Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blogging Platform Posterous To Shut Down April 30

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the cloud-rains-on-your-parade dept.

Cloud 94

New submitter Mike Allton writes with the announcement from Posterous that the blogging platform will close at the end of April, after being acquired last year by Twitter. "It's been suggested that people should use platforms like Posterous or Google+ for their blog, and I think this is a perfect example of why that's a bad idea. When you use someone else's platform, you don't own your content and you don't have control over the platform. Do you have a Posterous account? What will you do with all your posts and content?"

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

this sucks (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921887)

im going to have to post all my spun SEO spam articles on some other free blogging platform now ...

Who? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921901)

Nevere heard of them.
Guess nothing of value will be lost.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922297)

That's what I was wondering too. Never heard of them.

Frying pans and fires (2)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926603)

Do you have a Posterous account? What will you do with all your posts and content?"

I... I'll just move it all to the cloud! YEAH!

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922753)

Ben Goldacre of Bad Science [badscience.net] fame uses Posterous [posterous.com] . In his words it's for "things that are too long to post on twitter and not clever enough to post on his main blog".

So Twitter aquiring and then closing it (presumable with the thought that "Oh, you don't need Posterous any more -- just use Twitter!") becomes a little bit ironic to me, as the person I know who uses Posterous uses it explicitly because Twitter doesn't work for his purposes.

Re:Who? (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924825)

Even if Twitter thinks that they are killing off competition, they aren't for more reasons then you mention.

Reason #1: A single person could replicate Posterous and have up and running in a few weeks.

Twitter proved they are morons when they actually used mysql for their message queue(then blamed Rails) and haven't really done anything to disprove that they are amateurs from top to bottom. Moving the back end to Scala is just a matter of a broken clock being right twice a day.

Re:Who? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924143)

Are you the center of the universe or something?

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42928691)

Disregard that, I'm talking to myself.

Re:Who? (3, Informative)

sootman (158191) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924639)

They were a new, easy-to-use blogging platform that came out around the same time as Tumblr -- another new, easy-to-use blogging platform. You know how it often happens that two similar things come out around the same time and one takes off and one doesn't? That.

One of their key features was that you could post from email, which a) made blogging accessible to a lot of people because "hey, posting is as easy as emailing!", and b) it worked (and worked well) from early smartphones before Apps took over the world. And you didn't have to make an account with them at first -- your email was your account.

They had some good ideas, but that's just how these things go. For whatever reason, one company hits what others miss.

Besides, they were bought by Twitter last year, so it's not like the owners are hungry, crying, and alone as they shut down their service. Most people figured they'd close up shop a lot sooner once they got bought.

Re:Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42930771)

Never heard of "Tumbler" either. Then again, I don't follow blogs, I read real sites.

Re:Who? (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a year and a half ago | (#42933543)

They were a new, easy-to-use blogging platform that came out around the same time as Tumblr -- another new, easy-to-use blogging platform. You know how it often happens that two similar things come out around the same time and one takes off and one doesn't?

It more frequently happens that two similar things come out around the same time, and neither takes off, especially when they have stupid names closely derived from other successful services to announce their "#me2 #web2.0" status .... oh, I see what you did there.

Re:Who? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42934687)

People read your journal here, though, so that's a difference.

This is really why ... (-1, Flamebait)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921903)

... corporate buyouts should be outlawed.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921977)

... corporate buyouts should be outlawed.

That would mean outlawing selling shares, which basically means outlawing corporations entirely. And, being a moron, you probably think that's a great idea.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922263)

What are you talking about? There are already restrictions on who can and cannot buy and sell shares. Restrictions imposed for much the same reason the GP suggested corporate buyouts should be outlawed. The reason being the detrimental societal effects that outweigh the benefit of having a perfectly free market in share trading. So clearly the only alternative is not outlawing selling shares. I'm not saying I agree with the GP. I am however saying that you should probably avoid making fatuous arguments while calling people morons.

Re:This is really why ... (2)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922317)

I'm a Leninist, you insensitive clod!

Re:This is really why ... (0)

Fri13 (963421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921985)

If I would have mod points I would have modded your post.

