Photobucket.

Upcoming events, lights, tripods, camera bags and other topics that don't fit within one of the other categories.
LarryD
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:29 pm
x 4
x 1
Contact:

Photobucket.

Post by LarryD » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:23 pm

I don't know how many of you use it but we have room over at Flickr for you refugees. That said it could cause problems here too.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40492668
If we all saw the world the same no one would need a camera.

User avatar
melek
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:04 pm
x 10
x 10
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by melek » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:34 am

I think that what happened is that Photobucket felt that a large number of commercial resellers were using its service to host images, and the new pricing plans are aimed directly at them.

However, the new "Plus" plans really impact its users who only used the service to share photos. Only the $399.99/year plan allows linking to and embedding of images, which feels really outrageous.

So, in an effort to go after commercial resellers to try to get them to pay a fair amount, Photobucket has ensnared most of its casual users in the same net. And they aren't happy.

Plus, suspending/locking the free accounts of those who surpass the 2GB limit until they upgrade to a paid account is pretty much the "ransomware" approach.

This is rapidly turning into a big public relations nightmare for the company.
-Mike Elek

User avatar
Philip
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:24 pm
x 11
x 1
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by Philip » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:28 pm

It is too bad about Photobucket. I have used it longer than Flickr (which I've used since 2005). But, for me, they serve different purposes. My Flickr account gets individual pictures, but my Photobucket one gets, or used to get, groups of pictures, like all the pictures on an experimental roll of 110, etc. It hasn't been easy to use for a while, and I miss it for that sort of stuff. I certainly would not pay for it though!

.
My Flickrs: http://www.flickr.com/flipflik (recent postings), or
- http://www.flickriver.com/photos/flipfl ... teresting/ (Flickr's calculation of my "most interesting" pics);
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/flipflik/s ... 879115542/ (what I like best).

PFMcFarland
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:02 pm
x 67
x 16
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by PFMcFarland » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:15 pm

So, what happens to all the photos that people abandon on Photobucket because they won't pay that ridiculous fee? Will Photobucket claim them as their own then, and sell the images? Something to ponder.

PF
Waiting for the light

Julio1fer
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:31 pm
x 2
x 9
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by Julio1fer » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:50 pm

FWIW, I have the cheapest paid account in Photobucket, which supposedly does not allow 3rd party hosting, only no ads. So far I have not been held for ransom, but I am quickly downloading all the pictures I got there and will switch as soon as I can, maybe even before.

What a stupid business move. They are going to be out of business in a few weeks unless they reverse course. Who is going to use this service if you cannot trust it?

LarryD
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:29 pm
x 4
x 1
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by LarryD » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:01 pm

It is what they do. I just renewed my Yahoo Pro Let me see what happens. Maybe you hit the nail here. Just a little money is what they need but then again so many abusing the system that the 80's made free.
If we all saw the world the same no one would need a camera.

User avatar
melek
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:04 pm
x 10
x 10
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by melek » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:01 pm

I think what's happened is that a large number of Chinese sellers on Amazon and eBay were using Photobucket to store product photos. But it's not so much the storage of the photos as it is the bandwidth that is used to serve those photos. If you have maybe 50 merchants selling 50 products each on eBay and Amazon, you can see how the bandwidth of serving these photos could skyrocket quickly, merely because of the number of times that each of these pages were viewed.

If you ask me, Photobucket was really trying to make these sellers pay up, but they just applied a blanket policy across all of their users. Bad idea. It seems like a knee-jerk reaction.
-Mike Elek

Julio1fer
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 974
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:31 pm
x 2
x 9
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by Julio1fer » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:19 am

It would be more reasonable to limit the number of image downloads for their free accounts, and to set up a lower step to first-echelon paid membership. They have a huge opportunity to convert and they are blowing it.

PFMcFarland
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 1922
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:02 pm
x 67
x 16
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by PFMcFarland » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:35 pm

Julio1fer wrote:It would be more reasonable to limit the number of image downloads for their free accounts, and to set up a lower step to first-echelon paid membership. They have a huge opportunity to convert and they are blowing it.
Apparently the board at Photobucket doesn't know how to be reasonable, or they wouldn't have gone for the Nuclear Option right away.

PF
Waiting for the light

User avatar
melek
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:04 pm
x 10
x 10
Contact:

Re: Photobucket.

Post by melek » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:24 am

Photobucket already has reversed its policy of locking accounts until you pay when you exceed the 2GB limit. Maybe we'll see some more sanity soon.
-Mike Elek

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest