The Fall of Photobucket

Old topic!
The last post in this thread is over 60 days old. Posting in this thread will be considered a bump, so please make an attempt to be courteous if you go ahead with it.

If the last post is over 6 months old, it may instead be a better idea to start a new topic. If you aren't sure about what to do, feel free to ask a staff member for help, or try to locate a 'general questions'-type thread if it exists in this (sub-)forum.
Jul 7, 2017 at 4:16 AM
Okay I give up... for now
"What is a man!? A miserable pile of secrets! But enough talk, have at you!"
Join Date: Dec 31, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 1787
Age: 23
#1
So this news is a few days old, but I myself only just noticed this. All images embedded on Photobucket now show up like this:



Photobucket has suddenly pulled the rug out from underneath all of its users who uploaded images by making us suddenly fork over $399 a year in order to keep showing all of the images we've embedded onto 3rd-party sites. They gave us no prior notice of this, for those of you wondering. All of those images I've embedded on these forums and other places with Photobucket for the last 6 years, are now suddenly broken. Some users have been using this service much longer than I have, and have been hosting much more than I have. I did begin to notice within the last couple of years that their site had gotten incredibly overrun with ads, which I knew was a bad sign, but I wouldn't have suspected that they would do something this insane. I'm a bit surprised that I'm surprised.

A lot of users have decided to leave Photobucket, and that's what I plan to do as soon as I get all my images migrated. I don't know who in the right mind would decide to pay up unless it was an emergency situation. Photobucket has the right to do this since it's their business, but this was a really stupid move they made. It will be interesting to see what happens to this long-standing image hosting site once the dust settles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jul 7, 2017 at 4:20 AM
In my body, in my head
Forum Moderator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Aug 28, 2009
Location: The Purple Zone
Posts: 6000
#2
honestly i'm surprised anybody uses photobucket post-2010
there are several much better services for image hosting
 
Jul 7, 2017 at 5:45 AM
Administrator
Forum Administrator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Jul 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6173
Age: 34
#3
honestly i'm surprised anybody uses photobucket post-2010
I have been using it for near a decade (next month would have marked 10 years since I started using it).

In those 10 years I used the service and even recommended it because I was sick of seeing broken imageshack images and photobucket images generally never disappeared. I was happy to deal with the clunky interface for the sake of image uptime. At least not until now.

I've decided to host my own shit from now on.

I should point out that you can still download images from the photobucket interface. Click on "library" after logging in.
 
Last edited:
Jul 7, 2017 at 7:51 AM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#5
Well thank god I don't use it. I always use Imgur these days, and previously Flickr for very specific reasons. Hopefully both of them will see how it ruins PhotoBucket and decide not to follow suit in fear of similar repocussions.
As for PhotoBucket, I hope that they completely lose their user-base and fall to their knees.
 
Jul 7, 2017 at 5:10 PM
Senior Member
CSE Discord Admin
"This is the greatest handgun ever made! You have to ask yourself, do I feel lucky?"
Join Date: Jan 13, 2016
Location:
Posts: 112
#6
I guess my luck just sucks. Back around 2009, I used MegaUpload as my main file host. You can guess how that went. Around that time, I also started using ImageShack as my image host, and when that went boom, I switched to PhotoBucket.

I just can't catch a break :|
 
Jul 9, 2017 at 2:55 AM
Alfa
Discord Group Moderator
"What're YOU lookin' at?"
Join Date: Jan 18, 2013
Location: Anevandos/Ayenras
Posts: 1118
Age: 20
#7
RIP in peace DT's_face.jpg
Most but not all heroes die!

(Although this might be lower quality than the original, it’s hard to say...)
 
Jul 9, 2017 at 3:24 AM
Bonds that separate us
Forum Administrator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Aug 20, 2006
Location:
Posts: 2797
Age: 29
#8
No it was always that small because my webcam had/has extra software that's supposed to be installed and I didn't do that properly at the time
 
Jul 11, 2017 at 6:00 PM
Lvl 1
Forum Moderator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: May 28, 2008
Location: PMMM MMO
Posts: 3712
Age: 27
#9
honestly i'm surprised anybody uses photobucket post-2010
there are several much better services for image hosting
Same. I've always hated how if you tried to copy and paste the direct image link in a new tab it would actually take you to a full photobucket page instead of just the image.
Have you guys ever tried imgur? It's pretty good for linking images for 3rd party sites and what I'd recommend everyone use, at least for now.