When corporations/companies can buy others or make fusions... it only ends up to situation where big ones go and buy the smaller ones what does bring new ideas to market but never actually end up to deliver them to citizens becauses bigger one buy it off as they don't want that citizens would have alternative for their product.

Re:This is really why ... (2)

AlecC (512609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922221)

So nobody can buy out family businesses when the founder retires, so they have to close. And the railway systems and airlines would have to remain fragmented into the hundreds of companies that originally started them. And failing companies would have to go bust and everybody lose their jobs instead of the good bits being sold as going concerns. Ad no Venture Capitalist would fund a startup because they could not sell out when it succeeds, thus killing most of the tech industry.

It /sometimes/ ends in situations as you describe, but a lot of takeovers are very valuable. You are looking at the small percentage that are destructive and ignoring the huge majority that allow industry to change shape in response to circumstances.

Re:This is really why ... (2)

Fri13 (963421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923135)

Capitalism was about companies to born and same companies to die when they can not anymore function or no one is buying their products/services.

Sorry but capitalism is brutal business and there is no time for emotions of family business dying because founded leaves it / dies.
And Venture Capitalist shoud be the ones what take the risk that the company whats stock they buy can never return anything back... Sorry but capitalism and stock market should be brutal business where no one comes to save you, especially government should never come to save any private corporation or bank... Capitalism is brutal business... You born and you die eventually.

Re:This is really why ... (2)

AlecC (512609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923435)

But the original point was to ban the stock market, which enables takeovers. It is not sentimentality that wants to preserve family firms. Without company takeovers, everybody has to be fired, the machinery and premises converted to cash. Banning takeovers is the ultimate anti-capitalism: it bans cashing in your capital gains. It is feudalism: all companies must remain tiny and inefficient.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42927405)

The question we have to ask is whether we want to live in a state of constant brutality. If we wanted that, we could just have anarchy. It would be a lot cheaper.

Re:This is really why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922233)

Unreadable and incomprehensible.
Please return when you are able to render a coherent thought.

Re:This is really why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922057)

...corporations should be outlawed as immortal psychopaths. A corporation will fuck you.

Re:This is really why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923879)

Well said, anonymous comrade.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924895)

+1 if I could good sir.

Actually I would rather see corporations have to give equal weight to supporting the people and environment in areas they operate with making profit.

That would stem the sociopath nature of corporations a great deal.

Corporations need a strong chain and a whip on their back in order for them to not destroy everything in their path.

What corporatism has brought us, besides millions of lemmings that worship them, is feudalism. Unless you are a high ranking executive in a corporation you are their serf.

Re:This is really why ... (2)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922077)

Tell that to google which is always buying companies

Re:This is really why ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923481)

I have. They don't listen.

Of course the idea is only for thinking. Ain't gonna happen, as they say. There's a wide range of effect of buyout. Some good, some bad.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922299)

Ah, the little worker bees who are too lazy to start their own businesses, please - tell me more of your childish theories.

Re:This is really why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42926183)

the little worker bees who are too lazy to start their own businesses

Good troll, Sir.

Perhaps next time substitute "would lose their home as being unable to pay mortgage and bills" instead of "are too lazy" and you might hit the truth.

Re:This is really why ... (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924857)

So should startups that plan an exit strategy before having a solid idea much less an implementation.

If your goal is to sell out to a bigger company you have already failed as a technologist even if you sell for billions. Try thinking of a company that started out with the plan to sell out at some point and also produced something of real and lasting value.

Well, you do get the content (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921905)

And there is PostHaven [techcrunch.com] now, launched by a co-founder of Posterous.

Did you *read* TFA? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921909)

The article gives specific instructions how to save all your blog content. In some cases, move it to another host. But you must do it before they shutdown. So the problem is ...??

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921971)

I'm not sure of why Google+ is mentioned, especially as it's one of the few that will allow you to easily extract all your data. Regardless, everyone should know that you're at the mercy of the whims of those that provide 'free' services. You should always know what the real 'cost' is, and have an escape plan you can use if required.

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (3, Insightful)

Fri13 (963421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922021)

Google+ was mentioned to gather clicks and cause discussion why Google+ is so terrible.

Hell... the most of the WWW is terrible since corporations conquered it and we moved away from simple and good looking HTML sites to huge advertising competition and who designs most fancy animated page.

Some days I think we would have been much better in times when email didn't have HTML coding possibilities and discussion happened in BBS/NNTP way instead HTML forums with huge banners, "billion of links" and signatures what people abuse etc. (we can always make things cleaner and good looking but HTML was way too easy slippery sloap what was offered to so called "designers" who could make any element of picture as link).

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922075)

"way too easy slippery sloap"

Oooh, I LOVE slippery sloaps! ... ummm ... what was a "sloap", again?

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922129)

Don't be so nitpicky, it was obviously intended to be "slippery soap".

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922569)

just don't bend over; that last link is a doosey.

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922161)

> we moved away from simple and good looking HTML sites

<body background=blink.gif><br><br><br><br><img src=under_construction.gif><br><marquee><font color=red><blink><i>TOTALLY</i> agree</blink>. It was <b>much</b> better in GeoCities' times</font></marquee><br><img src=under_construction.gif><br><embed src=rickroll.mid autostart=true autoplay=true hidden=true/></body>

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924833)

I'm guessing the second issue of your newsletter will cover the scourge that is children running across your lawn?

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924869)

You should always know what the real 'cost' is, and have an escape plan you can use if required.

Yep. And I'm sure the 100s of thousands of bloggers who have no idea what a server or a host is let alone can setup wordpress or some platform on a private paid service have taken this into account.

Free + time taken to move blog elsewhere + minor loss of readship is likely less than
Hosting + expensive consultant fees to help setup blog.

Re:Did you *read* TFA? (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924957)

Yup, I am not sure why Google gets any love at all.

Their main business model depends on collecting as much data on everyone as they can. Everything from search, to map, to docs, to everything in between are nothing more than data mining applications.

People used to yell and scream about crap like gator and other tracking systems and Google is no different than those types of "services". Once Google bought the the spyware doubleclick, complaints about pretty much ceased.

Google is a more dangerous threat than MS could ever be, even back before MS became irrelevant.

Since this is slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921911)

I hope everyone uses markdown and can easily archive plain text copies, riight? (Not to mention those useless pic-heavy-blogs)

One year ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921915)

They wrote:

"Plus, the people at Twitter are genuinely nice folks who share our vision for making sharing simpler."

Except obviously sharing from any platform that is not Twitter.

Goodbye Posterous, whatever you were.

Re:One year ago (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922149)

Ever tried using Twitter's API? They make it about as easy to use/post content to and from Twitter as you can without allowing ridiculous volumes of queries to their servers. Perhaps you mean the instagram debacle? In that case it's Twitter choosing not to pull pics from instagram, nothing to do with whether you can do it on another platform. Twitter can do what they want on their own platform, but they certainly seem to be making it as easy as reasonably possible to integrate their data on a different platform.

Content (1, Insightful)

hhawk (26580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921919)

While I haven't read the Posterous TOS i doubt they "own" people's content... however, the issue I think that Mike was trying to highlight is while you own your content you might not be able to migrate it and/or loss access to it..

Re:Content (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922091)

It's not clear how you would lose your data. You can download everything into a zip file. Then you can either parse the stuff yourself or use the import facility at Wordpress or Squarespace. It is probably good advice to make sure you have another copy of everything you depend on the cloud for, but this shutdown is not a good example of what can go wrong.

Re:Content (1)

sootman (158191) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924655)

> ... this shutdown is not a good example of what can go wrong.

In fact, this is basically a good example of how to do a shutdown right -- as opposed to, say, what Geocities did.

Back it up and import it somewhere else (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42921921)

Back it up and import it somewhere else like it says in the post...

oh the irony (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921927)

What an ironic name. The real issue is that data can't easily be moved to another platform. At least with something like WordPress you can take your data and go solo indefinitely.

Re:oh the irony (2)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921963)

You should RTFA.

Re:oh the irony (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923895)

Youre right, your post is ironic.

Shrinking Intelect (4, Funny)

warewolfsmith (196722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921933)

Gone are the days of our lives, now its life in 156 characters or less...

