Ph0t0bucket Ransom Demand!

DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
edited June 2017 in The Clubhouse
I received an email notice from Ph0t0bucket that my account was in violation of their new (6/28/17) "third party hosting" policy. Ph0t0bucket defines third party hosting as the action of embedding an image or photo onto another website. Ph0t0bucket now shows the following picture in place of a non-subscribed user's photos:

2c78jt0p9xtx.jpg


If I want to have my third party hosting privileges restored, I would have to pay Ph0t0bucket.com a ransom of $400 per year. All I use Ph0t0bucket for is hosting pictures pertaining to my hobbies, so no ransom payments will be forthcoming from me, and I am not going to move thousands of photos going back more than a decade to another hosting service. With regard to my thousands of pictures on this forum, since I don't have editing rights to my posts, I couldn't move my photos even if I wanted to.

People who use Ph0t0bucket to host photos for business and academic purposes might have more of an incentive to pay the ransom. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Ph0t0bucket's "free" accounts generate revenue for them because their advertising rates are set by the amount of site traffic, and picture hosting generates a lot of traffic. I'm not sure of the reason for the cash grab. Maybe their ad revenues are down due to people using other free hosting sites. Maybe they just want more money.
"So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
"Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
"Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
"Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
Post edited by DarqueKnight on
«134

Comments

  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 9,916
    WOOOWWWW what a load of shiite
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
    edited June 2017
    NOOOOOOOOOOOO what a load of cash.

    "Photobucket continues to have the distinct pleasure of hosting 15 billion photos from 100 million unique users since inception 14 years ago. The subscriptions we offer are price competitive & we offer unlimited 3rd party hosting, no matter how popular your image is on your forum, blog or online store."

    Do the math.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 19,354
    I am surprised & puzzled that they haven't come lookin' for me, yet.
    I used to use 'em a lot (still have a fair number of photos there, actually)... but they got awfuller and awfuller, so I switched to Flikr.

    I do have photos of our house construction on Photobucket... they're all backed up... somewhere, but maybe I'll download 'em while I still can to have 'em all in one place...

    Yeah, it's a pretty brazen (from the Sanskrit for "effing stupid, eh?") move on their part.
  • HermitismHermitism Posts: 1,948
    Your threads are my favorites on here. Your attention to detail is unmatched and your use of pictures make your threads extremely easy to follow. I always refer to you as the "charts and graphs guy". This is a major blow to clubpolk.

    https://www.ghacks.net/2017/06/30/photobucket-now-charges-399-for-third-party-hosted-images/
    2.0 - Marantz NA8005 | Polk LSiM703 | PS Audio: Duet, Power Port Classic, PerfectWave AC5 x3 PC | Wireworld Equinox 7 IC | Sanus UF30 | OC703 Panels

    6.1 - Pio Elite SC-05 | Pio BDP-51FD | Polk: RTi8, CSi5, F/Xi3, CSi3 | HSU Research VTF-2 MK4 | Monster HTS 5000 | DCF124BW x3 SC | Pangea: AC-9SE x2, 14SE, 14 PC | AQ Chocolate x2 HDMI | M850SW | PS Audio Power Port Classic x2 | OC703 Panels
  • NightfallNightfall Posts: 7,545
    edited June 2017
    Imgur is free.

    http://www.imgur.com

    Edit: I'm speaking in relation to moving forward.
    afterburnt wrote: »
    They didn't speak a word of English, they were from South Carolina.
  • warrenwarren Posts: 619
    What's photo bucket?
    Some final words,
    "If you keep banging your head against the wall,
    you're going to have headaches."
    Warren
  • msgmsg Posts: 4,270
    This is a crap bummer, but I'm not surprised by moves like this. Couldn't be a free lunch forever, ad revenue or not. Everyone is changing their terms now, it seems. Choice are to opt in and subscribe, accept heavy restrictions in crippled free versions, or move on.

    This was something I struggled with - whether to upload using Polk's image insert/attachment option, or link to images hosted elsewhere. Pros and cons to each. This is obviously an unfortunate con. Seems like nickel and diming is the new business model.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
    edited June 2017
    This isn't nickel and diming. This is ambushing and holding hostage. If they wanted to transition to a paid business model, the decent thing to do would have been to give people timely, proper, and respectful notice.

    I received an email last night at 11:16pm telling me that my pictures were blocked from third party sites and telling me where to go to pay the $400 annual fee ransom. Having my forum pictures blocked is a minor inconvenience to me, but I can imagine the anguish and scrambling if I were a business owner or a teacher who had been blindsided by this.

    Seems it won't be too long before every forum charges a subscription fee and the government taxes every bit and second of Internet usage.

    d0cwipyig55b.jpg

    u7f5g8l8ftjy.jpg

    5itdolx36xr6.jpg

    mnhc6av0ea2c.jpg
    Post edited by DarqueKnight on
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • SCompRacerSCompRacer Posts: 6,931
    Me too.

    pko6j9wt1w7i.jpg

    Make yourself necessary to someone. Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Salk SoundScape 8's * Audio Research Reference 3 * Bottlehead Eros Phono * Park's Audio Budgie SUT * Krell KSA-250 * Harmonic Technology Pro 9+ & Pro 11+ * Signature Series Sonore Music Server w/Deux PS* Twisted Pear Buffalo III Dual Mono ESS Sabre32 DAC * Heavy Plinth Lenco L75 Idler Drive * AA MG-1 Linear Air Bearing Arm * AT33PTG/II & Denon 103R * Richard Gray 600S * NHT B-12d subs * GIK Acoustic Treatments * Sennheiser HD650 *

  • ZLTFULZLTFUL Posts: 4,656
    Tis why I dropped photosuckit about 4 years ago...their ads became more and more obtrusive and eventually, they made it a scavenger hunt to find the correct way to download my own photos.

    I have been using Flickr for a while now with no complaints.
    "Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."

    "Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip
  • mrbigbluelightmrbigbluelight Posts: 7,534
    I don't use Photobucket/Flickr/imgur, so I have a novice question.

    Regarding the excellent pics you post in your threads, do you do so by embedding the img location that is located on Photobucket, ie,

    http // photobucket. c.o.m / DK / Gear

    (spread that out as a psuedo link)

    If img's are on located on one's own hard drive, and uploaded to Polk with the location as:

    C:/ Users / DK / Gear

    (or some such location)

    In that event, the pic is stored on a HD back in the secret Polk vault ?

    If I'm on the correct wavelength, then that would mean you would have to re-assign EACH pic's storage location for it to show here on the forum ?
    Whether it would be Flickr/imgur/your HD, you'd have to reload or reassign each pic, one at a time ?

    Also, does Photobucket possess any sort of rights to pictures stored there ?



    MrBigBlueLight
    Here to pick your brain & steal your cookies
    Shifting to Plan B+
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
    ZLTFUL wrote: »
    Tis why I dropped photosuckit about 4 years ago...their ads became more and more obtrusive and eventually, they made it a scavenger hunt to find the correct way to download my own photos.

    My ad blocker keeps the Ph0t0phuckit ad gremlins away. This is only the second issue I have had with them. The first issue was when my monthly bandwidth quota (free account) was exceeded a few years ago and all my pictures were blocked for about 10 days until the new cycle started. This is the message that was displayed in place of my photos:

    rpndkdibxku0.jpg

    Back then (April 2014) A paid plan with significantly more bandwidth was available for a couple dollars a month.
    I don't use Photobucket/Flickr/imgur, so I have a novice question.

    Regarding the excellent pics you post in your threads, do you do so by embedding the img location that is located on Photobucket, ie,

    Yes. I copy the Ph0t0phuckit picture link and embed it in the text of my forum posts. This is called "hot linking".
    If img's are on located on one's own hard drive, and uploaded to Polk with the location as:

    C:/ Users / DK / Gear

    (or some such location)

    In that event, the pic is stored on a HD back in the secret Polk vault ?

    Yes, when I embed photos by using the forum upload link, the picture is stored on Vanilla's servers which are assigned to the Polk forum.

    A long time ago, I would post pictures that way. A problem would arise when Polk would upgrade forum software or switch servers and sometimes links would get broken. That's why I started using external hosting services.
    If I'm on the correct wavelength, then that would mean you would have to re-assign EACH pic's storage location for it to show here on the forum ?
    Whether it would be Flickr/imgur/your HD, you'd have to reload or reassign each pic, one at a time ?

    Yes. I would have to go into every thread and cut and paste the new picture location. Even if it were possible to edit old posts, I'm not going to go back and edit thousands of posts going back 15 years.
    Also, does Photobucket possess any sort of rights to pictures stored there?

    Absolutely none. The benefit that Ph0t0phuckit receives from people using its site is that the traffic generated supports them charging for ads. They make money by delivering ads to users logged into their site and the user gets a free place to store their photos. Oh wait...a lot of people know about ad blockers now, so maybe their ad revenue is way, way down...hence the exorbitant desperate cash grab subscription fee.

    Even with that, I can't imagine what would possess them to think that people would be willing to pay $400 a year just to host forum pictures.

    qr1j4gevpl8v.jpg


    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • mdaudioguymdaudioguy Posts: 4,681
    Although I get where they're coming from regarding third party hosting, the fee seems pretty exorbitant. It looks to me like they're actually hoping you'll stop using them for that. I guess it's our fault for looking at your pictures too much. Sorry! :|
    7.1 - polk RTi10 x 3 (LCR) : FXi3 x 2 : RTi4 x 4 : Sunfire SDS-12 : Yamaha Aventage RX-A2040 : Adcom GFA-7500 : Squeezebox Touch : DIRECTV : Roku SE : Panasonic PT-AX200U PJ @ 120"
    5.1 - Definitive Technology ProMonitor 800 x 4 : ProCenter 1000 : Klipsch Sub-10 : Pioneer Elite SC-91: DIRECTV : LG OLED55B6P : Roku Premiere+
    Garage Duty - polk Monitor 10s : Pioneer A-717 Integrated Amp : Squeezebox Classic
  • polrbehrpolrbehr Posts: 2,134
    I could see maybe a one-time fee (something reasonable like $49.99 or so?), but
    $400 a YEAR??

    Optimum did something like this last year. When I signed up for their Ultra 100 internet plan years ago, that plan included web hosting (using your own domain name)
    , a dozen email accounts, tech support, web design software, etc. Well, they decided to inform people that as of 12/31/16, they would no longer be offering this as part of the plan, but were gracious enough to point you to the new company that would seamlessly take over your site... for $6.99 per month, as long as you moved to them before 12/31 - after that, the price went to $14.99 IIRC. They did give fair warning though.
    Still, I called Optimum to complain, and asked them to credit me that amount every month since I was "paying for it before", but opted not to keep it. The poor rep was obviously not prepared for such a question.
    So, are you willing to put forth a little effort or are you happy sitting in your skeptical poo pile?


    http://audiomilitia.proboards.com/
  • msgmsg Posts: 4,270
    edited July 2017
    I wonder whether this is some kind of shock tactic, or simply some kind of mistake, altogether. Get people thinking, "Woh, holy crap, $400?!? No way I'm paying that, but I might pay [a fraction of it]" People are going to be pissed no matter what the fee. Would make sense to make it ridiculously high at first, and then come back lower to get what they really want without the backlash. Look what happened when Netflix raised their fees. Or Amazon Prime. I wouldn't be surprised if they come back and say now, "Oops, sorry, we messed up the decimal; what we really meant was $3.99/mo or $39.99/yr."

    Whatever the case, it's poorly handled. Your images are still there and freely available to you, though, right? They're just shutting down the embedding of images in other sites and forums unless a user pays that ridiculous fee? What's weak about this is that embedding images is something they've ENCOURAGED for years by offering it as one of several options in their UI for sharing/linking > "Use this to embed your photo on a forum." Their use of the term "3rd Party Hosting" doesn't even make sense. There's no change in hosting - it's simply embedding a link to display a photo hosted on their own servers. Granted, they see no benefit from this unless a user clicks on that photo to be taken to Photobucket's site, where they can present ads to the visitor. A better option would have been to temporarily overlay the ad on the photo, so it shows up no matter where it's posted. Like Google does with YouTube videos? Maybe making the image ad-free if a viewer clicks it to go to the Photobucket site, where they can present their ads in normal fashion. Re: ad blockers - lots of sites simply won't let you view their content until you disable the ad blocker for their site. Can't blame them.

    Maddening situation for sure, especially considering all the work put in over the years, trusting in the availability of the service. Agreed on the use of ad-blockers, though. People are catching on, so can you really blame these types of services for having to begin charging? It's that or go under. Someone's paying to run those servers and for the bandwidth to make those images available. Couldn't be free forever.

