standing near the edges of the frame.

But in general, this is an extremely rewarding camera that occupies an impressive spot on the size/quality spectrum. Over time, you develop a trust of a camera like this, an emotional bond: “I'm having an experience I want to remember, and I know you're not going to let me down.” Sony is most definitely on the right track.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 13, 2013

An earlier version of this post referred incorrectly to the aperture feature that makes possible soft-focus backgrounds. It is a large aperture, not small.