Re:Shrinking Intelect (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922157)

That's a very short post for what appears to be a deeply held frustration, care to elaborate? You're allowed to on here you know...

Re:Shrinking Intelect (2)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923779)

As might be expected, words are shrinking along with intellect, which is spelled with two "l" characters. Additionally, the contraction for "it is" is "it's," not "its."

So now I am curious why ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921943)

... Twitter bothered to buy Posterous in the first place. If it wasn't to have a blog space, was it to just get more accounts they can push Twitter accounts on? Seems a wasted investment to me. Oh wait, they just figured it out.

Re:So now I am curious why ... (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923013)

It was a talent acquisition of sorts. Let's say you're a VC capitalist. You throw money at a startup. Business plan? Worry about that when they get big. But they don't get big and they don't have any revenue. So you cut your losses and save your face by asking one of your successful VC companies to acquire-hire them.

A warning to people exporting to WordPress (5, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42921981)

The WordPress import [wordpress.com] uses an XML file for import of text, tags, etc. but reads the images from Posterous while parsing the xml. This means that people who delete their blogs before import, or presumably who wait until after the end of April so not get their images imported, The images are in the backup .zip file but if you wait too long you could have to re-add them all manually.

Friendica (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922001)

Own your content - it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Friendica (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922089)

No, own your own WEBSITE. That's the only way to be sure. The downside isn't cost, you can get hosting for $15 per year. The downside is nobody will read it -- but they don't anyway.

Me, I just use slashdot. [slashdot.org] It's good enough for my purposes.

Re:Friendica (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922179)

Big +1 from me on that. People are getting more and more confused about whether Twitter, Google, Facebook or AOL are "the internet", they just don't realise it's all just websites (admittedly some websites running pretty funky background scripts) - at the end of the day all of these things are simply computers which take a request, process it and return some text and images.

As for your point about nobody reading it regardless of whether it's on facebook or "mylittleblog.net", spot on. I think there's probably a market for a website which allows you to blog things then gives you an ever increasing "x people like this" which starts at 6000. People aren't interested in other people reading and interacting with their thoughts, they're just interested in big numbers. Give the people what they want, you can even be honest and admit it's all a lie to start with - in fact, you could write an app which duplicates any Facebook page but multiplies all the numbers by 1,000 and it would probably be more popular than facebook until it was sued out of existence.

Re:Friendica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922511)

Own your own website? Heh... own your own server.

Re:Friendica (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922361)

Why would you NOT run Friendica on your own site? One implies the other - any serious Friendica user, especially one bitten be the Posterous fail would do that. -1, Redundant

Re:Friendica (2)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923789)

No, own your own WEBSITE. That's the only way to be sure. The downside isn't cost, you can get hosting for $15 per year. The downside is nobody will read it -- but they don't anyway.

Me, I just use slashdot. [slashdot.org] It's good enough for my purposes.

Frankly, this is just moving the problem that the article poster was complaining about: instead of losing your blogging platform out from under your content, you could just as easily lose the web site hosting services out from under the blogging platform you run yourself on your hosted web site. So the next thing you should do is run your own web server to avoid the hosting dropping out from under your blogging platform that you run yourself on your hosted site, right? That ends with a reductio ad absurdum of running your own ISP, then running your own Internet. Only then will your content be totally under your own control.

Mike Allton, the OP, styles himself as a "Social Media and Internet Marketing Consultant", and this story is more or less him stirring up some publicity for himself as a consultant (IMO), which is fine and good, he has a right to make a buck, but the death of this platform isn't really news.

The really useful only take-away I had from this thing was that the backups don't include hosted image contents if they are reimported on several of the half a dozen alternate hosting platforms (e.g. WordPress), making it important, if you use the minority platform that's going out of business, to not only do the backup, but to also do the import prior to April 30th.

Re:Friendica (2)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925009)

If you are going to point out fallacies try to avoid them. If your host dies, simply move your app somewhere else. If you are not a total idiot you can use http://www.nosupportlinuxhosting.com/ [nosupportl...osting.com] for $12 a year. Since they don't perform backups, you will always have a local backup, right?

