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!

News Corp to Purchase Photobucket

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the not-bad-as-buckets-go dept.

Businesses 78

DJCacophony writes "Reuters is reporting that Newscorp, having already purchased Myspace, is purchasing the image hosting site Photobucket for between 250 and 300 million dollars. The story details how Photobucket and Myspace, which have previously had disputes over advertising on each others' sites, will now be integrated with each other. The deal is still very much on the table, apparently, and may yet fall through. 'While hardly known outside the youthful world of social network sites, Photobucket has become wildly popular with users for providing free, online storage tools for multimedia self-expression, from photos to videos to digital slideshows. Site builders turn to it for images to decorate their sites. The four-year-old startup, based in Palo Alto, California, has signed up 41 million registered users, up from 32 million at the end of last year and 2 million in 2004. It now hosts nearly 2.8 billion images on the site.'"

cancel ×

78 comments

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

Buying their way in? (5, Interesting)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050571)

The funny thing about big corporations buying up successful websites, they never seem to be "as good" as before, and they just drive entrepreneurs to create the next "fad". Soon we'll be left with billion-dollar websites that don;t *do* anything.

God Save the Queen !! Please, Save Her NOW !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050661)



God Save the Queen !! Please, Save Her NOW !! Bush made her out to be 250 years old !!! God, save us all, too !!!

Re:God Save the Queen !! Please, Save Her NOW !! (0, Offtopic)

froggero1 (848930) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050977)

I don't get this troll... can someone please explain it?

Re:God Save the Queen !! Please, Save Her NOW !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19054139)

When Bush was introducing HM Queen Elizabeth II the other day, he goofed up when mentioning that she had visited during the USA's bicentennial in 1976 - he said 1776 by mistake, then quickly corrected himself.

Re:Buying their way in? (5, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050709)

Yes, buying in. Companies have been doing it for ages. Sometimes, it is cheaper to buy than build your own. It seems like this activity is expected in day and age of dot-coms. Investors are looking for these big buy-outs. Why did Google go public? Because their initial investors were pushing for it. Google was doing just fine as a private company. MySQL is going public for the same reason.

And beyond going public, getting bought is a huge pay day for those stock holders (or just the initial investors if the company is still private).

I feel sorry the employees at these companies, though. After this purchase, Photobucket may "reorganize to make its operation more efficient."

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051489)

I understand this premise for something like myspace, or youtube, but surely myspace could have just started offering an easy interfact to upload pictures, and they would have taken over from photobucket? Or is photobucket used in so many other places? (I see imageshack everywhere, not photobucket)

Re:Buying their way in? (3, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051607)

"I understand this premise for something like myspace, or youtube, but surely myspace could have just started offering an easy interfact to upload pictures, and they would have taken over from photobucket? Or is photobucket used in so many other places? (I see imageshack everywhere, not photobucket)"

Think about your own use of internet services. When Google bought blogger.com, if you were a google user, did you switch? Over a billion images are hosted on PhotoBucket. Okay, so MySpace kludges in a picture feature, too. But, PhotoBucket still has those billions of images. Are users going to go through the effort of moving those pictures? Even if MySpace made it one-click? Probably not. That would mean having to re-edit links on pages, e-mail your friends of the change. Blah, blah blah. I think you see where I am going with this. MySpace could certainly try and grow their own photo storage, but this deal gives Newscorp billions of images NOW.

Users tend to stick with what worked for them yesterday. Switching is a pain.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

mshurpik (198339) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061351)

>this deal gives Newscorp billions of images NOW.

Well, for 10 cents an image, he actually bought the walls of the museum the images are in. So presumably the images themselves are worth even more.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

jimbojw (1010949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051557)

> And beyond going public, getting bought is a huge pay day for those stock holders (or just the initial investors if the company is still private).

Everybody knows that getting bought out is the new IPO. You can't have a bubble without air.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19054253)

Yes, buying in. Companies have been doing it for ages. Sometimes, it is cheaper to buy than build your own.


I'm pretty sure that I could build photobucket for less than 250 million...

Re:Buying their way in? (4, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050733)

What do you mean? Hotmail is totally as good if not better than when they were bought out.. ..

Ahahahahahahaha, man I needed a good laugh this morning..

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

vboulytchev (862494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050893)

YES! THANK YOU! AWESOME NEWS!
this finally will motivate me to move my 2 lousy avatars from photobucket to picasa.
poor photobucket. that site will get cold-fusioned in a heart beat, just like myspace, and wont be available on nights and weekends, when 16 year old emo *&^#$%s are finger-blasting each other. I presume finger-blasting is in the Webster... ya?

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

webrunner (108849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19052713)

I don't understand what people are saying here.. Photobucket was never particularly good, it was just there when you needed it.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19055481)

Yay! My first 5!

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#19059073)

This isn't always the case. For instance, I still find Flickr useful, even after the Yahoo! aquisition. Myspace is still growing at a nice clip, even after the News Corp. aquisition.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

damsa (840364) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061423)

You are mistaken. Myspace was never really that good.

Re:Buying their way in? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19061861)

MySpace was bought for around a billion and signed a billion dollar advertising deal with Google within months of selling. I'd say NewsCorp did alright.

Twofo Frosty GNAA Piss (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050573)

University of Warwick file sharing faggots. [twofo.co.uk]

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                              Version 2, June 1991

  Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
          59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
  of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                                Preamble

    The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

    When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

    To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

    We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

    Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

    Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

    The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                        GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

    2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.

        c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
        when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
        interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
        announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
        notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
        a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
        these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
        License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
        does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
        the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

    5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

    6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

    8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

    9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

    10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

                                NO WARRANTY

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

    12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

                          END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

                How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

    If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

    To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

        Copyright (C)

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

        This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
        but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
        MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
        GNU General Public License for more details.

        You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
        along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
        Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:

        Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
        Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
        This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
        under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.

You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:

    Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
    `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.

    , 1 April 1989
    Ty Coon, President of Vice

This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.

Goodbye, Photobucket (4, Funny)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050593)

Goodbye, Photobucket. We had some good times, shared some good pictures, but we're moving in two separate directions. You, to a mega corporation with draconian views on privacy in pursuit of only the next dollar, and me, to hell in a handbasket for the photos we shared. You can keep the ring. It's not real, it's just some piece of glass I found on the sidewalk.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (5, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050713)

You can keep the ring. It's not real, it's just some piece of glass I found on the sidewalk.

They know, someone uploaded a photo of you picking it up.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (3, Interesting)

Sosetta (702368) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050943)

Photobucket already 'censors' content. Anything not okay for prime time TV gets deleted.

This isn't a bad thing. It's what keeps photobucket from being a free porn hosting site. It also helps to catch people who do things that ought not be done (think of the children). The bar for what's okay and what's not okay might move with News Corp, but make no mistake, there's been a bar for a while.

My significant other does content moderation for them.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (1)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050997)

By taking the initiative to filter their site, they assume responsibility for doing so, always. If they simply took a hands-off approach, then they would be protected by the communications decency act, which states that an interactive website is not responsible for user-provided content.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051143)

You can still take down the questionable content without being responsible for it. It's like removing graffiti from a building meaning you are reponsible for the graffiti. If I own a photo hosting site, and I don't like the pictures that are being put up, I should be able to remove them, without feeling that I will get arrested if If some of the photos don't get removed.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (3, Interesting)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051219)

You should be able to, but unfortunately that is not the case. If you start removing pornographic images from your image-hosting site, you then assume responsibility for continuing to do so. Any defense that says "I can't be bothered to do it all the time" will be overruled by the argument "but you did it here, here, and here, so you know it's wrong and you frequently act upon it".

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19053381)

They do? Then why does my photobucket account still contain a shitload of porn in a folder quite simply called "porn"?

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051113)

Personally, the best and easiest to use site that I've ever found is Dropshots [dropshots.com] . Extremely easy to upload pictures. Just drag-and-drop them from your explorer window into the system tray applet, and it's done. Great for when you have lot upload lots of pictures. Just as a disclaimer I don't work for them, and am not affiliated with them in any way. I'm just a happy user.

Re:Goodbye, Photobucket (1)

Fex303 (557896) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051467)

You can keep the ring. It's not real, it's just some piece of glass I found on the sidewalk.
You know you've been playing too much Nethack when you think 'if I were photobucket I wouldn't put on a ring without having identified it'. Perhaps this was a Cursed Ring of Buyout.

I'm sick of picking up worthless bits of glass too. I can never get enough scrolls of identify.

The Pokey Mon Effect (3, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050599)

In three years, your MySpace and PhotoBucket and Flicr and FaceBook accounts will be like PokeyMon cards.

Kinka-chu!

Just a prediction, but I've yet to see Murdoch turn his purchases into anything but short-term banalities.

