RIP Photobucket...
Discussion
Interesting article here - http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/16/photobucket-f...
TL;DR:
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
TL;DR:
- Yes they're in trouble
- Apparently enough have paid up already for the exercise to be worthwhile
- There's a change.org petition, link in the article
- imgur T&Cs actually forbid third-party linking so they could well pull a similar stunt in due course
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
Some Guy said:
Dont know why everyone is deleting their photos from Photof
kit. Thats exactly what they want you to do.
Far better to leave them there and use their storage space. Also cost them money in bandwidth showing their crappy 100% images. Dont get mad, get even.
No, they want you to pay $400. They don't give a toss about your photos, which will disappear along with the owners when it goes bust imminently.kit. Thats exactly what they want you to do.Far better to leave them there and use their storage space. Also cost them money in bandwidth showing their crappy 100% images. Dont get mad, get even.
8bit said:
Interesting article here - http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/16/photobucket-f...
TL;DR:
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
It's interesting to hear that they have had reasonable uptake on the $399/annum subs. Sadly I can only assume that this is people that feel they have been held to ransom. 1000's of images spread wide around the internet, so potentially hundreds of hours to move to another host. Not likely to be a long lasting winning formula but I guess it depends what the competition do next. TL;DR:
- Yes they're in trouble
- Apparently enough have paid up already for the exercise to be worthwhile
- There's a change.org petition, link in the article
- imgur T&Cs actually forbid third-party linking so they could well pull a similar stunt in due course
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
Gad-Westy said:
It's interesting to hear that they have had reasonable uptake on the $399/annum subs. Sadly I can only assume that this is people that feel they have been held to ransom. 1000's of images spread wide around the internet, so potentially hundreds of hours to move to another host. Not likely to be a long lasting winning formula but I guess it depends what the competition do next.
What will be particularly interesting is to see how many renew that subscription in a year's time, or whether they spend the next year migrating to another service and then ditch PhotoBucket in a year's time. 
I know what I'd be doing. 
8bit said:
Interesting article here - http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/16/photobucket-f...
TL;DR:
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
I think this is the likely scenario.TL;DR:
- Yes they're in trouble
- Apparently enough have paid up already for the exercise to be worthwhile
- There's a change.org petition, link in the article
- imgur T&Cs actually forbid third-party linking so they could well pull a similar stunt in due course
The private individuals using it for forum threads and the like? Almost like they don't want them there - they just use bandwidth and storage costs and generate no revenue. If they wanted to retain those members they'd have had a two-tier system, where commercial organisations pay the $399/year fee and private individuals and non-profit organisations pay a much smaller fee.
Likely all other sites will follow the same, once one does they all will (and with Imgur's revised T&C's clearly it looks like that won't be an alternative for long!!)
There will likely be no free/cheap sites soon for hosting photos for 3rd party linking.
It will be a case of pay whatever they want or pay to host your own.
Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 18th July 17:36
aeropilot said:
There will likely be no free/cheap sites soon for hosting photos for 3rd party linking.
It will be a case of pay whatever they want or pay to host your own.
So much for having all of our "stuff" in the cloud. It would seem that vendors are convincing to do this with the intent of holding our "stuff" hostage in the future. If this is the case, "the cloud" is going to develop a massive "trust" issue. It will be a case of pay whatever they want or pay to host your own.
So said:
RBH58 said:
So much for having all of our "stuff" in the cloud. It would seem that vendors are convincing to do this with the intent of holding our "stuff" hostage in the future. If this is the case, "the cloud" is going to develop a massive "trust" issue.
Agreed.My own (admittedly limited) experience of "cloud" hosting is that it appears to be a crock of st. The concept seems to be that instead of all your stuff sitting on one server somewhere it's shared across multiple servers in a "cluster", the idea being that if one of them dies then the others pick up the slack and your stuff is still accessible. Maybe I've just been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of sites I regularly visit are now using Cloudflare and it's like being back in the 90s again with 404s and 500s showing up everywhere along with patronising pictures showing me that my end of the connection is working fine but at their end they have no connection to the host server. Database-y stuff in particular seems to suffer a lot. 
t. The concept seems to be that instead of all your stuff sitting on one server somewhere it's shared across multiple servers in a "cluster", the idea being that if one of them dies then the others pick up the slack and your stuff is still accessible. Maybe I've just been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of sites I regularly visit are now using Cloudflare and it's like being back in the 90s again with 404s and 500s showing up everywhere along with patronising pictures showing me that my end of the connection is working fine but at their end they have no connection to the host server. Database-y stuff in particular seems to suffer a lot. NoIP said:
My own (admittedly limited) experience of "cloud" hosting is that it appears to be a crock of st. The concept seems to be that instead of all your stuff sitting on one server somewhere it's shared across multiple servers in a "cluster", the idea being that if one of them dies then the others pick up the slack and your stuff is still accessible. Maybe I've just been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of sites I regularly visit are now using Cloudflare and it's like being back in the 90s again with 404s and 500s showing up everywhere along with patronising pictures showing me that my end of the connection is working fine but at their end they have no connection to the host server. Database-y stuff in particular seems to suffer a lot.
Cloud hosting brings both benefits and drawbacks.t. The concept seems to be that instead of all your stuff sitting on one server somewhere it's shared across multiple servers in a "cluster", the idea being that if one of them dies then the others pick up the slack and your stuff is still accessible. Maybe I've just been unlucky but I've noticed a lot of sites I regularly visit are now using Cloudflare and it's like being back in the 90s again with 404s and 500s showing up everywhere along with patronising pictures showing me that my end of the connection is working fine but at their end they have no connection to the host server. Database-y stuff in particular seems to suffer a lot. SpamCan said:
I wouldn't put anything on an internet service that I didn't have backed up at home unless I was prepaired to lose it for good.
Ah but there's the rub. Only certain things can be backed up. You can keep backups of the photos you post to Flickr, but not all the metadata associated with them - especially comments, faves, etc. Were Flickr to fold, I would still have my photos, although as someone posted earlier, I may not know exactly which of the thousands of pics I have locally are the ones I posted to Flickr so I would suffer a loss (or at least an inconvenience). I would also lose all the views, faves, and comments. I'd also lose the keywords I associated with the pics when I posted them to Flickr. It would be like trying to say that you should back up your seller ranking and feedback on eBay.
However, I totally agree with your point - everything that you put on the cloud should be backed up locally to the greatest extent possible.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff