why do photosharing website offer only limited free space?

On most videosharing websites (like youtube or veoh), it seems that
you have unlimited space (except for some limitations on the size of
individual video's afaik) to share video's.
Why do typical photosharing sites like flickr and picasaweb offer only
limited space for a free account?

I've reached the upload limit of 200 pics on flickr now and although I
liked flickr, I've decided to switch to picasaweb, which offers
similar features (except I miss the statistics and the possibility to
use search filters to limit the results to CC material) but more space
(1 gb).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thcganja

Some recent photos of fungi like mushrooms:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/view?uname=THCganja&tags=nature#slideshow

 

Simple - because they want you to PAY for their service! When Yahoo
Photos was changed to Flickr, all my albums were transferred over to
the new service by them. I was pleased, as it worked seamlessly.
Whenever I'd load more photos to Flickr, I'd get a message saying
there was no monthly upload limits! Great, until one year had passed,
and I got a message from Flickr stating that my one year free Flickr
"Pro" account was now over, and I'd have to pay to keep my photos with
them, or live with only 200 free ones. Fuggem! I deleted ALL of my
albums, and only use them for transient photos that I want to share,
keeping the number below 200 of course.

Over the years I've had photos on many, many "free" sites, only to see
them find out there was no money in it, and offering "upgrades" for
monthly fees, or you can have photos on their sites if you buy prints,
or they just folded. So I now don't believe anything any of them say,
I just have photo albums on several different sites rather than trying
to use one.

It's all about the money!

 

How are you different? You are changing sites to avoid paying money.

 

Ok, but why are videosharing websites offering virtually unlimited
space then? Are they not
in it for the money?

 

How many other sites link to video on YT vs Flickr? Does your local
newspaper's site link to YT or Flickr? Hosting sites are cheap quit your
complaining. less than one cup of java at Starbucks/month.

 

What does linking have to do with it?
Video quality on youtube and google video sucks.. veoh and dailymotion
offer
better quality, suitable for video tutorials.
Flickr seems to be somewhere in between as far as video quality is
concerned.
Hosting should be free, as this can be paid for by ads.

 

Video sharing sites aren't expected to make money. They're just trying
to get market share now in hopes of figuring out how to make money
later. What you need is a photo-sharing site that doesn't expect to
make money now, like mine.

 

Add all of your above statements together and you have the answer.
More links to videos generates more traffic to the videos and therefor
more exposure to the advertising. More exposure means that YT can charge
more for the advertising and make more money. Flickr don't put
advertising on the photo pages, so they don't benefit from heavy
traffic, it just costs them money.

90% of the people watching YT have no interest in video quality. Plus,
google have no interest in providing high quality video because it cost
them more to host and serve. They want popular short movies that
generate lots of money from advertisers.

 

Well maybe so, but I did have a site that I liked and when they
changed to a pay site I paid. Not long after that they went out of
business - just closed without any notice at all. A while later it
appears that someone bought up their data and offered to sell
customers a CD with their photos for $30.00! Thanks but no thanks.
Think it was PhotoPoint? Don't recall, but I don't want to get burned
again.

RR

 

I remember photopoint.. as soon as they started charging money I
ditched them and
found a better place to share pictures.