Well thank god I don't use it. I always use Imgur these days, and previously Flickr for very specific reasons. Hopefully both of them will see how it ruins PhotoBucket and decide not to follow suit in fear of similar repocussions.
As for PhotoBucket, I hope that they completely lose their user-base and fall to their knees.
I hope they don't follow suit, but honestly, was photobucket making any money from how they were being used? When sites let you link/host images directly like this it's more of just a bandwidth drain than anything else. So I can't really blame photobucket for this decision, since they probably actually want to lose all those users who were using their hosting services for free due to the costs associated with it. I don't know if their new marketing plan will really make them any money either but at least it won't be sending them into the red? Sites like imgur at least have a sizeable userbase that browses the site itself, which means they can recover money from advertising on it.
 
Jul 11, 2017 at 6:07 PM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#10
I hope they don't follow suit, but honestly, was photobucket making any money from how they were being used? When sites let you link/host images directly like this it's more of just a bandwidth drain than anything else. So I can't really blame photobucket for this decision, since they probably actually want to lose all those users who were using their hosting services for free due to the costs associated with it. I don't know if their new marketing plan will really make them any money either but at least it won't be sending them into the red? Sites like imgur at least have a sizeable userbase that browses the site itself, which means they can recover money from advertising on it.
They probably should have started implementing this on a much smaller scale, with a much smaller price, a very long time ago. Doing things this way will make people dislike them and leave them because of their new business model.
I honestly don't know how Imgur support their platform, but to my knowledge they don't use ads. That's already one step above Photobucket. Adding to that, their website is ridiculously easy to use, and I've never heard of there being any file limit.
Basically, Imgur has been superior for a long time. They've just killed themselves.
 
Jul 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM
In my body, in my head
Forum Moderator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Aug 28, 2009
Location: The Purple Zone
Posts: 6000
#11
um, have you even seen imgur? they are absolutely swimming with ads - it's their primary revenue stream.
 
Jul 11, 2017 at 7:30 PM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#12
um, have you even seen imgur? they are absolutely swimming with ads - it's their primary revenue stream.
Hm. Turned off the ad blocker to have a look and I didn't see any. Seems/seemed like they mostly do promotions.
 
Jul 12, 2017 at 2:21 AM
Administrator
Forum Administrator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Jul 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6173
Age: 34
#13
Jul 12, 2017 at 8:26 AM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#14
Jul 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM
Junior Member
"Fresh from the Bakery"
Join Date: Oct 12, 2016
Location: Final Cave (Hidden)
Posts: 10
Age: 16
#15
Sorry but... What's photo bucket?
 
Jul 12, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#16
Jul 13, 2017 at 3:20 PM
Administrator
Forum Administrator
"Life begins and ends with Nu."
Join Date: Jul 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6173
Age: 34
#17
I don't see what you mean.
You claimed knowledge of their being no ads, but you had an ad blocker in place, so you had no way of knowing.

I've uploaded a 100MB .gif over Imgur. Does it have a file limit now?
We seem to be having completely different conversations here. You were saying how imgur was better than photobucket because it didn't have file limits. I am pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.
 
Jul 13, 2017 at 3:41 PM
Perfectionist
CS Beta Content Discord Admin
CSE Discord Moderator
"Bleep, Bloop, Bleep, Bloop"
Join Date: Dec 26, 2014
Location: the back of their own hand.
Posts: 1595
Age: 119
#18
You claimed knowledge of their being no ads, but you had an ad blocker in place, so you had no way of knowing.
I mentioned that I turned it off to try and confirm that there weren't any?
You were saying how imgur was better than photobucket because it didn't have file limits.
I guess you could say that. Well, research says the following:
Code:
Image size limits

There are no size limits in regards to uploading images.

Video limits

500 MB or less, and 10 minutes or less.

Animated GIF limits

5 MB or less for the original animated .gif  and 800 frames or less.
Pretty bad for GIFs. Most GIFs that I make exceed 10MB. 500MB is pretty good for videos, but not for anything long.

I don't actually see why there's a frame or length limit, though. Shouldn't only the file-size matter?
EDIT: For that matter, why have different file-size limits for different formats?
 
Top