Mod me troll, but it's like Yahoo! buying Broadcast.com (Mark Cuban's org). $2B was spent-- in cash-- and does anyone buy mp3s from Yahoo?

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050681)

Chachink-chu!

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050727)

Just a prediction, but I've yet to see Murdoch turn his purchases into anything but short-term banalities.

Well, he did get his billions *somewhere*! Unless you're Ted Turner, it's hard to see where you're in a position to criticize his business acumen.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050857)

Ted Turner at one time had a huge fortune, mostly divested.

In terms of acumen, if Fox News thrills you, perhaps you're right about Murdoch.

The emo-Web is a nice place to play. Yet the value of a photo site is fairly dubious except for affinity-ad revenues. Few have broken that trend. Does Flickr make money? I don't think so. Even the revenues from GooTube are suspect. Adding a non-producing asset to a non-producing asset seems like an outcome of a non-producing asset.

If that's acumen, I'll cite that Pokey Mon was great for a while, too. Sitting in a closet upstairs are dozens and dozens of relic decks. There are the Beanie Babies, and other passing fads. They make a few short term dollars. Then they're a recycling problem.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051043)

Before Google's buyout of Youtube, the site still managed to make enough revenue to cover their $1,000,000 a month hosting charges. I think you are severely underestimating the moneymaking power of ads.
With 41,000,000 people registered, and each one with many friends who probably browse their page once in a while, with each page displaying an ad and a probable ad response rate of 10% with a dime per response, it's still enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars daily.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051245)

And the window of opportunity for YouTube is like that of the photo sharing sites: short. Should we now start to list all of the trendy sites that *haven't* survived 24 months? YouTube is an interesting phenomenon. It's championed a genre that seems to have staying power. It lacks so many things, but now has a nice parent that will go to court to keep things interesting both in content and in financing/business ecology.

It's my belief that your optimistic revenue projections are a bit silly, frankly. It's a bit like the blather of blogs: I don't really care that someone had a tunafish sandwich yesterday, and I'm loathe further to click on a SunKist Tuna ad that was coughed onto the page like some sort of ad-phlegm. I recognize that there are those that do. Your Madison-Avenue optimism about the revenue potential, IMHO, is out of place.

Murdoch's bought bad bait before. I fervently hope that it hurts his Neo-Con wallet.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19051363)

In terms of acumen, if Fox News thrills you, perhaps you're right about Murdoch.

I get my news mostly from the BBC, although other parts of News Corp. do indeed "thrill" me. But the issue was Murdoch's ability to make profitable, sustainable acquisitions, which seems like an objective fact, not how happy he makes me personally.

Ted Turner seems like a loathsome individual, but his ability to make money is indisputable.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#19052969)

I don't know if we should be accepting the advice of someone who bought in to pokemon and beanie tabbies. I think it might be a better idea to go with the billionaire that doesn't invest in stuffed animals.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#19053077)

Ah-- wait: we both entertain children. I knew both the cards and furry things would be useless in several years. Murdoch doesn't seem to think so.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19054615)

Well, I've been using Photobucket for over 2 years, so I think I'll keep it, unless it gets ruined somehow.

Re:The Pokey Mon Effect (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19056529)

Yahoo sells MP3s? I was under the impression they rented DRM-infected WMAs (except for that one time they sold that customised song).

Maybe in the future they will once iTunes Store is selling uninfected audio files...

News Corp (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050605)

Just when they thought it couldn't be done, someone finally has a monopoly on stupid.

Strange coincidences? (2, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050617)

Given Fox's history of practicing and favoring "private entity censorship", is it quite strange of a coincidence for another article [slashdot.org] to be close to this one?

Re:Strange coincidences? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051727)

Is there some important parallel? I can see where Fox has to meet a higher standard because they are a public broadcaster, but there are dozens of free file hosters, and companies like Dreamhost will sell you terabytes of bandwidth for $10 bucks a month.

Re:Strange coincidences? (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19056599)

Is there some important parallel? I can see where Fox has to meet a higher standard because they are a public broadcaster, but there are dozens of free file hosters, and companies like Dreamhost will sell you terabytes of bandwidth for $10 bucks a month.

They're a signal to jump ship from what they buy out - what has happened previously with other buyouts has only confirmed that should you fall foul of their "message control", that's the best course of action.

Re:Strange coincidences? (1)

roboninja (712495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19053075)

So the long and short of this is, do not expect your "GW Bush as a monkey" pics to be available from Photobucket in the future

Forgetfullness (5, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050675)

has signed up 41 million registered users, up from 32 million at the end of last year

Ok, that's a little hard to believe, there's no way 9 million people forgot their passwords last year.

Re:Forgetfullness (2, Insightful)

HalifaxRage (640242) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050731)

You forgot the people who create throwaway accounts because they either (a) only used the site once, then used it again months later, or (b) signed up ages ago and forgot, then signed up again.

Re:Forgetfullness (1)

The-Ixian (168184) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050765)

They must be gimick accounts....

Re:Forgetfullness (1)

zenslug (542549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051827)

ALL sites inflate the number of accounts they have. At least they are happy to give out the big number, but the one that counts is the number of active users (and what they define as active). If they claim 41 million users, I'll guess that the number of active users (logged in within the last 6 months) is about half that, ~20 million.

If he buys it (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050779)

If he buys it I will be leaving. The guy is a leech who's got so fat he falls on things and leechs off them while destroying them. I don't wish to support such a creature by any name.

First the .com bubble... (1)

ArchdukeChocula (1096375) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050787)

Now the New Corp bubble. Or maybe it's the Gootube bubble. Or the Yahoo/MSN bubble?

The point is web sites are not big trucks that you dump money on!

Re:First the .com bubble... (1)

youthoftoday (975074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050823)

yes they are.

The .acquisition bubble... (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051011)

Now the New Corp bubble. Or maybe it's the Gootube bubble. Or the Yahoo/MSN bubble?

I expect to see many more acquisitions and consolidations following either of these two routes.

1) Old-Media sits on vault of copyrighted material and established relationships, in order to...
2) Sue any New-Media company that's successful (copyright infringers!)

or

1) Old-Media only threatens to sue New-Media company out of existence, in order to...
2) Gain leverage in acquisition or consolidation agreements

Re:The .acquisition bubble... (1)

ArchdukeChocula (1096375) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051355)

$300 million for Photobucket doesn't really apply to either of these models; it's a stupid move no matter how you look at it.

Re:The .acquisition bubble... (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051551)

$300 million for Photobucket doesn't really apply to either of these models; it's a stupid move no matter how you look at it.

Are you sure? Only a month ago MySpace was blocking images from Photobucket, and accusing them of violating their terms of service. Why? because MySpace wants a share of the advertising revenue Photobucket generates, then a month later they get bought up. Coincidence?

Well I think.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050837)

PENIS penis PENIS penis PENIS

8========D~~~~` --- spooge!

Re:Well I think.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050895)

You mispelled 8==D

HisSpace to acquire Profitbucket (0, Offtopic)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050863)

Alex: What happen ?
Darren: Somebody sold up us the out.
Operator: We get video conference.
Alex: What !
Darren: Main lcd turn on.
Murdoch: How are you gentlenerds !!
Murdoch: All your images are belong to us.
Murdoch: You are on the way to assimilation.
Alex: What you say !!
Murdoch: You have no chance to profit sell your site.
Murdoch: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Operator: Alex !! *
Alex: Take off every 'Dig' !!
Alex: You know what you doing.
Alex: Move 'Dig'.
Alex: For great justice.

Re:HisSpace to acquire Profitbucket (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051279)

Surely this is just so Rupert can get cheap topless page three pics for the British tabloid Sun "newspaper" All-your-nipples-belong-to-him-now!

You FAIL 1t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050901)

and hIas instead [nero-online.org].

Sure Evidence.... (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 7 years ago | (#19050923)

200 Million for photobucket? I'd love for someone to give me a valid reason why it is worth that much. This is sure evidence that this is ".com bubble 2.0". Kudos to the guys/gals at photobucket for milking newscorp and cashing out while there are people stupid enough to overpay. A fool and his dough soon split so when you come across a fool get all that you can get.

Re:Sure Evidence.... (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051457)

I'd love for someone to give me a valid reason why it is worth that much.


Because that is what someone will pay.

And you can keep the love.

Re:Sure Evidence.... (1)

anoopjohn (992771) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051625)

I dont know if that is overvalued. If youtube went for 1.65billion photobucket can go for 300 million. Companies are really paying for the users not just the application. Youtube and photobucket has comparable number of users. Even if you discount a big percentage of duplicate accounts there still should be enough to repay the 300million through ad-clicks or adviews. If I had the worlds best(est) application and 0 users nobody would pay me that kind of money.