Re:Friendica (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42927959)

The difference between a hosted blog and a hosted server is you're paying for the server, even though the costs are miniscule. About the only way you can lose your site is a DMCA takedown, which can't happen if your host isn't in the US, or if the hosting company goes bankrupt. If that happens, you simply get another host, change the DNS values, and upload the site. Your visitors will only notice a few hours downtime, the site and URL remain the same. With a blog, a new host means a new URL and a different site design.

still cost (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924907)

Sorry the major downside IS cost.

Maybe not for the Slashdot readership where external hosts and Linux boxes with LAMP stacks are probably the norm, but we're not typical bloggers.

Typical bloggers a mindless teenagers who think someone else cares about what they think. Typical bloggers are aspiring journalists who want to demonstrate they have a history in writing. Typical blogs are written by anyone who has something to say and this does not require even the most basic of computer skills.

My sister falls into category B. She has quite a big blog covering politics but has trouble finding the powerbutton on her computer. If she needed to setup a blog on her own space it would cost her a fortune in consulting fees and she'd still be at the whim of some third party to maintain her website.

There was a time people did this themselves. Thank god Geocities was shut down.

Re:still cost (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42927995)

I ran several hobby sites around the turn of the century, they cost a whopping $15 per YEAR. IIRC they even had a blogging-like template you could use, although I used my own HTML and javascript.

Re:still cost (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42932081)

*YOU* ran. Not someone who has problems with basic computer problems, not someone who spends their time thinking those malware downloads are actual virus scanners, but YOU.

That's the point. I run wordpress on my site complete with templates. That costs me nothing. Now a childcare centre I worked for recently had their website modified to make it dynamically editable. Basically the guys installed wordpress within the site template. THAT job cost just over $3000.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922003)

Jason Scott's team of archive panic wgetting will own your content now!

wget it and forget it. err.. rehost it somewhere. (5, Informative)

atomize (2718973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922029)

wget -r -l inf -k -E -p -nc http://www.yourposterousblog.com/ [yourposterousblog.com]

Re:wget it and forget it. err.. rehost it somewher (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922201)

That's trivial for you and me. But not for 99.999% of users of these services -- and I probably used too few nines, as most of kind would set up an own server, or perhaps even write our own code (just see what happened when Knuth was unhappy with typesetting software he used. Even if we're dumb peons in comparison, tendencies are the same). Parsing that html, ripping out the contents, figuring out how to import it into another platform... that's not something an average person can do.

Re: rehost it somewher (1)

u64 (1450711) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922629)

And then comes they fun of SEO - trying to pass over as much Rank value to the next site... Hoping to use 301, or rel=canonical. Hence why i dip my toes shallow in sites with unknown lifespans.

Re: rehost it somewher (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923055)

If you're not using your own domain, take it as a free lesson in SEO: Use your own domain.

Re:wget it and forget it. err.. rehost it somewher (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923919)

Which brings us right back to why people are generally OK with not having to worry about hosting, DNS, and all the other stuff that goes into making a blog.

Broader Perspective (4, Insightful)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922071)

When you use someone else's platform, you don't own your content and you don't have control over the platform.

This is true. On the other hand, you are also shifting the maintenance burden to someone else. Keeping the software up to date w.r.t. features, bug fixes, or at least security fixes. Fighting spam. Keeping the platform that the software runs on (operating system, hardware) usable. Making sure backups are kept up to date and regularly tested.

It's a trade-off, and there are good reasons for wanting to be in control and good reasons for wanting others to do the work.

I think the real solution to the control issue, in many cases, is to make sure it is easy to get the data out and use it, and then regularly get a copy of the data you care about and store it somewhere. Exactly like making a backup, which you should be doing no matter who hosts the data, you or someone else. If you do this, you are protected against data loss and unwanted changes.

If you make sure you always have usable backups of your data, the only thing you still need to worry about is other people using that data. To some extent, that is something you need to worry about no matter who hosts the data, but, of course, the realistic threats are somewhat different for, say, hosting the data only on computers only you have an account on vs. hosting the data on a computer that is maintained by someone else. For me, personally, I have no issue having my website on someone else's computer, but I do have an issue with this for email.

What am I going to do? (1)

Bryan Bytehead (9631) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922135)

Nothing, I didn't post anything worthwhile to start with on that service.

I was burned when Blogger stopped supporting publishing by FTP. I'll be running my own server from now on, thank you.

Oh the pun (3, Funny)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922169)

Re:Oh the pun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922199)

The only reason I clicked on this article was to make sure someone had done this. Thank you.

Re:Oh the pun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42922277)

Coincidence that this announced the same day that Pistorius killed his wife? Maybe they thought the brand would be damaged by people confusing the two.

Been There, Done That (1)

iCharles (242580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922203)

This happened with Vox. They had tools to let you move it to TypePad or WordPress. I split the difference (my Vox archive is on TypePad, new stuff on WordPress.com [wordpress.com] ). That said, this, as well as the Instagram situation last December, calls out a common issue, especially with free services. How are things owned? What happens if they go away. Almost all of the pictures on my WordPress blog are hosted at Flickr. Fortunately, Flickr's TOS are somewhat better than what Instagram proposed from the ownership perspective. However, I'm screwed if they go away. I suppose I'd be better paying for hosting (and, to an extent, I do with Flickr), but I'm not sure I can fully justify it for a hobby-blog. For many, self-hosting isn't an option: they lack the skills and (even modest) equipment to do so. I could do it, but there are a million other things I'd rather do with my time. Fortunately, both WordPress and Flickr have good tools for pulling information out, so, for now, I'm going to roll with that.

Answer (1)

Phroggy (441) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922451)

Do you have a Posterous account?

No. In fact I'd never heard of it until now.

"Cloud" services don't last that long (2)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922953)

Most free "cloud" services only seem to last a few years, until the vendor realizes they're not making money. Using a big-name vendor doesn't help - remember Google Wave, Apple MobileMe, Wal-Mart Music, Microsoft Windows Live, etc. The lives of these things are surprisingly short. About as long as a cool restaurant.

Don't get locked into a "cloud" service that stores your data in a form that can't be readily exported to somewhere else.

This is why I love Octopress (2)

MattBD (1157291) | about a year and a half ago | (#42922971)

Nowadays, I use Octopress, having gone through Blogger, hosted WordPress.com blog, self-hosted WordPress beforehand. Admittedly it's not for everyone, but it has massive advantages in terms of retaining control of your data over every other blogging platform I've tried. Because it just generates static HTML, you can host it pretty much anywhere you like (mine is on GitHub Pages). It's under version control, and you can easily store it on any machine with Git installed. With Octopress, this kind of thing will never be an issue because you can just push the files to somewhere else with ease.

Saw this happen with 3dFiles (majorgeeks)... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923301)

The co-owner of 3dFiles (great site that allowed me to do pretty well on this app for Voodoo I/II/III -> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22APK+3dFx+Tuning+Engine%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=kuAfUda_I5Og0gHX24CICw [google.com] by hosting it for me there, which was GREAT & DIRECT "p.r.", going to the people that could actually use & GAIN by it... ).

I was living in Atlanta Ga. USA @ the time, & contacted the owner (saw his name, & remembered it from highschool in NY's why, & we had a common pal (who died, God rest his soul))... asked IF he could use an app like that, & I was JUST "starting out" in this field professionally, but doing that type of freeware on the side (helped on interviews in my early days is why).

He said "Sure, 'bring it on'" & it did well... well, so did his site, extremely so. So much so, ZDNet BOUGHT THEM OUT, but there's a "hidden ulterior motive" to these types of buyouts: What's that?

TO DESTROY COMPETITORS... point-blank!

They'll pay you in stock that MAY *tank* is why (which is what happened with 3dFiles... right around the time of the bubble-burst!). The guy I knew took a beating, had to drop a few things he bought (I might've done the same actually, thinking I was secure/safe).

I asked him though when I headed back into NY again after 6++ yrs. or so in the "dirty south" this question:

"DID THEY PAY YOU IN CA$H or STOCK?"

He said it was primarily stock (like 9/10ths iirc) on a 3++ million dollar deal he SPLIT with his FORMER partner (young crazy kid, but I liked him, & one of my co-workers knew him too, another coder)!

