3 ms·

Two things: First, I don't like URL shorteners for this same reason. Every web server should be in charge of managing long and short urls easily with just one

Two things: First, I don't like URL shorteners for this same reason. Every web server should be in charge of managing long and short urls easily with just one line of code. Second, how expensive it is to keep the site running? $10 a month for a cheap hosting service and they can make more than that with just google ads. Now, if they want to live largely just by shortening urls then no, it won't pay the bills.

ams1 17y ago
more details on why it went down: http://blog.tr.im/post/159369789/tr-im-r-i-p http://blog.tr.im/post/159369789/tr-im-r-i-p
larrywright 17y ago
A couple of points: 1) Url shorteners aren't going away. Like it or not, there's a need, particularly for things like Twitter. 2) I think it's more than that. They did more than just shorten urls, they also tracked analytics on those links, clickthrough rates and the like. You can view charts and graphs about how often links are clicked on, etc. Multiply that by millions of links, and it's not an inconsequential amount of storage and bandwidth. I think you way overestimate the capabilities of a $10 hosting package.
- jerf 17y ago
  All the $10 package would have to do is forward the user, though. It wouldn't have to do all that stuff. That said, it probably isn't quite a $10 package. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't take much, especially if you cared to take the time to write a custom-purpose HTTP-redirection server. Actually, that would sort of be an interesting programming challenge: How small and efficient can you get such a server?
  - bmelton 17y ago
    But if that's all it's doing, where is its differentiation between it and the hundreds of other URL shortening services. You CAN run a social network cheaply, but good luck competing with Facebook / MySpace / Orkut / Friendfeed / Livejournal / et al. Offering the service with the least amount of features can sometimes be a winning idea, but in this space, I'm not entirely sure that it's doable, considering the major feature works pretty similarly across all tr.im's competition.
    - jerf 17y ago
      "But if that's all it's doing, where is its differentiation between it and the hundreds of other URL shortening services." Nothing. The design specification was just to "keep the site running", not to support a given feature set, for the purpose of not breaking the links, and nothing else. An extra buck or two from Google would be a bonus, but personally I wouldn't count on it.
  - lamnk 17y ago
    On the other hand, it probably wouldn't take much, especially if you cared to take the time to write a custom-purpose HTTP-redirection server. You must consider the opportunity cost. How long does it take to code such custom server ? As tr.im is not profitable, its developers' time could be used to produce other product/service that has a better business model and is more profitable.
    - calcnerd256 17y ago
      they could ask the community to donate the code in the interest of maintaining the links that depend upon it
- rythie 17y ago
  Other than for twitter I don't see the reason for them really. Tinyurl was around from 2002, but was not heavily used until Twitter used it.
  - scottjackson 17y ago
    I occasionally find them useful outside of Twitter. In my experience, some applications (email clients, etc) don't handle/parse really long links (Google Maps links or ugly eBay auction URLs, for example) very well, so giving someone an is.gd link to a hideously long and complicated URL is usually easier for me.
brk 17y ago
How many $10/mo accounts do you know of that would give you the server resources and bandwidth needed to scale an application like this? Granted the resource utilization overhead is very small compared to many other apps, but with even a smidge of popularity, this is not a $10/mo hosting app. Since my comment has been modded down to 0, surely someone has more information about tr.im and can post some examples of $10/mo hosting sites that could run it.
- soult 17y ago
  If you remove the statistics and the url submission form, so that only the redirection is kept alive (= no broken links) I think a $10/mo account should be sufficient.

ams1 17y ago

more details on why it went down: http://blog.tr.im/post/159369789/tr-im-r-i-p http://blog.tr.im/post/159369789/tr-im-r-i-p

larrywright 17y ago

A couple of points: 1) Url shorteners aren't going away. Like it or not, there's a need, particularly for things like Twitter. 2) I think it's more than that. They did more than just shorten urls, they also tracked analytics on those links, clickthrough rates and the like. You can view charts and graphs about how often links are clicked on, etc. Multiply that by millions of links, and it's not an inconsequential amount of storage and bandwidth. I think you way overestimate the capabilities of a $10 hosting package.

jerf 17y ago
All the $10 package would have to do is forward the user, though. It wouldn't have to do all that stuff. That said, it probably isn't quite a $10 package. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't take much, especially if you cared to take the time to write a custom-purpose HTTP-redirection server. Actually, that would sort of be an interesting programming challenge: How small and efficient can you get such a server?
- bmelton 17y ago
  But if that's all it's doing, where is its differentiation between it and the hundreds of other URL shortening services. You CAN run a social network cheaply, but good luck competing with Facebook / MySpace / Orkut / Friendfeed / Livejournal / et al. Offering the service with the least amount of features can sometimes be a winning idea, but in this space, I'm not entirely sure that it's doable, considering the major feature works pretty similarly across all tr.im's competition.
  - jerf 17y ago
    "But if that's all it's doing, where is its differentiation between it and the hundreds of other URL shortening services." Nothing. The design specification was just to "keep the site running", not to support a given feature set, for the purpose of not breaking the links, and nothing else. An extra buck or two from Google would be a bonus, but personally I wouldn't count on it.
- lamnk 17y ago
  On the other hand, it probably wouldn't take much, especially if you cared to take the time to write a custom-purpose HTTP-redirection server. You must consider the opportunity cost. How long does it take to code such custom server ? As tr.im is not profitable, its developers' time could be used to produce other product/service that has a better business model and is more profitable.
  - calcnerd256 17y ago
    they could ask the community to donate the code in the interest of maintaining the links that depend upon it
rythie 17y ago
Other than for twitter I don't see the reason for them really. Tinyurl was around from 2002, but was not heavily used until Twitter used it.
- scottjackson 17y ago
  I occasionally find them useful outside of Twitter. In my experience, some applications (email clients, etc) don't handle/parse really long links (Google Maps links or ugly eBay auction URLs, for example) very well, so giving someone an is.gd link to a hideously long and complicated URL is usually easier for me.

brk 17y ago

How many $10/mo accounts do you know of that would give you the server resources and bandwidth needed to scale an application like this? Granted the resource utilization overhead is very small compared to many other apps, but with even a smidge of popularity, this is not a $10/mo hosting app. Since my comment has been modded down to 0, surely someone has more information about tr.im and can post some examples of $10/mo hosting sites that could run it.

soult 17y ago
If you remove the statistics and the url submission form, so that only the redirection is kept alive (= no broken links) I think a $10/mo account should be sufficient.