Photobucket - Costing $399 pa Now?

[DrZhivago]

We are advised on this forum to use Photobucket to display pictures.

But there is news going round the internet that Photobucket have started to charge an eye-watering $399 per annum to use their hosting. It has been said that is only if you exceed 2Gb of downloads, but you could easily reach that if you post a picture on this forum for example (especially if other forum users quote your post without removing any included pictures - EH52ARH asked Why )

http://uk.pcmag.com/webcom/90124/news/photobucket-breaks-image-links-across-the-internet
https://petapixel.com/2017/07/01/photobucket-just-broke-billions-photos-embedded-web/
What are people finding? I don't use Photobucket myself. In fact you can link an image to this forum from anwhere on the Web (I use my own web space). Here for example is an (open source) banner

from the "Viewable with any Browser" campaign.

PS : I see it is happening on this forum with disabled pictures already !

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

Just an experiment. Is Photobucket still hosting my photos?

PS I haven't paid anything. :huh:

 

[Hutch]

Mines Ok, no asking for payments.

 

[Jaydug]

Yes - I read about this on my motoring forum and immediately went to the Bucket to check. All was as usual with me being able to post pictures from it in its slow and clunky manner.

 

[Hutch]

I remembwr getting a message about it , but just deleated it. Don't like paying for things like this.

 

[Mogwyth]

Photobucket business model is based on a free service with adverts or a paid for service without, so when you view pictures on their site you either see ads along side the pictures or not. But you can get round that by using their site to host the images and then putting a link to site like this, now for the odd share photobucket don't mind however some users are using it as a free service to host 100's or even thousands of images that they then display on their own site, these are the users PB are targeting and you being cut off from your pictures till you pay. However I have heard that their next target will be forums etc that promote using PB as a hosting service and they will block access if you don't pay.

On the forum I run we actually discourage the use of third party hosting, because there is nothing worse than an interesting post full of image not found icons.

 

[Mogwyth]

I remembwr getting a message about it , but just deleated it. Don't like paying for things like this.

Some one has to pay, the Internet is not free.

 

[LizziePope]

We've not noticed anything here, but will definitely keep an eye on it. There are lots of photo-hosting sites out there, though, you don't have to use Photobucket. Thanks for flagging it up!

 

[DrZhivago]

We've not noticed anything here, but will definitely keep an eye on it.

They are saying that the demand for a subscription only kicks in only if and when your download total goes over 2Gb, hence some people reporting no problems (yet). However, it looks like our Gabsgrandad might have hit the limit here (scroll to the bottom) :-

https://www.practicalcaravan.com/forum/general/54888-tyre-pressure-monitoring-systems-tpms?start=30
I understand that you do not lose your own pictures (that would be too bad), only that external links to them are blocked. Also, that it applies retrospectively - ie pictures that were successfully linked in the past cease to be linked.

 

[colin-yorkshire]

this is the reason I never use 3rd party sites if I cannot post a item direct to the server interface [on a forum post] I don't bother. I never liked the idea of someone having my photos on their site then deciding I had to pay to see them. or use them elsewhere. looks like it may have been a smart move after all.

 

[DrZhivago]

... if I cannot post a item direct to the server interface [on a forum post] I don't bother. I never liked the idea of someone having my photos on their site then deciding I had to pay to see them. or use them elsewhere.

I have no objection to a straightforward deal with a professionally oriented web hosting company - ie not the likes of the free offerings of Photobucket, Google, Amazon, or Microsoft Azure, etc, none of whom I trust. You can get several Gb of space from around £2.50 pcm from LCN or 1&1 just for examples, and from many other small companies. You dont have to create a web site with them, you can just use them to place pictures and link to them. Much cheaper than Photobucket are becoming.

 

[Mogwyth]

Indeed Colin, and some services have just ceased with a consequentially loss of pictures, with the low cost of server storage and bandwidth I fail to understand why any commercial site won't allow uploads (even if size limited) and expects a third party to pick up the hosting bill for images displayed on their site.

 

[colin-yorkshire]

Indeed Colin, and some services have just ceased with a consequentially loss of pictures, with the low cost of server storage and bandwidth I fail to understand why any commercial site won't allow uploads (even if size limited) and expects a third party to pick up the hosting bill for images displayed on their site.

my point exactly. in most cases the site server has Terabytes of spare capacity photos and document attachments of less than say 300kb could be stored easily if needed.
sometimes a photo or drawing explains something that a thousand words cannot but if you want to post one and have to go through a 3rd party to get it up rather defeats the process.somewhat.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Hi to you all again. I posted a plea of a fashion the other day regarding this very issue and the topic was locked and because of duplication - of which I was unaware - fair enough but I was directed as such :-- If you check the original topic you'll see that the present arrangements still apply.
There's no point having two topics about the same subject running at the same time so I've now locked this one.

I am unsure whether that was a reference to this one or a referral back to the original notes on how to initiate Photo Bucket.
I am at a complete loss as to how to post images (when required) onto the site since my total inability to open any of my Photo Bucket accounts - I actually had three - each was specific to a particular forum that would not facilitate images from ones own PC.
Yes,I have lost images to Photo Bucket but I also had back-up on a huge External Hard-drive.
I have always been a firm believer in 'Never put all of your eggs in the one basket'
Especially in the current climate of hi-jacks & ransoms.
I am not wealthy by any stretch of ones imagination and/but I would rather trash my PC than pay hard earned pensions/income to some faceless individual hiding behind the mysteries of the internet.

It is my considered opinion (for what it is worth) that this issue with Photo Bucket is only the start of further activity with other such image hosting sites.
What is more simplistic than posting images from ones own computer with safeguards put into place on the Practical Caravan site - ones that would restrict only Thumbnails being uploaded therefore taking up much less bandwidth.

 

[DrZhivago]

I am at a complete loss as to how to post images... onto the site since my total inability to open any of my Photo Bucket accounts ..

I understand that you can no longer link your photobucket pics from an external website (like practicalcaravan.com), which they call third party hosting. Photobucket don't like it because people seeing your pic on the external website are not also seeing the adverts that are part of Photobucket's income. From Photobucket's website :-

... new and legacy free account users will NOT have third party hosting available. If you were a Plus Account subscriber in good standing as of June 1, 2017, you will continue to have all the privileges you have enjoyed including 3rd Party Hosting until December 31, 2018 as long as you maintain your subscription. Non Plus 500 Account subscribers that purchased after June 1, 2017 will not have access to 3rd Party Hosting.

There is no way that Photobucket should have disabled your accounts with them, free or not. They would be open to being sued if they made your photos inaccessible to yourself without good notice. Despite that, I would never have stuff with a hosting service (including clouds) without a backup copy safely in my own possession.

I have always been a firm believer in 'Never put all of your eggs in the one basket' .. Especially in the current climate of hi-jacks & ransoms.

Exactly. And outfits like Photobucket can go bust, be hacked, or accidentally wipe everything, and you lose everything that is with them. Some cloud companies have done just that. Ironic that putting ones data in the cloud has become fashionable just when hard drives are bigger and cheaper than ever.

... I would rather trash my PC than pay hard earned pensions/income to some faceless individual hiding behind the mysteries of the internet.

You are being too hard there. It is fair enough to pay a hosting company for storage space on their drives and for their high speed connection to the internet, which will be much faster than any home connection. But it should cost far less than $399 pa, and it should be under your control and advert free. I have accounts with Aquiss and UNO on that basis, both small British companies that I don't think of as faceless, and they answer the phone too.

It is my considered opinion ... that this issue with Photo Bucket is only the start of further activity with other such image hosting sites.