    I used to use Flickr and Photobucket, Photobucket more for the rinky-dink stuff. I'm sure I've got some dead links out there now, too. I wouldn't trust anything to remain the same anymore, though. Yahoo, for example, once a giant of the internet, has been "struggling" for a long time, and has been jerking around its mail subscribers (defined as paying users of the service) for years with no apologies and next to impossible to reach support. Companies can change terms any time they like, and let's face it - they're in it to make money. Those ridiculously inflated IPO prices have to account for themselves at some point, don't they? Users have two choices - opt in, or abandon the service. Most don't read these agreements and just click the YES button.

    There's been some great uses of internet techology of the years, but man, makes me kinda long a little for the simplicity, freedom and courtesy of it all back in the 90s when it was just ramping up. It was a beautiful thing, people connecting and sharing, making information available.

    There's going to be global anarchy when Facebook starts charging. Or simply a massive drop in drama.
  • msgmsg Posts: 4,270
    edited July 2017
    This isn't nickel and diming. This is ambushing and holding hostage. If they wanted to transition to a paid business model, the decent thing to do would have been to give people timely, proper, and respectful notice.
    Agreed. Sheisty move for sure.

    By nickel and diming, I'm talking about this general practice now of beginning to charge for services, or slowly increasing fees. There seems to be a social science behind this. These services always seem to know juuuuuuust how much they can squeeze people for without pushing them over the edge to mass exodus. Then people quiet down after settling into the new norm, having no choice, really, and they do it all over again. Nothing new. Just like the oil companies with gas prices a few years back.

    I'm also extremely fed up with this notion of the requirement for ever-increasing profits. Why can it not just be enough to be efficient and steadily profitable? It's always gotta be more on top of more. You can only go but so far before taxing the employees or taking away from the product quality.

    Netflix, Spotify, your cable companies, etc., cloud data hosting services like Dropbox - They're all either doing it already or will soon. I've experienced it with nearly every "free" service I started with, and with those that began very affordably. Some I gladly pay for. Others, I feel trapped into doing so.
  • EmlynEmlyn Posts: 2,150
    edited July 2017
    I am surprised the site owners didn't demand payment in Bitcoin. It is all about advertising dollars. Trouble is they have probably destroyed the value of the business with this unless they backtrack. The $400 a year seems to be something aimed at business users rather than individuals, which means they are unaware of who their customers are.

    Example to see the damage which is something that can't be fixed:

    http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/177839/my-pioneer-elite-bdp-09fd-blu-ray-player-repair/p1

    The stupidity of some people working in the corporate world is stunning.
    Post edited by Emlyn on
    1. Polk LSiM707, 704C, 703; Dual SVS SB2000 subwoofers; Marantz SR7011 receiver; Parasound A23 amp; Oppo 205; Toshiba HD-DVD Player; Sony 65" 4K TV; FIOS; PS Audio Power Plant Premier; MIT S2 cables
    2. JM Labs Electra 920.1; Parasound JC2 Preamp; Sonic Frontiers Power 2 amp; Sony HAP-Z1ES; Oppo 105D; Music Hall MMF7 and Acoustech phono pre; PS Audio P1000; MIT S1 Cables
    3. Polk LSiM703; Pioneer Elite SC97 receiver; Oppo 203; Squeezebox Touch; MIT S3 cables
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 19,354
    In the immortal words (slightly altered) of baseball great Chico Escuela (who, like most things in the US today, wasn't real).
    Flikr been berry, berry good to me.

    1971mfc-OPC-Chico%2BEscuela-z15.png
  • mrbigbluelightmrbigbluelight Posts: 7,534
    Thanks for clarifying things for me.
    $400 a year IS bull ... lony.
    Yes, they are a business and need to make money but if that is their sole concern or interest, why don't they take their profits, quit, and open up a house of ill repute.

    I had wondered about the "rights" issue because it isn't uncommon for "FREE !" stuff to have little hooks buried deep.
    Back in the Day (pat. pending), there were (probably still are) a lot of sites that offered to "Help You Build Your Website". I always felt, after attempting to read through the legalese buried 10 levels deep, that if your name was Bill Gates and wanted to have some assistance building a site to promote your new company, Microsoft, and new product DOS 1.0, you'd be in long range trouble.

    Crummy example, okay, but I think you get the picture (not stored on Photobucket).



    MrBigBlueLight
    Here to pick your brain & steal your cookies
    Shifting to Plan B+
  • tonybtonyb Posts: 29,919
    I just chuckle at stuff like this, not at Ray, but the idea most hold that all this free stuff people have become used to on the internet....and they think it's going to stay that way ??

    Free....is to hook enough people in. I've always said once enough people move in a certain direction, bam...costs go up or they'll tax the crap out of it. It'll happen with music services too.....apps for your phone, anything that's getting usage by millions.
    HT SYSTEM-2 channel
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Dynaudio Audience 72
    Polk FX500 surrounds
    Cary xciter dac
    Cullen modded Sonos
    Joule la-100 pre
    B&k Ref 4420 amp

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Analysis plus crystal oval ic's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • msgmsg Posts: 4,270
    Indeed. The ones that really get me shaking my head are these rude, threatening reviews by "The Entitled" in the app stores - for FREE apps. Just plain abusive, a lot of them. Makes me wonder what kind of homes these people come from, what "horrors of life" they must be suffering to warrant such behavior toward someone giving them something - for free. Rude awakenings in store for those people.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
    edited July 2017
    mdaudioguy wrote: »
    Although I get where they're coming from regarding third party hosting, the fee seems pretty exorbitant. It looks to me like they're actually hoping you'll stop using them for that. I guess it's our fault for looking at your pictures too much. Sorry! :|

    My pictures weren't causing stress to their servers. Free accounts had a bandwidth limitation, which, if exceeded, caused your pictures to be blocked until the next monthly measurement cycle began or until you upgraded to a paid account with a higher monthly bandwidth limit.

    I only exceeded my bandwidth limit once in 10 years, during the month of April 2014. Usually, my bandwidth stats are way under the limit. The email that I, and other free account holders received, also stated:

    "Your account has been restricted for excessive usage and 3rd party hosting"

    When I went to see what my "excessive usage" statistics were, I found that they had disabled the ability to monitor usage statistics!

    zohqdi0gaw7i.jpg

    On Ph0t0phucket's forums, members with a small number of pictures that they only shared with family and friends were scratching their heads about the Twilight Zonish and dope fiendish claims of "excessive usage".

    Equally Twilight Zonish and dope fiendish is the claim about "3rd party hosting". Ph0t0phucket has always encouraged people to post their Ph0t0phucket pictures on other websites. Now, they are penalizing people for doing the very thing they encouraged them to do.

    PB already had several reasonably priced plans for personal and business users that needed more than the monthly bandwidth allotment for free accounts. The lowest priced personal paid account was around $25 a year.
    polrbehr wrote: »
    I could see maybe a one-time fee (something reasonable like $49.99 or so?), but $400 a YEAR??

    Consider a family of five where everyone has a Ph0t0phucket account. That would be $2,000 just for photo hosting...in a day and age where there are multiple free places to store and link back to photos.
    msg wrote: »
    I wonder whether this is some kind of shock tactic, or simply some kind of mistake, altogether.

    I don't think it was a shock tactic or a mistake. I think it was a coldly calculated grab for cash. PB claims to have 100 million users. If just 1% of that paid the $400, that would be an immediate infusion of $400 million dollars. I can see where some business owners who have a lot of pictures on PB would just quietly pay the ransom rather than have their websites messed up during the time it took to rehost their pictures.

    Notice that they didn't offer a monthly subscription service. This was to prevent users from paying the monthly fee for one or two months and then dropping the service once they found another free, or reasonably priced paid, picture hosting service.
    msg wrote: »
    Whatever the case, it's poorly handled.

    Agreed. But again, I don't think they care about p i s s i n g people off. They know full well most people will balk at paying a $400 annual subscription fee. They just think enough of their 100 million users will cave to make this viable.
    msg wrote: »
    Your images are still there and freely available to you, though, right? They're just shutting down the embedding of images in other sites and forums unless a user pays that ridiculous fee?

    Correct.
    msg wrote: »
    What's weak about this is that embedding images is something they've ENCOURAGED for years by offering it as one of several options in their UI for sharing/linking > "Use this to embed your photo on a forum." Their use of the term "3rd Party Hosting" doesn't even make sense.

