While I think $400/yr. is highway robbery AND I think it is the lowest of ethics to hold previously uploaded information essentially hostage (as opposed to charging for new material), I also look at it from the standpoint of an independent business and can contrast that to CPF.
While CPF is at some level a hobby site, it is also a commercial site AND is supported by advertising.
Now, CPF does not host images directly. Why is that? Could that be because compared to txt, images are high bandwidth and hence the hosting costs are considerably higher? Wouldn't the simple solution be for CPF to host the images directly?
By forcing the use of an external photo hosting site, CPF is making advertising money, while shifting the cost to a third party who does not participate in that revenue stream. That hardly seems fair to the third party does it? Hence, because these third parties do not get to participate in the revenue stream, they have to start charging.
Obviously the revenue model that PhotoBucket is using is "onerous", but I get why they have to have one.
CPF is not a hosting site. I agree CPF could add an album feature for members for ~$3/month. The problem is those images would then be available to be hotlinked elsewhere and that would allow Non-CPF traffic onto the CPF server causing service delays and interruptions.
CPF is not making any money from not hosting files, they are saving money. Some third party hosts Are getting a fair shake when you open a posted photo in a new window and it takes you to that photo's host site that has it's own advertisers. The advertising directly within the CPF forum and everyone's posted images are two separate things. CPF has not shifted any costs of displaying posted images to any third parties, it is up to the CPF member to
provide a host for their posted images. Any fees associated with providing the hosting necessary to post content is solely the responsibility of the poster of the content.
My research theorizes Photobucket's decisions have had very little to do with CPF posts or it's advertisers and are more specifically to do with their own Photobucket users' and how they used their services.
I agree with You they are charging way too much, IMO the're doing the wrong thing, and deliberately causing cyber sabotage across the internet. There actions were abrupt, without adequate notice, and there were many other solutions that were never explored or discussed. Yes You are right, they needed to do something, just not what they did, or how they did it. I support your business argument.
They used to be a "host"ing company. That's what they used to do, serve up photos when they called for across the internet. They have evolved into more of a service company. They seem not as focused in just storing/hosting photos any longer, they want people to store and then order product and services from said photos. File hosting and serving appears to be being downsized(eliminated) in their business plan, and offering You to buy your photos on anything and everything is the direction they have chosen to steer the bus.
My best guesses at some reasons:
Most everyone that used the free hosting service were never a paying customer of one of their other plans or services.
Only the uploader of the files viewed the advertising that supported it, at the time of the upload. Viewed one time, and only one advertiser.
Perhaps hosting requires the most server and customer support time, and was not generating any leads or orders for the new services.
Sadly I believe They chose the dollars of the few over the pennies of the millions in regards to the attrition of "
the hosting side" of their business. It feels like a type of social injustice, the methods in which they employed, which likely will resonate in many people's memories for years to come.
I didn't know there were so many photo hosting sites...thanks for the link.
:thumbsup: That was my point. Oh, and they change and update all the time.