Anyhow/anyways - & he had a GOOD day job, as a DHL truck delivery guy, & iirc, #5 of 100's of them after a decade++ or more - I told him "DO NOT QUIT YOUR JOB!"

(Albeit, I did so, but without telling him my REAL reasons why - which is that "hidden ulterior motive" above I noted in caps... it's obvious actually, if you "channel your inner-criminal" & have worked with as many "business goofs" as I call them in the Fortune 100/500 over time building them apps in MIS/IS/IT is why - you figure out they are HUSTLERS (not in a good sense either)).

I figured they were going to 'sucker' him & *tried* to warn him politely... he quit his job (dumb, imo @ least, but... that's the way it goes, we all take a beating now & then + get 'cocky')... & when the stock tanked? The above "went down", & so did he.

I gotta hand him 1 thing though - he lived up to his words!

He told me he'd do it again, & BETTER, & yes:

HE DID MAKE A "COMEBACK" THOUGH - & told me he would. Majorgeeks is his now...

From what I have heard tell from mutual pals or just on the wire?

Doing well too.

I have to hand him that, he's a shrewd businessmen (even though he turned on me in the end, lol, like a typical business men does when you no longer serve enough purpose/offer enough utility & gain to them is all - I can accept that, but not after he ASKED myself & others to help out on his forums, which I did of my own free time, not asking a cent!).

We parted our ways... but the moral of this story?

BUYOUTS OF UP & COMING COMPETITORS MEANS THEY ARE AFRAID OF YOU, & FIGURING YOU'RE RELATIVELY "poor" BY WAY OF COMPARISON TO LARGE BUSINESS ENTITIES? They pay you peanuts, & do it to shut you down... ending a threat!

Didn't "RTFA", but I would almost BET that's what went down, here...

APK

P.S.=> That's life in the big city/fastlane, folks - get USED to it, if you EVER get in a situation like that yourselves (& nothing STOPS YOU, but you, once you 'wise-up' + realize selling the MOST PRECIOUS ELEMENT THERE IS to make rich men richer, your time & LIFE (limited & finite to both) is NOT THE WAY TO GO!).

We're all in a field where you DO have a 'shot' to make it (better than trying to be say, a rock & roll star IF say you play guitar), if you have the skills (anyone can acquire 'em if you put in the time), patience, & work-ethic/determination... my former friend above proves it, & in my OWN way? I do as well - I work for ME, & don't even HAVE TO WORK if I choose not to (took me 31++ yrs. to get there, but here I am, thank God).

I'll tell ANYONE the above, because it's truth, but a TRUTH YOU HAVE TO MAKE HAPPEN yourself... not easy, takes time & effort too (but you reap ALL of the bennies instead of getting mere crumbs off the HUGE loaf of ca$h your efforts yield to those employing you)...

... apk

Can you ever trust services that are bought out? (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923533)

Twitter recently bought Crashlytics [crashlytics.com] , a company making pretty good crash reporting tool and service for iOS and Android. The usual "nothing will change" and made it free for everyone. How long will that last, a year? My guess is, just like Posterous they will absorb whatever they can of their tech into internal tools and then shut it down. Otherwise, why would they make it free? It's disappointing when innovative tech companies like Crashlytics get swallowed and digested like this.

Re:Can you ever trust services that are bought out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923817)

Can't be bothered to read their ToS and privacy policy, so simple question: does it report directly to you or is it reporting via Crashlytics servers?

Because if it's latter, it's probably only "free" in the sense that you're paying them with information they gather from reports from your apps, so they're less likely to just shut it down.

Re:Can you ever trust services that are bought out (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923929)

The crash reports -- like other services of its ilk -- are sent to and stored on Crashlytics' servers. The current TOS limit usage of reports by Crashlytics to providing the service to you and for service diagnostics. Of course, they change the TOS anytime they feel like it.

Re:Can you ever trust services that are bought out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924159)

Not quite:

Crashlytics does aggregate information across Developers in a non-personally identifiable way. Such aggregate and anonymous information is used by Crashlytics to (i) improve the Service, (ii) create analysis of trends or behaviors and (iii) other similar uses, but always in an aggregate and anonymous way.

