30 ms·

Come on, wasn't twitpic free? What why should they keep paying for hosting if the business went under?

joshstrange 12y ago
Let's not pretend that they didn't make money off the ads they placed on their websites. Yes it was "free" but they weren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Also any goodwill they may have gained in their heyday is all but used up now with this whole shutting down, not shutting down, shutting down, fuck you and your pictures situation.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  If it was profitable they wouldn't be shutting down.
  - bdcravens 12y ago
    Not necessarily true. It stems from Twitter demanding they abandon their trademark. http://blog.twitpic.com/2014/09/twitpic-is-shutting-down/ http://blog.twitpic.com/2014/09/twitpic-is-shutting-down/
sp332 12y ago
Paying for hosting? They were making money from ads they put next to our pictures. They were using our content to drive traffic to their site. Without the user's photos, the site is worthless. They should have been paying users a cut of advertising revenue like YouTube does. "Free" means they're pocketing the profit for themselves.
- pistle 12y ago
  If they had profits, maybe they wouldn't be closing down. Those ads were to pay bills and they are broke. Allowing massive bandwidth usage now is just throwing bad debt after bad.
  - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
    There is no indication that Twitpic is broke. They announced their shutdown after Twitter objected to their attempt to trademark their name (as any company might do, if another business applied for a trademark using a large chunk of their name in a similar context.)
    - pistle 12y ago
      So, the profits aren't enough to warrant changing names? The profits aren't enough to be worthy of a buyout - or even letting others foot the bill for backups. Not to mention there's someone out there who is dealing with multiple levels of suck right now. It might be a better path for people to reach out to help the guy WITHOUT offering to offload the value proposition of what he built. Also, any sort of agreements between people who uploaded content and Twitpic can't just be sold off to the first person to show up with a hard drive or offer to pay bandwidth costs. That would be a set of legal costs, etc. etc.
- billmalarky 12y ago
  This is absurd. They were providing a service that users deemed valuable, and users gave them access to the content (and the ability to monetize that content) in exchange for their service. You don't actually believe Facebook should pay you for using their free service do you?
  - sp332 12y ago
    This isn't about money. People have offered to cover the costs of a backup.

Let's not pretend that they didn't make money off the ads they placed on their websites. Yes it was "free" but they weren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Also any goodwill they may have gained in their heyday is all but used up now with this whole shutting down, not shutting down, shutting down, fuck you and your pictures situation.

Houshalter 12y ago
If it was profitable they wouldn't be shutting down.
- bdcravens 12y ago
  Not necessarily true. It stems from Twitter demanding they abandon their trademark. http://blog.twitpic.com/2014/09/twitpic-is-shutting-down/ http://blog.twitpic.com/2014/09/twitpic-is-shutting-down/

sp332 12y ago

Paying for hosting? They were making money from ads they put next to our pictures. They were using our content to drive traffic to their site. Without the user's photos, the site is worthless. They should have been paying users a cut of advertising revenue like YouTube does. "Free" means they're pocketing the profit for themselves.

pistle 12y ago
If they had profits, maybe they wouldn't be closing down. Those ads were to pay bills and they are broke. Allowing massive bandwidth usage now is just throwing bad debt after bad.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  There is no indication that Twitpic is broke. They announced their shutdown after Twitter objected to their attempt to trademark their name (as any company might do, if another business applied for a trademark using a large chunk of their name in a similar context.)
  - pistle 12y ago
    So, the profits aren't enough to warrant changing names? The profits aren't enough to be worthy of a buyout - or even letting others foot the bill for backups. Not to mention there's someone out there who is dealing with multiple levels of suck right now. It might be a better path for people to reach out to help the guy WITHOUT offering to offload the value proposition of what he built. Also, any sort of agreements between people who uploaded content and Twitpic can't just be sold off to the first person to show up with a hard drive or offer to pay bandwidth costs. That would be a set of legal costs, etc. etc.
billmalarky 12y ago
This is absurd. They were providing a service that users deemed valuable, and users gave them access to the content (and the ability to monetize that content) in exchange for their service. You don't actually believe Facebook should pay you for using their free service do you?
- sp332 12y ago
  This isn't about money. People have offered to cover the costs of a backup.