Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 3102439, member: 20480&quot;]Coke is blessed with business savvy like few others in any industry.&nbsp; They almost assuredly contemplated and prepared contingency plans for potential blow-back even before endorsing the change in formulation.&nbsp; Startups like Photobucket don&#039;t have the resources for such marketing / risk eval / contingency planning.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I recall, small-time users for which the Photobucket service was intended had little issue with the changes.&nbsp; The insane pricing was reserved for ridiculous amounts of storage.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe the biggest push-back came from those users who were domain-holders taking unfair advantage of the service by pig-piling in a big way on their memory capacity, rather than paying for their own memory storage.&nbsp; Those who did so, if they had any common sense at all, had to know it was only a matter of time before they&#039;d get weeded out or have to pay for their excessive usage, no matter who they were taking advantage of.&nbsp; I suspect that they will never enjoy stability with any one service, as they will encounter resistance to their parasitic practices, one service after the next.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>If Photobucket has discovered an acceptable / profitable way to accommodate the memory hogs, kudos to them . . . they&#039;ll likely recover the lost business.&nbsp; If not, those parasites will likely become / remain some other service&#039;s headache.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in