4 ms·

"I have been using your site for 10+ years [...] You are extortionists. You are EVIL" And in those 10 years, how much did you pay for this service?

thrill 9y ago
Everything that he was charged.
aargh_aargh 9y ago
Exactly... I don't get why the customer using their free service feels entitled for it to continue. Better put into words by Louis C.K.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TviGil-U2HE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TviGil-U2HE
sleepychu 9y ago
To be fair you've left out the thing they seem frustrated about "you gave ZERO notice"
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  If you're not paying for the service, notice is not required. It's free. There is no compensation changing hands. People never learn.
  - mgkimsal 9y ago
    of course it's not required. it's a big component of goodwill, however.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Goodwill doesn't pay the server bills. Backup your Gmail account. Backup your Flickr account. Backup any free service you're using. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself when the rug gets pulled out. Edit: or start paying for them, as a sibling comment said.
      - acveilleux 9y ago
        It doesn't but the method they used might hurt their conversion ratio from free to paid accounts.
        mgkimsal 9y ago
        obviously, this is what I was getting at. a 1 week notice, with a, say, $40 plan (or even just $40 for the first year with a higher rate later) would probably have had a lot of grumbling, but people who wanted their images back 'on' various sites would be more inclined to pay $40 to make the problem go away. For many folks, $400 is just... beyond their ability to pay immediately.
      - warent 9y ago
        Goodwill keeps customers however, which do pay server bills
      - drrotmos 9y ago
        Or start paying for them.
  - jfoster 9y ago
    If you don't give notice about a service change prior to asking for money, then you get called an extortionist. You can still do it, but that's what people will call you.
  - swsieber 9y ago
    Your right, it's not required. It's still a super jerk move though. I'd complain too. I'd also complain if I walked through a really shady part of town with expensive stuff on and got mugged though.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Terrible analogy. You left your stuff on someone's lawn, they said you could do so for free, and then they started charging for the privledge.
      - matt4077 9y ago
        Great analogy. In almost any universe, that would be considered a valid contract, and any court would at least help you to get your stuff back.
- namdnay 9y ago
  I agree, the zero notice and high price is very cheeky... I imagine if gmail pulled the same stunt I'd be pretty pissed. But I wouldn't consider that using a free service for 10 years makes me entitled to anything
OoTheNigerian 9y ago
And you left out the part that was the main issue which is that they gave no notice. That's very insincere of you at best. Pathetic!
- uhhhhhhh 9y ago
  Notice of the change to the TOS was given on the 26th. People ignore changes to the TOS of free services at their own risk. The fact people are able to put an hour or two of work in to update the listings with the images hosted elsewhere (they have access to the images still, so its not a ransom as some have implied), or choose to pay a pretty low yearly fee to pay for a service they are using to make money on, seems pretty fair to me. On a separate note, The style of discourse you are using is what is pathetic. Following the trends set by an idiot only makes you look like the idiot you're following.
  - OoTheNigerian 9y ago
    We have what is known as dark patterns. They could easily have highlighted such a critical change but they refused to. The service wasn't free, it was paid for by advertisers. It can be said to be a ransom if your bait and switch makes people desperate to pay you. It will cost people using it to sell a load of money. They could have grandfathered old time users but they chose not to. So people will have to start digging through and excavating their memories to remember where they put up all bitbucket links. Finally, I chose not to respond to your last paragraph. See, I'm taking your advice :)
    - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
      >We have what is known as dark patterns. They could easily have highlighted such a critical change but they refused to. Agreed. I'm not saying they did a good job, and those that use this for images in free forums etc... have a reasonable case to be upset. Those that used the service to make money made a decision to use a free service, and that decision is rarely the correct one when it comes to business. Free services provide tradeoffs that can be changed on short notice without you having any recourse. >The service wasn't free, it was paid for by advertisers. The service was free for users, that advertisers paid doesn't change or diminish that in any way. The service was uploading and hosting images, that wasn't paid for, therefore the service was free. Monetizing it with adds doesn't change that. >They could have grandfathered old time users but they chose not to. So people will have to start digging through and excavating their memories to remember where they put up all bitbucket links. This is about third party linking, users have full access to their images through photobucket itself. If people remember the various forums and third party sites they posted the images, but not the single centralized photobucket account, then there isn't much you can do to help those people, but the problem does fall on their own actions/decisions. >Finally, I chose not to respond to your last paragraph. See, I'm taking your advice :) Admittedly it was a grumpy post. I'm getting tired of that style of discourse. It doesn't add to an argument, it comes across as obstinate and arrogant (then again I manage to do that with full sentences)
code_duck 9y ago
Are you saying that photobucket derived no value from, and has no obligation to their users, simply because they didn't make monetary payments?

