Photobucket strikes again?

[lars]

All of Postimg.ORG's image links have been changed, and here is what their site says:

"postimg.ORG domain is locked by Registry, no prior notice.
While we hope to resolve the issue, we chose postimg.CC as our new home.
Please update codes embedded in your websites."

I blame Photobucket.

[davent]

Isn't postimage owned a part of photobucket? It was inevitable.
dave

[alanp]

I wound up getting my own website to host my pictures.

[Muadzin]

So....., how did it work for photobucket? Did it net them tons of cash as they expected or did their userbase just walk away?

[pickdropper]

So....., how did it work for photobucket? Did it net them tons of cash as they expected or did their userbase just walk away?

I suspect the majority of their userbase did walk away.  I know i did.

Of course, if they weren't solvent with their previous business model, they might have made a decision to try this and see if it works; if not, close shop.

[davent]

It mustn't be working very well as they've come up with $100 deal to get some third party hosting privileges.

I walked away as well when they made their initial demand, i was becoming more and more frustrated with them as time had gone by so in reality they did me a big favour. Still haven't found a replacement, have a bit on Postimage  that, images i've checked on still seem to be fine. Also some of my photobucket images do still show up in threads on various forums so i have no idea whats up. On another forum an old thread was dragged up and my photos would appear off and on over a number of days i watched, others were seeing the same.

dave

[lars]

So....., how did it work for photobucket? Did it net them tons of cash as they expected or did their userbase just walk away?

I suspect the majority of their userbase did walk away.  I know i did.

Of course, if they weren't solvent with their previous business model, they might have made a decision to try this and see if it works; if not, close shop.

Yeah, they decided to follow the old way of doing business, instead of the Walmart method that has proven to work more effectively. The Walmart philosophy is that they would rather get $1 each from 1,000,000 people than to try to squeeze $1,000 out of 1 person. It's obvious which sum of money will be larger, but it's amazing how many people still don't understand that concept.
"Hey, let's cut our user base way down, but charge the remaining loyal users 60x the price!"
"Wouldn't it be better to keep all our millions of users and charge them like $5?"
"No, we want 5 users left that we charge $300 a piece, that's more money per user!" (Hi, Radio Shack) Wait a minute. Shack. Do we see a pattern here? I think so.

[Aleph Null]

If you're looking for an alternative way to host images, I've been using Flickr for years. The adds on the free version are pretty unobtrusive. You can even link to your photos without making them publicly searchable. The only downside I can see is having to set up a Yahoo account.

[pickdropper]

So....., how did it work for photobucket? Did it net them tons of cash as they expected or did their userbase just walk away?

I suspect the majority of their userbase did walk away.  I know i did.

Of course, if they weren't solvent with their previous business model, they might have made a decision to try this and see if it works; if not, close shop.

Yeah, they decided to follow the old way of doing business, instead of the Walmart method that has proven to work more effectively. The Walmart philosophy is that they would rather get $1 each from 1,000,000 people than to try to squeeze $1,000 out of 1 person. It's obvious which sum of money will be larger, but it's amazing how many people still don't understand that concept.
"Hey, let's cut our user base way down, but charge the remaining loyal users 60x the price!"
"Wouldn't it be better to keep all our millions of users and charge them like $5?"
"No, we want 5 users left that we charge $300 a piece, that's more money per user!" (Hi, Radio Shack) Wait a minute. Shack. Do we see a pattern here? I think so.

Agreed.  Even at an inexpensive price, they would've lost users because there are other free options.  They would've likely retained some out of convenience, though.