Anyone else use Photobucket?

[french frank]

I've just used Photobucket here and there are various plans offered ... like $2.99 a month ... but 'embedding' still seems to work for free though the T&Cs claim it won't unless one 'upgrades'.

The emails I received didn't say my account features had been disabled but they 'will be disabled' unless I upgrade (do they instantly know that you're using third party hosting, or do they have to run checks on individual accounts?). Warning emails three days in a row have presumably convinced them that I'm not going to - I didn't get one this morning.

My contribution to their 'free' service was that I got all their adverts. I'm not going to pay for a service I can adequately replace by using material already on the net: people must just do without pictures of my latest attempts to make a pizza.

[Anastasius]

No sympathies. It was a free service so why does anyone expect it to continue? Anyone posting photos on other free hosting sites will probably suffer the same. Yes, it has rendered the content of many forums across the world useless. But paid for accounts cost peanuts. I've been with flickr at 13 cents a day. Hardly breaking the bank.

You get what you pay for.

[P. G. Tipps]

No sympathies. It was a free service so why does anyone expect it to continue? Anyone posting photos on other free hosting sites will probably suffer the same. Yes, it has rendered the content of many forums across the world useless. But paid for accounts cost peanuts. I've been with flickr at 13 cents a day. Hardly breaking the bank.

You get what you pay for.

No point in paying for something if you can get it free ... even with accompanying adverts on a well-sponsored, cash-rich site. You don't get anything extra by paying someone instead to share an occasional photo on a forum.

I don't think anyone here is complaining. Companies offer 'free' services not out of the kindness of their little hearts but because they reckon it pays them to do so. They calculate, no doubt correctly, that a percentage of customers will then choose to 'upgrade' for additional services. If this proves not to be case companies will soon discontinue such 'freebies'.

For those who don't have any need to 'upgrade' it would be rather foolish of them to then consider paying for something and getting absolutely nothing back in return?

As it happens I do pay a decent sum annually for a personal/private photographic website which offers proper professional facilities. I could use that to share on a public forum but I choose not to do so. It's 'horses for courses' really.

[Anastasius]

Well it depends on who you think for whose benefit forums are run. From a purely selfish perspective then, yes, why not go for a free site. After all, you still have your photos. Pity the rest of the forum members for whom the thread you posted detailing, say, how to build something or other has been rendered meaningless.

On the other hand, if you believe in forums for the common good then surely paying a pittance to ensure that your threads and posts are there for the benefit of all isn't too much to ask ?

As far as PB is concerned, they offered a free service to store photos. The upside for them, as you say, is the potential in advertising revenue. However, third-party linking to forums etc does NOT generate them any income. Instead they take a massive hit in their bandwidth for no benefit to them. It is an unsustainable business model.

[P. G. Tipps]

As far as PB is concerned, they offered a free service to store photos. The upside for them, as you say, is the potential in advertising revenue. However, third-party linking to forums etc does NOT generate them any income. Instead they take a massive hit in their bandwidth for no benefit to them. It is an unsustainable business model.

Well, clearly PB now calculates that is the case. It is a question of whether 'taking the hit' is outweighed by greater gains in other areas generated by the 'hit'. For example I (and I assume countless others) only use PB because of this facility.

However if other companies continue to believe the 'hit' is worth it why should I change simply to suit one which now doesn't and then proceed to pay them for the privilege? Each business acts in its own 'selfish' interests and attempts to garner as much revenue from the customer as is realistically possible. I have no problem with that at all. That's business.

'Selfishness' is hardly a crime in any business transaction. In fact it is the driving force of any deal on both (or all) sides. I'm certainly no different!

[Anastasius]

And the 'greater good' can go swivel ?

I'm a moderator on a woodworking forum and at a stroke many of our threads have been rendered useless.

[french frank]

No sympathies. It was a free service so why does anyone expect it to continue? Anyone posting photos on other free hosting sites will probably suffer the same. Yes, it has rendered the content of many forums across the world useless. But paid for accounts cost peanuts. I've been with flickr at 13 cents a day. Hardly breaking the bank.

You get what you pay for.

That does lose the point that many of these free-to-user services are supported by adverts; you can pay not to see them, too.

I wasn't asking for sympathy - or criticising Photobucket (though I wasn't aware they'd changed their T&Cs: if they were able to email me to encourage me to pay out $399.99 a year, they could have emailed me to say they were changing their Terms). I was asking about alternatives.

You get what you pay for.

Indeed. But an inessential service which might be used half a dozen times a year isn't worth paying for.

Ed: Just seen the point about taking a 'massive hit' by the expanded bandwidth. I didn't think that was how it worked. For each registered user using the 'free service' they surely get a payment from the advertisers instead? For those users who pay not to see the adverts they get nothing.

[Dave2002]

Ed: Just seen the point about taking a 'massive hit' by the expanded bandwidth. I didn't think that was how it worked. For each registered user using the 'free service' they surely get a payment from the advertisers instead? For those users who pay not to see the adverts they get nothing.

That's a very interesting point. If someone who pays doesn't get adverts - and also nobody who accesses their photos when looking at those photos gets adverts, then the hit could be large. The point there is that someone who (for example) produces very good photos may not wish their photos to be seen by anybody in conjunction with adverts.

[jayne lee wilson]

I much prefer the rather more cynical, non-PC type of Scottish feline which wisely gives humans a very wide berth ...



I've just used Photobucket here and there are various plans offered ... like $2.99 a month ... but 'embedding' still seems to work for free though the T&Cs claim it won't unless one 'upgrades'.

The mysterious wonders of management policies ... American as well as British it seems. On this occasion at least I welcome and vigorously applaud it ...

A glorious animal indeed......

My own Norwegian companion is smaller and long-haired, but maintains the same fierce wild pride in her gaze. She also has exclusive control of her own image rights, so - "no photos please".