4 ms·

Sure. I can agree with that. I've always thought that with any free service I've used that the naming implies it's temporary, such as "Hobby" or "Developer" and

Sure. I can agree with that. I've always thought that with any free service I've used that the naming implies it's temporary, such as "Hobby" or "Developer" and that's the extent it goes. When it shuts down or asks for money it's a cost/benefit analysis. There's companies that let you host for free, but eventually if all companies charge then they'll end up paying. I don't have any issue with users hopping from free service to free service but there's no contract between the parties with a free service besides that a TOS can change at any moment.

BenchRouter 9y ago
Yeah that's fair, but I don't think anyone affected by this is preparing to file a lawsuit or implying there was a breach of contract. Other than basic human sympathy, I don't think too many posters here are really expressing any deep sympathy for those affected, either. People are more just questioning this decision from Photobucket's end: The sudden change in TOS is unlikely to go over well, and the price seems extremely steep. One wonders whether charging $10/month and sending out several explicit announcements beforehand would've resulted in a much better outcome. That being said, I'll concede that this move may turn out to be brilliant for Photobucket, so I suppose we'll see what happens. To make an analogy: Sure, you're free to be an asshole to people. No one's questioning that technically you have the right to be one. But don't be surprised when people don't want to be around you anymore, and if your goal is to make friends (customers) one wonders why you would decide on that course of action.