Re:Sure Evidence.... (2, Insightful)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 7 years ago | (#19056481)

But isn't photobucket basically just a dump for image files to be posted elsewhere? Myspace sucks a good deal of the time, but the fact the people are there and so are there friends provides a certain sticky-ness that keeps them there. I can't imagine why a user would care whether they get their free image hosting at photo-bucket, image-shack, whatever.

For a small fraction of that price, they could have just made a much better service and taken the users that way.

this is a bad lesson to future generations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050927)

...who watch hundreds of millions going to mediocre entrepreneurs and see that "success" isn't about invention, discovery or research, but spending a few hours knocking up some primitive scripts and heaping on the marketing.

Whether it's Google who did little more than refine a search algorithm and revert to the clean page design of 5 years previous (and this is the high end of the innovation stakes) or MySpace living it large as a scaled-up version of "that friends database I did in school", watching these basement mouth-breathers receive a windfall is the geek equivalent of teenage girls seeing Paris and Britney make their millions by flashing their meat. You can get rich by doing what's easy, and what's been done before, but it's no challenge, and it's neither helpful to the advancement of humanity nor worthy of congratulation.

Once upon a time, we had entrepreneurs like Hewlett and Packard. Oh well, best of luck to China, they're learning from where we fall short.

Noooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19050949)

they be aquirin' my bucket

(take that obscure slashdot meme posters!)

That's a lot of money (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051005)

If wonder if that's why this deal [techcrunch.com] fell through. (Bubbleshare was subsequently bought by Kaboose for $2.25 million. [markevanstech.com] )
Obviously, News Corp wants an established photo-sharing site that has an established audience and name-recognition, not just a plug-in for MySpace.

Screw Newscorp. (2, Informative)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051221)

I'm not very happy with Myspace's parent company right now and their decision to censor and remove all Ron Paul bulletins.

See the link .. http://digg.com/politics/Video_MySpace_Censoring_R on_Paul_Supporters [digg.com]

I think them buying anything is bad.. and really wish they didn't buy Myspace.

Re:Screw Newscorp. (1)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051369)

I so misread that as reading "RuPaul supporters".

Probably to the same effect though.

Re:Screw Newscorp. (0, Troll)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051495)


Ya know, people say that a lot.. but I haven't seen RuPaul since like 1985. Did he/she make that big of an impression on you that you think about him/her all the time?

I think your just trying to make a lame joke.. but who know.. you could be a sicko.

Re:Screw Newscorp. (3, Informative)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051579)

She's had a few endorsement deals that you'd know about if you stepped inside a mall within the past five years, including a relatively recent one with MAC makeup. (the joys of being geeky AND female, eh?)

So to answer your question, no, she doesn't make that big of an impression; just enough to keep the name relatively fresh.

She makes more of one than your presidential candidate does though.

Re:Screw Newscorp. (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051755)

>> She makes more of one than your presidential candidate does though.

Oh har har.. I guess People just aren't into Liberty and Freedom.. they prefer Bush's fascism more..

I'm proud to support Paul and be against government oppression.. I'm proud to be supporting the only candidate who voted against the Patriot Act and against Real ID.

Re:Screw Newscorp. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19059023)

Ron Paul is to freedom as those fad diets are to nutrition.

Nothing good can come... (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051275)

...of Rupert Murdoch buying your company. Heh, my pic of Dick Cheney as Darth Sidious will probably be taken off my Photobucket. Just watch.

Re:Nothing good can come... (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 7 years ago | (#19054305)

Nothing good can come......of Rupert Murdoch buying your company.


I can think of about 250 million good things that would come to me if I had sold it to him.

Internets have changed in the past 5 years (1)

Mike Savior (802573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051671)

I remember when photobucket was a terrible looking hub for low bandwidth image hosting, with a limited account size, and the only snazzy thing about the website was that you can make it look black or grey instead of that miserable brown. Imagine what the websites will look like in another 10 years after the dot com boom rises after this one's fall!

Overpriced? (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 7 years ago | (#19051949)

250M? The exact price for Flickr when it was sold to Yahoo was never disclosed, but estimates were in the 20M ballpark...

Murdoch will never get away with this... (0, Offtopic)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19053607)

McGyver won't let him.

Re:Murdoch will never get away with this... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19059147)

MacGyver has been dealing with aliens for the last ten years. He has bigger fish to fry than Murdoch.

Anybody notice how quickly Photobucket caved (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19056165)

on their dispute with MySpace (over cutting off its users access to Photobucket), once money was tossed Photobucket's way?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>