Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

birendra — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:49:54 -0000

xcxxvc cvcvxcvv

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

kamlesh — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:18:35 -0000

I am looking for my photos

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

Ivan — Thu, 10 May 2007 05:18:52 -0000

Parazz has gone - closed down - deadpool!

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

Antonio Rodriguez — Mon, 22 May 2006 20:34:09 -0000

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.

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

ivan — Mon, 22 May 2006 09:56:12 -0000

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.

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

narendra — Mon, 22 May 2006 01:22:10 -0000

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.

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

J-Fleaux — Sun, 21 May 2006 22:56:34 -0000

Can you explain why it's "infuriating" for the site to be all flash? Is it just the lack of compatibility with certain devices?

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

ted — Sun, 21 May 2006 22:31:24 -0000

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?

Re: Parazz – Flash-Based Photo Sharing

Pete Cashmore — Sun, 21 May 2006 22:00:23 -0000

Bryan,

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.