    Correct.
    msg wrote: »
    A better option would have been to temporarily overlay the ad on the photo, so it shows up no matter where it's posted.

    A better option would have been to notify third party hosting users that, after a certain date, service would no longer be free, and what the new charges would be. Photos uploaded prior to the change would still be hosted at no charge. This is reasonable and fair exchange considering the fact that they urged people for years to use their site as a free photo host for other sites.
    msg wrote: »
    Agreed on the use of ad-blockers, though. People are catching on, so can you really blame these types of services for having to begin charging? It's that or go under. Someone's paying to run those servers and for the bandwidth to make those images available. Couldn't be free forever.

    I don't mind paying a reasonable price for service. I gladly pay a monthly bill for Internet, electricity, phone, and cell phone service. The difference is, I knew the cost of service prior to signing up. None of those utility companies offered free service and then sneaked back in the middle of the night and turned off the service and demanded a huge annual fee to have service restored.

    As for turning ad blockers off, I still don't pay attention to the ads, but at least they can say they ran the ad.
    msg wrote: »
    Companies can change terms any time they like, and let's face it - they're in it to make money.

    Agreed. But you don't have to be a jerk to make money. That seems to be the part that PB doesn't understand.
    tonyb wrote: »
    I just chuckle at stuff like this, not at Ray, but the idea most hold that all this free stuff people have become used to on the internet....and they think it's going to stay that way ??

    Free....is to hook enough people in. I've always said once enough people move in a certain direction, bam...costs go up or they'll tax the crap out of it. It'll happen with music services too.....apps for your phone, anything that's getting usage by millions.

    As I stated before, I have no problem paying a reasonable price for service. I don't have a problem with paying a reasonable price for a service that used to be free. I would have considered my prior free service to be a very long trial run. My issue is in the way PB creeped in in the middle of the night and shut off a free service that they encouraged people to use for many, many years. If you had been getting free electricity for 10 years and then, on the coldest night in January, the power company sent an email at 11pm informing you that your electricity has been shut off and you will have to send them $3000 a year to have service restored, what would you think of that? Would you just calmly cough up the 3 grand and say "oh well, it was nice while it lasted, but nothing free lasts forever"?

    Drug dealers offer free samples to get people hooked, but they don't turn around and charge for the free samples after someone becomes a paying customer.

    Instead if lying about "excessive usage" and then preventing people from seeing their usage stats, and penalizing people for "3rd party hosting", which is something Ph0t0phucket enthusiastically encouraged, they could have acted like reasonable and responsible business people and sent something like this"

    "Photobucket appreciates your use our photo hosting service. However, as hosting costs have increased, we can no longer offer free bandwidth to third party websites. After July 31, 2017, members will have to subscribe to one of our paid plans to continue third party photo hosting. Photos uploaded prior to that date will continue to be covered by the usage and bandwidth limitations in effect at that time. New users will be offered a free 30 day trial, after which they will have to select a paid service plan."

    I think PB would loose a class action lawsuit aimed at restoring users' third party hosting bandwidth allocation levels for pictures uploaded prior to the term of service change.
    Post edited by DarqueKnight on
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • treitz3treitz3 Posts: 12,513
    Crummy example, okay, but I think you get the picture (not stored on Photobucket).

    LOL

    Tom

    In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence.

    The best way to enjoy digital music reproduction is to never listen to good analogue reproduction.
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 19,354
    Tony is of course correct -- "free" is a lousy business model ;)

    On the other hand, the traditional model of what's the service and who is the customer has gotten sort of -- umm -- perverted in the "Internet economy". As is oft said of many websites, "If you wonder what the product they're selling is, the product is you". Google fairly leaps to mind :)

    The thing about Photobucket's most recent gambit is the suddenness and the, shall we say, rather brusque manner in which they essentially eliminated a big chunk of their user base's modus operandi. Photobucket even provided (and still does provide!) preformatted links for both HTML and "bulletin board" type s/w to let its users hotlink their photos in "third party sites". It was a rather abrupt course change for them.

  • EmlynEmlyn Posts: 2,150
    My guess it's a business decision a numbskull bean counter took to give the illusion of more positive cash flow so another company might pay more to buy them out or invest in to get at the data they've been maintaining on customer locations, preferences, and habits for many years. Companies like this bring in money for more than just annoying pop up ads.

