You make a great point: Flickr isn't solely a destination - it's also a web service and a (distributed) host. In other words: both the user and the developer can propagate the brand. This probably means that the contrast isn't as marked as I'd intended.
However, I think there's still a big difference: Photobucket made zero effort at building a destination, and still achieved huge success.
ted
· 3 years ago
What does "win out" mean in this context? Do you mean make more money, last longer, be profitable, or be more used? Or something else?
J-Fleaux
· 3 years ago
Can you explain why it's "infuriating" for the site to be all flash? Is it just the lack of compatibility with certain devices?
Narendra
· 3 years ago
Win out?? It has been clear since 2000 that there would be no dominant "photo sharing" site. Now in 2006, there are several sites of similar magnitude that serve different niches: Webshots, Yahoo! Photos, Kodak, Shutterfly, Flickr, Photobucket, and others.
ivan
· 3 years ago
I think the Flash enabled thing is driven by MySpace not allowing almost anything else to run. Certainly not Javascript, which puts the kybosh on using many widgets in there.
Antonio Rodriguez
· 3 years ago
I completely agree with the point about de-centralized photo hosts. Every new photo app out there should be clearly providing a benefit above all else that is out there, working hard to make sure that they can "play nice" with other photo sites, and generally laser focused on why they deserve a bookmark spot on your browser toolbar.
All Comments
You make a great point: Flickr isn't solely a destination - it's also a web service and a (distributed) host. In other words: both the user and the developer can propagate the brand. This probably means that the contrast isn't as marked as I'd intended.
However, I think there's still a big difference: Photobucket made zero effort at building a destination, and still achieved huge success.