Page 1 of 1

The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:56 pm
by huckleberrypie
Anyone heard of this lately? For some reason the image host has, in a rather boneheaded move, decided to charge users $400 for the ability to embed images to forums and other sites.

Unsurprisingly, this doesn't bode well with those who had stuff uploaded on said host for a long time, and rendered most images on various websites null and void due to the sudden change. While I do understand that running a file or media host with millions of users is a major undertaking, calling for immense space and bandwidth to carry most if not all, slapping such a huge fee without even warning users or going through a transition period is draconian, plain and simple. And yet Imgur seems to be fine and dandy with all them memes and so on, just as the post abides by their rules.

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:10 am
by Exophase
First I'd heard of it but $399/year sounds like a highly questionable price point. That's about four times what a Netflix subscription costs, and I can't imagine that anyone beyond a tiny minority finds Photobucket sharing to be even remotely close to the same value. At best I could see them snagging a few corporate accounts, but not because there aren't much cheaper alternatives but because some companies may be locked in to the point where it'd be more expensive to migrate to something else.

Since you can still see the images with non-embedded links the entire thing will probably be quickly defeated with browser add-ons or forum/social media software workarounds..

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:33 am
by huckleberrypie
Exophase wrote:First I'd heard of it but $399/year sounds like a highly questionable price point. That's about four times what a Netflix subscription costs, and I can't imagine that anyone beyond a tiny minority finds Photobucket sharing to be even remotely close to the same value. At best I could see them snagging a few corporate accounts, but not because there aren't much cheaper alternatives but because some companies may be locked in to the point where it'd be more expensive to migrate to something else.

Since you can still see the images with non-embedded links the entire thing will probably be quickly defeated with browser add-ons or forum/social media software workarounds..

I'd rather build a PC or spend it on something more important than fork it on a site notorious for intrusive ads. And I'm not sure if weaseling around Photobucket's restrictions would do the trick assuming that they went to lengths to make sure that no leeching takes place.

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:00 pm
by ericbazinga
I usually just use my Google Drive to store photos, so i'm good.

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:01 pm
by huckleberrypie
ericbazinga wrote:I usually just use my Google Drive to store photos, so i'm good.


Except your Google Drive space is limited to 16GB, shared with your Gmail and other services unless you upgrade to a premium tier. :P

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:02 am
by Jay Haru
huckleberrypie wrote:
ericbazinga wrote:I usually just use my Google Drive to store photos, so i'm good.


Except your Google Drive space is limited to 16GB, shared with your Gmail and other services unless you upgrade to a premium tier. :P

16 gb is plenty. its not like you have to upload every pic of your American girl fetish or every random crap for that matter :twisted:

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:05 am
by huckleberrypie
I'm actually using the service for sending work-related crap to clients, e.g. graphic design stuff or related jobs. Heck, practically all of it has absolutely nothing to do with AG or similar.

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:57 am
by Jay Haru
huckleberrypie wrote:I'm actually using the service for sending work-related crap to clients, e.g. graphic design stuff or related jobs. Heck, practically all of it has absolutely nothing to do with AG or similar.

i actually quit using it a while back (like... 5-6 years ago?) cant remember the reason... I usually send images as attachments when i used to work as a secretary or use some czech uploading site to send bigger files.

Re: The Photobucket debacle.

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:51 am
by huckleberrypie
Jay Haru wrote:
huckleberrypie wrote:I'm actually using the service for sending work-related crap to clients, e.g. graphic design stuff or related jobs. Heck, practically all of it has absolutely nothing to do with AG or similar.

i actually quit using it a while back (like... 5-6 years ago?) cant remember the reason... I usually send images as attachments when i used to work as a secretary or use some czech uploading site to send bigger files.

Though knowing the client's proficiency with computers, I basically have no choice but to stick to attachments. I could get away with Dropbox, but eh...