why do photosharing website offer only limited free space?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Sep 19, 2008.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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
     
    sobriquet, Sep 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. sobriquet

    railfan Guest

    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!
     
    railfan, Sep 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    How are you different? You are changing sites to avoid paying money.
     
    tony cooper, Sep 19, 2008
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    Ok, but why are videosharing websites offering virtually unlimited
    space then? Are they not
    in it for the money?
     
    sobriquet, Sep 19, 2008
    #4
  5. sobriquet

    me Guest

    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.
     
    me, Sep 19, 2008
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    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.
     
    sobriquet, Sep 19, 2008
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    Bruce Lewis Guest

    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.
     
    Bruce Lewis, Sep 20, 2008
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    DavidM Guest

    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.
     
    DavidM, Sep 20, 2008
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    railfan Guest

    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
     
    railfan, Sep 22, 2008
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    I remember photopoint.. as soon as they started charging money I
    ditched them and
    found a better place to share pictures.
     
    sobriquet, Sep 22, 2008
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.