    The trouble is, the way they did this has literally left negative images of the company in thousands of places on online forums and blogs. Third-party hosting was their business model and main reason for existing from the start. I think they'll be modifying their plans at some point.
    1. Polk LSiM707, 704C, 703; Dual SVS SB2000 subwoofers; Marantz SR7011 receiver; Parasound A23 amp; Oppo 205; Toshiba HD-DVD Player; Sony 65" 4K TV; FIOS; PS Audio Power Plant Premier; MIT S2 cables
    2. JM Labs Electra 920.1; Parasound JC2 Preamp; Sonic Frontiers Power 2 amp; Sony HAP-Z1ES; Oppo 105D; Music Hall MMF7 and Acoustech phono pre; PS Audio P1000; MIT S1 Cables
    3. Polk LSiM703; Pioneer Elite SC97 receiver; Oppo 203; Squeezebox Touch; MIT S3 cables
  • mhardy6647mhardy6647 Posts: 19,354
    Emlyn wrote: »
    My guess it's a business decision...

    The trouble is, the way they did this has literally left negative images of the company in thousands of places on online forums and blogs...

    More than thousands, I suspect.

  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,329
    edited July 2017
    Emlyn wrote: »
    The trouble is, the way they did this has literally left negative images of the company in thousands of places on online forums and blogs.
    mhardy6647 wrote: »

    More than thousands, I suspect.

    Billions actually.

    They claim 100 million users and 15 billion hosted images...so it's more like negative images in billions of places around the world.
    Emlyn wrote: »
    I think they'll be modifying their plans at some point.

    I think so. But now they have alienated a lot of people who would have signed up for reasonably priced paid service, if it had been offered in a responsible and respectful manner.

    By the way, when you click on PB's customer service link, ...

    xakyngi72qvg.jpg

    ...this is the result:

    ckzro57eqyfi.jpg

    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • txcoastal1txcoastal1 Posts: 9,916
    Sounds like to me, people/companies need to start a media up roar, or even a class action
    2-channel: Modwright KWI-200 Integrated, Dynaudio C1-II Signatures
    Desktop rig: LSi7, Polk 110sub, Dayens Ampino amp, W4S DAC/pre, Sonos, JRiver
    Gear on standby: Melody 101 tube pre, Unison Research Simply Italy Integrated
    Gone to new homes: (Matt Polk's)Threshold Stasis SA12e monoblocks, Pass XA30.5 amp, Usher MD2 speakers, Dynaudio C4 platinum speakers, Modwright LS100 (voltz), Simaudio 780D DAC
  • Dennis GardnerDennis Gardner Posts: 4,754
    The upside is that I can now open one of Ray's posts in record time. It is like getting a new computer processor upgrade for free.........except without pics......
    HT Optoma HD25 LV on 80" DIY Screen, Anthem MRX 300 Receiver, Pioneer Elite BDP 51FD Polk CS350LS, Polk SDA1C, Polk FX300, Polk RT55, Dual EBS Adire Shiva 320watt tuned to 17hz, ICs-DIY Twisted Prs, Speaker-Raymond Cable

    2 Channel Thorens TD 318 Grado ZF1, SACD/CD Marantz 8260, Soundstream/Krell DAC1, Audio Mirror PP1, Odyssey Stratos, ADS L-1290, ICs-DIY Twisted , Speaker-Raymond Cable
  • billbillwbillbillw Posts: 5,790
    Seems to be hit or miss. I have tons of '3rd party hosted' photos, but my account is not locked yet. Maybe its a matter of time. I will definitely look at another service going forward. I'll be damned if I pay them $400 a year. Heck, I'm not sure I'd pay them $5/month even. Their interface is terrible.
    Main 2-ch:
    Sony SS-M9; LSA Statement Amplifier; VPI HW-19 Mk3/Sumiko Premier FT-4/Audio Technica AT15SA; Pass Labs DIY Pearl Phono; Sony SCD-C333ES SACD Changer; TEAC UD-301 DAC; Dell/WYSE 5010 (running Daphile); Sony ST-SA5ES Tuner; Nanotec Golden Strada speaker cables (SR+#79 Shotgun); Audioquest Coral interconnects
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!