thrill 9y ago

Everything that he was charged.

aargh_aargh 9y ago

Exactly... I don't get why the customer using their free service feels entitled for it to continue. Better put into words by Louis C.K.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TviGil-U2HE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TviGil-U2HE

sleepychu 9y ago

To be fair you've left out the thing they seem frustrated about "you gave ZERO notice"

toomuchtodo 9y ago
If you're not paying for the service, notice is not required. It's free. There is no compensation changing hands. People never learn.
- mgkimsal 9y ago
  of course it's not required. it's a big component of goodwill, however.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Goodwill doesn't pay the server bills. Backup your Gmail account. Backup your Flickr account. Backup any free service you're using. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself when the rug gets pulled out. Edit: or start paying for them, as a sibling comment said.
    - acveilleux 9y ago
      It doesn't but the method they used might hurt their conversion ratio from free to paid accounts.
      - mgkimsal 9y ago
        obviously, this is what I was getting at. a 1 week notice, with a, say, $40 plan (or even just $40 for the first year with a higher rate later) would probably have had a lot of grumbling, but people who wanted their images back 'on' various sites would be more inclined to pay $40 to make the problem go away. For many folks, $400 is just... beyond their ability to pay immediately.
    - warent 9y ago
      Goodwill keeps customers however, which do pay server bills
    - drrotmos 9y ago
      Or start paying for them.
- jfoster 9y ago
  If you don't give notice about a service change prior to asking for money, then you get called an extortionist. You can still do it, but that's what people will call you.
- swsieber 9y ago
  Your right, it's not required. It's still a super jerk move though. I'd complain too. I'd also complain if I walked through a really shady part of town with expensive stuff on and got mugged though.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Terrible analogy. You left your stuff on someone's lawn, they said you could do so for free, and then they started charging for the privledge.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Great analogy. In almost any universe, that would be considered a valid contract, and any court would at least help you to get your stuff back.
namdnay 9y ago
I agree, the zero notice and high price is very cheeky... I imagine if gmail pulled the same stunt I'd be pretty pissed. But I wouldn't consider that using a free service for 10 years makes me entitled to anything

OoTheNigerian 9y ago

And you left out the part that was the main issue which is that they gave no notice. That's very insincere of you at best. Pathetic!

uhhhhhhh 9y ago
Notice of the change to the TOS was given on the 26th. People ignore changes to the TOS of free services at their own risk. The fact people are able to put an hour or two of work in to update the listings with the images hosted elsewhere (they have access to the images still, so its not a ransom as some have implied), or choose to pay a pretty low yearly fee to pay for a service they are using to make money on, seems pretty fair to me. On a separate note, The style of discourse you are using is what is pathetic. Following the trends set by an idiot only makes you look like the idiot you're following.
- OoTheNigerian 9y ago
  We have what is known as dark patterns. They could easily have highlighted such a critical change but they refused to. The service wasn't free, it was paid for by advertisers. It can be said to be a ransom if your bait and switch makes people desperate to pay you. It will cost people using it to sell a load of money. They could have grandfathered old time users but they chose not to. So people will have to start digging through and excavating their memories to remember where they put up all bitbucket links. Finally, I chose not to respond to your last paragraph. See, I'm taking your advice :)
  - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
    >We have what is known as dark patterns. They could easily have highlighted such a critical change but they refused to. Agreed. I'm not saying they did a good job, and those that use this for images in free forums etc... have a reasonable case to be upset. Those that used the service to make money made a decision to use a free service, and that decision is rarely the correct one when it comes to business. Free services provide tradeoffs that can be changed on short notice without you having any recourse. >The service wasn't free, it was paid for by advertisers. The service was free for users, that advertisers paid doesn't change or diminish that in any way. The service was uploading and hosting images, that wasn't paid for, therefore the service was free. Monetizing it with adds doesn't change that. >They could have grandfathered old time users but they chose not to. So people will have to start digging through and excavating their memories to remember where they put up all bitbucket links. This is about third party linking, users have full access to their images through photobucket itself. If people remember the various forums and third party sites they posted the images, but not the single centralized photobucket account, then there isn't much you can do to help those people, but the problem does fall on their own actions/decisions. >Finally, I chose not to respond to your last paragraph. See, I'm taking your advice :) Admittedly it was a grumpy post. I'm getting tired of that style of discourse. It doesn't add to an argument, it comes across as obstinate and arrogant (then again I manage to do that with full sentences)

code_duck 9y ago

Are you saying that photobucket derived no value from, and has no obligation to their users, simply because they didn't make monetary payments?