Or Photofucket!
A major photo-sharing site is altering the deal. Pray it doesn't alter it any further.
Unfortunately for Photobucket, it didn't have a Darth Vader level of leverage when it recently started asking users to switch to a $400-a-year plan if they wanted to keep embedding their images on other sites.
This Denver-based firm's more likely fate: serving as a lesson to others about the risks of an ad-based business model—and about how not to pivot to a different financial footing.
Photobucket broke the news of this change to its users in about the worst way possible: by breaking links and erasing images embedded on third-party pages, both popular options when the site launched in 2003.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-lesson-learned-photobuckets-ransom-images-debacle-191026772.html
Quote from: "RW"
A major photo-sharing site is altering the deal. Pray it doesn't alter it any further.
Unfortunately for Photobucket, it didn't have a Darth Vader level of leverage when it recently started asking users to switch to a $400-a-year plan if they wanted to keep embedding their images on other sites.
This Denver-based firm's more likely fate: serving as a lesson to others about the risks of an ad-based business model—and about how not to pivot to a different financial footing.
Photobucket broke the news of this change to its users in about the worst way possible: by breaking links and erasing images embedded on third-party pages, both popular options when the site launched in 2003.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-lesson-learned-photobuckets-ransom-images-debacle-191026772.html
I haven't added photos to my Photobucket for a while. But, if my pictures could be deleted if I don't cough up $400 a year for the privilege of posting pictures elsewhere, they can keep the memories.
Photo who?
Quote from: "Bricktop"
Lol, exactly.
They're an absolute joke! I've been using them to host images since 2009, but like I'm gonna pay for the privilege! Fuck that. :crazy:
Quote from: "SCOUSE"
Same here.
I can't blame Seoul, SCOUSE or anyone for that.
I haven't used Photobucket in ages.
Me either. I can't even remember my login.
With so many other free image hosting sites available, I don't get why Photobucket thinks anyone would pay that kind of money for their services.
I get that it can be more difficult to steal pictures hosted with them, but where there's a will there's a way.
Quote from: "shin"
With so many other free image hosting sites available,
I get that it can be more difficult to steal pictures hosted with them, but where there's a will there's a way.
I agree shin.
Quote from: "shin"
With so many other free image hosting sites available, I don't get why Photobucket thinks anyone would pay that kind of money for their services.
ac_toofunny ac_toofunny charging money, for what? so you can arrange then in pretty folders and adjust security settings...too much.. Doesn't Dropbox do the same thing but gives you 10gbs free site goes offline so do the images..
Quote from: "shin"
Identifying servers and paths threw coding , then figuring out the algorythm..do they use an exclusive format/template are they investing in a stronger platform?...security?.. sounds like a cash grab
Quote from: "realgrimm"
Quote from: "shin"
With so many other free image hosting sites available, I don't get why Photobucket thinks anyone would pay that kind of money for their services.
ac_toofunny ac_toofunny charging money, for what? so you can arrange then in pretty folders and adjust security settings...too much.. Doesn't Dropbox do the same thing but gives you 10gbs free site goes offline so do the images..
Quote from: "shin"
Identifying servers and paths threw coding , then figuring out the algorythm..do they use an exclusive format/template are they investing in a stronger platform?...security?.. sounds like a cash grab
It seems like they use Javascript to disable right clicking on their hosted media. Other than that, I didn't notice anything unique about the format.
Quote from: "shin"
Quote from: "realgrimm"
Quote from: "shin"
With so many other free image hosting sites available, I don't get why Photobucket thinks anyone would pay that kind of money for their services.
ac_toofunny ac_toofunny charging money, for what? so you can arrange then in pretty folders and adjust security settings...too much.. Doesn't Dropbox do the same thing but gives you 10gbs free site goes offline so do the images..
Quote from: "shin"
Identifying servers and paths threw coding , then figuring out the algorythm..do they use an exclusive format/template are they investing in a stronger platform?...security?.. sounds like a cash grab
It seems like they use Javascript to disable right clicking on their hosted media. Other than that, I didn't notice anything unique about the format.
I didn't know that. But, I don't use Photobucket anyway.
Quote from: "shin"
Quote from: "realgrimm"
Quote from: "shin"
With so many other free image hosting sites available, I don't get why Photobucket thinks anyone would pay that kind of money for their services.
ac_toofunny ac_toofunny charging money, for what? so you can arrange then in pretty folders and adjust security settings...too much.. Doesn't Dropbox do the same thing but gives you 10gbs free site goes offline so do the images..
Quote from: "shin"
Identifying servers and paths threw coding , then figuring out the algorythm..do they use an exclusive format/template are they investing in a stronger platform?...security?.. sounds like a cash grab
It seems like they use Javascript to disable right clicking on their hosted media. Other than that, I didn't notice anything unique about the format.
haha but I bet view page info would get past that, even if it's embedded you can still pull it outta your browser internet image cache :001_rolleyes: