Hacker News Reader

Comment by beambot | Hacker News Reader

Because they probably aren't charities, and can't afford to donat e Free resources for your perpetual enjoyment?

> Because they probably aren't charities, and can't afford to donat e Free resources for your perpetual enjoyment?

Then why did they start a free service to begin with, if they knew from the start it couldn't last?

Right, to trick people into becoming dependent on the free service so they'll be reluctant to leave once the shady, UX-degrading monetization starts.

You'll forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to that business plan.

Back to reality: would imgur have become so popular if it wasn't free? Who would pay? Reddit users? I don't think so.

You seem to be asserting that anything is okay as long as it makes money.

Nobody has to make a website. If the only way you can think of to make money is bait-and-switch, then you can choose to do that, or you can choose to go back to the drawing board and come up with a less unpleasant business plan. If you choose the former, don't expect me to cheer because you found a way to make money, and you think that's the only thing that matters.

I agree with you. When imgur started there was a definite need. Now it's being replaced because there's a new need (caused by imgur changing the way it operates).

Also, I don't think you're going to make everyone happy as a business, and that's (probably) okay.

+1 to this. People should stop being soften with unrealistic business that uses the ad hororem tactic. Imgur can explore dozens of models.

I think you're forgetting that we live in a world of capitalism. Nobody promised no one nothing. Owners and share holders decide a business model and it's up to you, the consumer, to decide whether you go with it or not. There's always alternatives, if a service seems bad to you, choose a different one, but don't blame the owners for not choosing a business model that would suit you personally.

Shame on imgur for providing a service that was sought-after by everyone, and provide it for free by serving ads.

While we're at it, let's demand the end of free TV, free email providers, free forums, and even youtube.

> While we're at it, let's demand the end of free TV, free email providers, free forums, and even youtube.

If you have a sustainable business model for such a thing, knock yourself out.

If you're just making it free for a couple of years to suck people in before you ratchet up the (not necessarily monetary) cost then yeah, we can do without that.

I think the problem with this particular web service area is that you can set up an image sharing site easily and for little cost. But when it gets popular, and there's a shift to higher bandwidth usage, then costs mount beyond the ability of most people to sustain it. If it's popular then it's going to get acquired or have investors who will push the site to be more commercial; the only other way to go is to close the site or perhaps beg for donations.

> to suck people in before you ratchet up

It's an image hosting service.

You upload cat pictures, you pass the link around. That's it.

Once the hosting service stops being a hosting service, you move on and upload the picture somewhere else.

It's far more reasonable to think there are other explanations than what effectively comes across as very negative intent from the beginning.

For example, they may have hoped or believed they could find a better business model over time, an alternative to the traditional ad models. Based on watching their various experiments since the day they got started, I can say for a fact they did try other things (two examples: Imgur as a service via paid API and Imgur Pro accounts).

Is it more likely the Imgur founder was naive or malevolent? The answer is extremely obvious.

They still provide a 'free to the user at point of use' service. The service they provide doesn't include hotlinking by other site hosts, that's been normal since about 2000 IIRC.

The service they provided DID include hotlinking from other sites, which was one of their major distinguishing features and which is why I (for one) used them almost exclusively as an image host.

I can be sympathetic to the fact that their previous 'business model' wasn't financially viable while still being annoyed that they've changed it.

Then we're back to my initial point: they never should have started as one.

I imagine you in a grocery store somewhere, railing against free samples. "You never should've given me a piece of sausage if you were going to start charging for them."

That is possibly the worst analogy I've ever read on HN.

Only if you speak Dutch.

Not comparable since supermarket in-store free samples are tiny servings of a product you can purchase in the same establishment.

Supermarkets wouldn't allow, much less encourage, anyone to consume large numbers of free samples instead of buying the actual for-sale product.

You're wrong. It would be awful to live somewhere where you get to choose which companies are allowed to start.

The problem is that these sites start out as a small, useful service and then some VC with dollar signs in their eyes throws a few million dollars at them. The clothes make the primate, and suddenly what was three guys in a back room living on instant noodles feels obliged to "act like the million-dollar company that they are."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com