Another question: Besides an archive paywall, what else could the company do to build revenue (such as professional services, print-on-demand, etc.)
Can you please or anybody else explain me why you see any added value of scribd at all? I see it only as an annoyance. If I'd like to read a pdf I'd prefer to click on the link and read it, not to go to some suspicious site which demands from me to sign up there only to do what otherwise would be one single click.
As far as I know the only "advantage" of the service was to make content infringement easier (a site for documents which is like youtube was for videos), and that the site owners expect people to pay for access to it is hardly surprising. But I like other mechanisms more.
My suggestion for everybody who is the owner of his own documents and wants to upload them: host them as the normal files on the normal sites, unless you do want people to pay for access to them.
1. They don't have webspace and want to put a PDF somewhere online.
2. They do have webspace, but are worried, possibly unnecessarily, that it'll cost them too much money if they send out a link to a big PDF to a large-ish mailing list.
3. For Mac users, where PDFs don't load in a plugin in the browser by default, they want to be able to link to a PDF that opens in the browser instead of popping up an external viewer.
4. And, yes: They have a PDF that is at best gray-area which they want to distribute without hosting it themselves, like a scan of a book chapter for a reading group.
FYI, PDFs absolutely load in the browser by default.
It uses the native Quartz PDFKit backend.
- I can post papers or other documents that other people might value but not otherwise be available, such as court docs, academic papers, etc.
- I can embed the documents easily in my blogs (and before at the publication I worked at)
- I don't have to worry about hosting. I could easily upload the PDFs to the Web server my school grants me, but after I graduate, it's gone, and I have to find another solution and change the links.
Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you.
Hosting: See the first paragraph.
OK, anybody knows some better reason?
To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
Note however that he does "self publishing" experiment. Enough readers here would be able to make him one click upload script in less than 10 minutes. Ditto for parsing the logs. I don't feel sorry for him for choosing scribd and feeling how he feels now.
I'm just wondering how the suggestion to use Google Sites or another free service is any different then using Scribd?
For case of stopping providing the services, take as the example Geocites -- it took a decade for them to stop hosting, and the only victim were the long forgotten and deserted pages. On another side, there is still content I uploaded on Tripod at least ten years ago, for which I forgot my passwords years ago.
If years of free hosting are not enough for you, then you have to pay for the hosting and have a bit more control. But even the hosting site to which you pay can go out of business. Nothing is forever, you just have to maintain your online content if you want to have control over it.
I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd. I admit I don't know why most users use it.
With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!
> I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd.
You really mean "I'm still curious to learn about the advantages of scibd for me." If you meant what you originally said, your being purposefully obtuse.
Indeed, in rereading you original comment, you were simply dismissive, and all the alternatives you provided lacked the specific feature sets he was looking for.
> With enough ideas or usage scenarios, maybe somebody will make something better!
Yeah, another document host. Scribd2.
"I admit I don't know why most users use it."
Note: most users. If you can't answer, please restrain from trying to make a conflict. The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful! I'd really like more of such answers, but your answer is both unusable and insulting. When I commented on some of the features mentioned it's only because I want to hear something "yes feature A is easy but there is also the advantage B" etc.
The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.
Within the context of this thread, you initially responded to a post, and, whether intending to or not, you dismissed his reasons for liking Scribd. ilamont gave you three reasons. For example, embedding was one answer. In your immediate reply to my last post, you said:
> The responses like "embed," or "ease of upload," or "read statistics" are actually useful!
However, in your reply to ilamont, you said:
> Embed: Who really needs embedded PDF? What for? To have it harder to read? Just give me the plain link, thank you.
Now, maybe your intention wasn't to be dismissive. Unfortunately, what you said here is dismissive. So, forgive me if I seem like I'm trying to 'make a conflict', but going by your replies, you did seem to start off that way.
Next, you originally said:
> You can upload them on your free web account (like, Google Sites)?
This was again in response to ilamont.
My reply, which basically was in response to this particular part, was
> To be fair, that's what he did at the time. This account also had some added features he valued.
This was in response to your comment regarding ilamont, as well as the original poster, and encompassed both users. Basically, that Scribd provided both of these people with features they liked, and features you were seemed to dismiss as unimportant.
Anyways, my remark was merely to state that they did, in fact, use a free service to upload their documents too. Your suggestion of using another free service is missing the point: they had already done that. It's fairly circular: A free hosting service did something you don't like? Maybe you should have tried a free hosting service.
Our replies quickly degenerated until we reach now, where you are assuming I'm trying to create a conflict. I assure you, I am not.
Now, I want to address this:
> The argument that you can post to scribd and worry less that it will become inaccessible compared to when you upload it to some other site is what scribd themselves already proved to be false.
In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.
And maybe this is where our confusion came about. I was speaking within the context of the original poster, as well as the parent commenter. It seemed you were only looking forward, though, this wasn't far from clear in your original reply.
Regardless, it's a silly debate. I apologize if I seemed to be trying to start and argument with you. That was not my intention. However, what you said doesn't follow logically. I can only assume this is because what you wrote and what you meant aren't the same. I blame the internet, and it's failings to communicate effectively.
That being said, if you are a native born English speaker, you're probably nothing more than an obtuse troll.
What you failed to recognize was that the nature of the scribd service and the web hosting services I suggested was always fundamentally different and that was visible even then when you claim that they were "the same."
There's no free web hosting service that demands visitors to register to deliver them the web content(!) Scribd always immediately made your original material inaccessible and counted on visitors to sign up just to deliver it to them! So scribd was so obviously worse from the start. After the current development everybody sees that (you write "In hindsight this is true. However, prior to this "proof", it wasn't true.") but even if you wasn't able to see the difference "in context of the original poster" that doesn't give you the rights to behave how you did.
I don't blame the interent, I blame you for making insults instead of trying to argument, but I still won't call you names, even if you deserve it for continuing to do what you do in the post I reply. No, I am not the native speaker but I still believe that's irrelevant to your bad behavior, except if you claim that subtle hints to somebody not being native speaker additionally annoy you, that still doesn't show you in better light.
If someone is literate sufficiently with the internet to know how easy is to get hosting, and how cheap, then really there is no reason.
their value depends on users being ignorant.
Both assumptions are common and valid business strategies.
Another idea: Cut out the middleman and sell a "print to webpage" plugin for Windows.