It is part of a general move to get rental from internet users. Windows 10 will move to a rental model (bear it or be left behind), like Microsoft Office 365 (but what did Office 2003 not do?) and Adobe Photoshop. The idea of "Apps" on tablets is to put a layer of the software provider's control between you and your data (obscuring even the basic unit of coherent data - the file) and once having this control thay can, ultimately, make you pay for all activity. You won't need to remember to pay - for your "peace of mind" they will have your debit card details :lol:

What is more simplistic than posting images from ones own computer ... into place on the Practical Caravan site.

Simple, but it uses the site's bandwidth which gets quite expensive as traffic goes up. Every time one of us sees someone's picture, which could be a thousand times altogether, the whole file size would be downloaded from Practical Caravan's servers - but by linking to Photobucket (or elsewhere) that data flow bypasses those servers and Photobucket has to do the work - which is precisely why Photobucket don't like it..

 

[Parksy]

Hi to you all again. I posted a plea of a fashion the other day regarding this very issue and the topic was locked and because of duplication - of which I was unaware - fair enough but I was directed as such :-- If you check the original topic you'll see that the present arrangements still apply.
There's no point having two topics about the same subject running at the same time so I've now locked this one.

When similar topics which deal with the same subject appear on this forum, the duplicates are locked or removed to avoid the possibility of forum members having to look all over the message boards to reply or to read the replies.
Until we have further information from admin there's not much else that we can do about uploading pictures. Photobucket have placed restrictions on third party use so unfortunately the previous instructions can no longer be followed.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Would it be fair to suggest that the age-old-adage of a Picture/Image is worth a Thousand Words - could now be reinterpreted as Picture/Images held/located on Photo Bucket can cost a great-deal of money in World Wide Blackmail Fees.

 

[Tukums]

Use Flickr, no charge and you get 1TB.

 

[Gafferbill]

........or any of these other sites

There is more than one way to skin a carrot :huh:

 

[Mogwyth]

Or a commercial company that runs a website with advertising could host them themselves, the charity I run a forum for does and we don't have advertising and our users tend to post far pictures than on here due to the nature of the subject. The Land Rover forum I am on hosts its own pictures and has just one small banner ad at the top.

 

[DrZhivago]

Until we have further information from admin there's not much else that we can do about uploading pictures. Photobucket have placed restrictions on third party use so unfortunately the previous instructions can no longer be followed.

All that needs to be done in the forum recommended procedure* is to replace the word "Photobucket" with the words "a photo or general file hosting service". The words "for example Flickr" could also be added, and perhaps a footnote "some hosting services may charge fees for this". It looks like your post Parksy, so why not edit it it?

Further up this thread both Tukums and myself have demonstrated that you do not have to use Photobucket.

Having said that, the forum instructions are not right for my browser : I see no "picture link icon at the top right indicated by the red arrow"; so I just put the link in manually. I wonder if Flickr might soon follow Photobucket's lead anyway

* Hilarious that the upload demonstration picture itself is now replaced by the Photobucket nag notice :lol:

 

[Gafferbill]

Well DrZhivago.......I have just used Parksy's instructions to the letter and as you can see the instructions still work for my particular free Photobucket a/c.
Yes it is probably just a question of time before I will have to change my hosting service but it has not happened yet!!

Speaking of time please bear in mind that Parksy is a volunteer and as such gives his time freely for the good of the forum.

I hope your post was not meant to be critical because it can be read that way

 

[WoodlandsCamper]

I had an email overnight from Photobucket saying they have noticed that I use them for 3rd party hosting and that I will need to upgrade (for a fee) to continue that privilege. I only use them for this forum and only have about 20 photos on their system.

 

[Gabsgrandad]

That's all I used Photobucket for, no other sites, don't know how many pictures I had on, (not alot!) stacks of space was still showing on the usage meter. But 'they' removed every picture I ever put on the PC forum. (you would maybe have thought they would have left on the ones already published, but stopped any new ones from being used?) but no -- well done Photobucket shouldn't think you gained 1 customer by your actions. All my pictures deleted by me, (no point in leaving them) and account closed.

 

[Mogwyth]

It's not about gaining customers it's about getting rid of what they see as free loaders.