Except as provided below in Section 3, we never divulge End User data in a personally identifiable, unique or non-aggregated manner to anyone other than the Developer

And also:

Developer hereby grants and agrees to grant to Crashlytics a royalty-free, fully paid up, non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide right and license to (a) use theDeveloper Data, solely for purposes of providing the Service to Developer (b) use the Developer Data to created aggregate measures of service usage and performance and (c) use the Results and aggregated Developer Data to improve the Service generally and for its other business purposes.

Developer agrees that Crashlytics is free to disclose aggregate measures of Service usage and performance, and to reuse all general knowledge, experience, know-how, works and technologies (including ideas, concepts, processes and techniques) related to the Results or acquired during provision of the Service (including without limitation, that which it could have acquired performing the same or similar services for another customer).

They also reserve the right to change the privacy policy at will

Why did Twitter buy this? (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924151)

Just so they can shut it down?

Seen something like it before... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924391)

Here's a PRETTY GOOD "guess" -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3467321&cid=42923301 [slashdot.org] , albeit based on observation & experience...

* :)

(Nice part is, the guys that got bought out made some dough, hopefully NOT stocks (common-stock's b.s. anyhow, it's the "preferred" stuff that law covers you better on anyways)).

Plus - if you read that? I saw a guy I know (used to call him friend in fact, not anymore though) go thru it... he lived up to his word though & did it again (better, imo, in a way).

APK

P.S.=> That's 'business' & "life in the fast lane" for you...

... apk

Re:Seen something like it before... apk (1)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924803)

Twitter being a worthless collections of extremely short, inane comments is not a competitor of a real publishing system. Trailers and Pabst are closer competitors to twitter than any "blog" site.

I don't waste time on any of them... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924969)

So, see my subject-line, & yes - Perhaps you're correct: I can only offer what I've seen before's all, in a buyout situation with a successful website that truly "rocked the planet" in its day, circa 1997-2004 iirc...

* I don't waste time on "blogging" or these allegedly "real publishing systems" here -

Admittedly & however: I know VERY LITTLE about them as well (some on Twitter though)

I figure it this way, since I'm no 'expert' on them - IF even I know their name (as I do with "twitter"), like with major sports figures nowadays, which I have little interest in for decades now (& I was an NCAA 1st string lettering athlete in the mid to late 1980's in the sport of Lacrosse for a national champ)?

Then, they've got to be doing PRETTY WELL, @ least as far as popularity in the eyes of the general public!

(After all - They ARE the 'MAIN target' of anything online, or any business concern on it, they're essentially the "name of the game", including you & I, or anyone posting here too)...

Besides - The way I see it, I do FAR better things in the art & science of computing than 'blogging' !

Heck - I put up 1 small example of which was in my post I pointed you to in fact, circa 1996-2002!

That example actually did VERY well in that timeframe, & still shows up "like mad" in searches, even though I haven't developed it since 2002!

The site I noted that helped me out with it, by hosting it, was an 'example thereof' that got bought up, & shut down shortly afterwards as I stated, much as I suspect this was, is what my post was about!

(You asked, right? I answered with a SIMILAR example - I think it was you @ least who asked, I didn't check, & feel free to correct me there if you wish).

So, anyhow/anyways: There are many, Many, MANY more over time I did, & that's what I spend my time on!

(Many, that did as well or better & certainly were more "complex" work also on the freeware/shareware/commercially sold code market - & that's just what I did "on the side" of my "day job" as an MIS/IS/IT Info. Systems coder for a living (where the work was many orders of magnitude more complex & larger in size, as well as function that drives entire midsize to large companies in many areas)).

Thus/hence, my lack of interest in it... I was "Spread Out" pretty thin, & time was a factor, & I never "got into" twitter or the others you note's all!

(So, am I "missing out" on something? No, FAR from it... at least as far as I am concerned)

APK

P.S.=> What I find superior about technical forums such as this one? You can learn & GROW yourself, amongst people who sometimes are peers, or even superiors in the art & science of computing, & "interactively"...

Not sure if you can do that on "twitter" or the other examples you noted though!

... apk

Preposterous world! (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926413)

... because saying post-posterous is itself preposterous.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?