RossKean
Well-known member
The previous model Photobucket was using to make money from cheap guys like me was the (really annoying) advertising. They don't allow you to use an ad-blocker on their site so you can't avoid the ads. They obviously don't get anything for the photos linked to other sites but I assume they still do reasonably well from the ad revenue. You have to visit the site in order to upload!.
Advertising is a perfectly legitimate (and highly profitable) source of revenue on the "'net" if the business model is correct. I don't know about anyone else, but I surely don't pay (directly) to use Google maps or use a Bing search engine. I don't fork out cash to visit websites either. Does anyone pay to belong to Facebook? Arguably, these are valuable sites (to some), they are highly profitable and none of these send a monthly invoice.
Obviously, the model did not work (well enough) for Photobucket. Perhaps they are looking to make a big money grab before shutting down completely or maybe they are trying to position themselves to sell out for big bux.
I don't hate them for it. I am just glad I don't have a lot of work or images invested in the site. Personally, I won't be paying them to host any of my stuff. If I can't find another "free" site, I might consider buying some server space somewhere - pretty cheap these days if you don't need a ton of space or serious bandwidth. There are still lots of photo hosting sites out there that don't require you to pay but they may follow Photobucket's lead. The "hate" for Photobucket is more in the way it was done - not the fact that it was done.
Advertising is a perfectly legitimate (and highly profitable) source of revenue on the "'net" if the business model is correct. I don't know about anyone else, but I surely don't pay (directly) to use Google maps or use a Bing search engine. I don't fork out cash to visit websites either. Does anyone pay to belong to Facebook? Arguably, these are valuable sites (to some), they are highly profitable and none of these send a monthly invoice.
Obviously, the model did not work (well enough) for Photobucket. Perhaps they are looking to make a big money grab before shutting down completely or maybe they are trying to position themselves to sell out for big bux.
I don't hate them for it. I am just glad I don't have a lot of work or images invested in the site. Personally, I won't be paying them to host any of my stuff. If I can't find another "free" site, I might consider buying some server space somewhere - pretty cheap these days if you don't need a ton of space or serious bandwidth. There are still lots of photo hosting sites out there that don't require you to pay but they may follow Photobucket's lead. The "hate" for Photobucket is more in the way it was done - not the fact that it was done.
Last edited by a moderator: