Vimeo has run out of disk space...
July 14, 2009 1:36 PM   Subscribe

Vimeo just announced they will delete your original source files if you are a basic (=free) user. Only the compressed and encoded versions will remain unless you buy the $60/year "plus" membership. Deletions will begin August 1st.

From their blog: "Starting August 1st, basic accounts' original source files will be stored for one week from the upload date, after which they will be removed." (...) "Original file storage of every file for every user is a massive cost, and we have noticed that only a very small set of users actually ever download their own files. We want to keep original file storage around as a feature for people who use it, but we can't continue to do it for everybody."

Taking features away from your established userbase is usually a bad idea but the vimeo guys do not have a reputation for being anything other than a bunch of nice folks and I'll give them credit for sending out a pretty clear email alerting users to this change today. Still - this rather drastic change makes me wonder. Chris Anderson was not available for comment.
posted by krautland (65 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
Shocking? I suspect most people won't give a fuck. Are people uploading video to Vimeo and erasing it off their computer? (Now that I typed this, no doubt someone will chime in to say they do this all the time.)
posted by chunking express at 1:39 PM on July 14, 2009


Meh. I don't see what the big deal is.
posted by The World Famous at 1:43 PM on July 14, 2009


I fail to see anything wrong with this.
posted by chimaera at 1:43 PM on July 14, 2009


I fail to see what the big deal is.
posted by brain_drain at 1:45 PM on July 14, 2009


Are people uploading video to Vimeo and erasing it off their computer?
I think those people would be in the minority but considering myself - I have a computer at work, one at home, multiple external hard drives in various places and there are computers I don't have access to anymore. I'd have a hard time finding more than one of my videos. I always saw vimeo as a place to have a fallback copy, as a fail-safe or a last resort.
posted by krautland at 1:45 PM on July 14, 2009


As a known internet tough guy I can not stand to let this happen without posting disparaging comments about Vimeo's business practices on the associated slashdot, digg, and reddit stories to be posted in the next hour.
posted by wcfields at 1:46 PM on July 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


Yeah, well I don't know about Vimeo, but most of what I upload to Youtube is obscure, awesome television clips that I want to share with the world -- like, Buffalo Tom studio documentary, chaotic 80s Roberto Benigni interview. I sure as hell don't keep that around, it was never that much of a higher quality to begin with, and I can just watch it on YT if the urge strikes. I'm not the Library of Congress.

OTOH, stuff I created myself usually gets archived, but even that depends on how attached I am to it.

As I see it, Youtube is the well where I can purge my videos into and forget about, unless there's a particular need for preserving a quality copy.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:47 PM on July 14, 2009


I always saw vimeo as a place to have a fallback copy, as a fail-safe or a last resort.

Isn't it still such a place, except now it costs $5/month for that service?
posted by brain_drain at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2009 [5 favorites]


mmmmmmmmmmmmmmeh. 1TB external drives are around $80 right now; box does ubiquitous access pretty well. "Website to control costs" doesn't really get my dander up, krautland.
posted by boo_radley at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2009


Meh. The only fault I can really find is their lack of foresight on how expensive it would be for them to store video data for anyone for free, forever.

Other than that, it seems pretty reasonable and they appear to be forthright and handling it professionally, so count me in the whatevs category.
posted by lazaruslong at 1:49 PM on July 14, 2009


Not the greatest advocacy post, esp. given that other media hosting services charge for their services. If the video is interesting and worthwhile, it'll probably end up on YT.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:52 PM on July 14, 2009


"Website to control costs"
huh? that wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. chaos vs. "I know where another copy is" was.
posted by krautland at 1:52 PM on July 14, 2009


Is anyone really uploading original high-quality master files to the service in the first place? I've only ever used YouTube, so maybe Vimeo is different, but by the time I upload something to YT it's already been compressed to hell and back. Otherwise even a short clip would be way over their size maximums. Most online services just aren't meant for uploading straight DV footage, and require the user to at least take it to a moderate bitrate MPEG-4 before they can upload anything.

IIRC YouTube had a whole page on what settings you should use, to avoid them having to recompress your video again after uploading, to be compatible with their Flash player. This suggests to me that they are keeping "source" files if they're sent in the correct format, but probably not otherwise.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:55 PM on July 14, 2009


Yeah, well I don't know about Vimeo, but most of what I upload to Youtube is obscure, awesome television clips that I want to share with the world -- like, Buffalo Tom studio documentary

Link, please
posted by KokuRyu at 1:57 PM on July 14, 2009


I would like to point and laugh. Over and over again, I see people build plans, even businesses, on top of what I like to call Someone Else's Free. Over and over again, those people are so often surprised and sad when the free stops. Then they go rushing off for the next big thing to do it all over again.

I think the Internet needs a splash screen, which, amongst things like "Tech support is not gonna ask you for your password" and "No, there is no dude in Nigeria who needs your help transferring twenty-three million dollars out of the country," should include "That thing you are using for free right now, yeah, it might not always be like that."

Probably within seconds of any venture capital funding hitting one of these joints, there's a change to the business plan and it says "Phase out a lot of the free stuff two years from now." It isn't like the folks at Vimeo were surprised by their storage costs or anything. Get 'em hooked, wait until it takes off, then charge for anything good. Like, you know, Instructables.
posted by adipocere at 1:57 PM on July 14, 2009 [6 favorites]


Who on god's green earth would utilize a bandwidth hog (i.e. eventually exploding due to bills) service as an offsite backup/repository? Sorry kraut, I'm with the "meh" camp on this. If you've been utilizing Vimeo as a dropbox between computers, that's a neat hack I guess, but not what I imagine Vimeo intended..
posted by cavalier at 1:58 PM on July 14, 2009


Is anyone really uploading original high-quality master files to the service in the first place?

No; insane and impossible. I have a Pro account and even so I never had any expectation of them keeping my uploaded files- why on Earth would they? I have never seen or heard of any way to access the original files through the site anyway.

This is a "non-troversy" of the highest order.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:59 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


In other news, in six months, Vimeo will be out of business.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:59 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Otherwise even a short clip would be way over their size maximums.

Well, I uploaded a 8-9 minute clip of unmodified HDV from my camcorder and that fit (1.8 GB or so), since we raised our limit to 2GB. (In other words, the real issue is the time limit on videos not the filesize).

YouTube had a whole page on what settings you should use, to avoid them having to recompress your video again after uploading

That is kind of outdated. We do retranscode files periodically, so our new advice (ever since releasing HD) is to upload the highest quality version you have, since you never know what bitrate/resolution we might transcode it to in the future. (we also occasionally support new formats, like when we added H264).
posted by wildcrdj at 2:03 PM on July 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


krautland, that's what the announcement reads like to me, though. I recall seeing similar stories from other online providers where they just had to up and close shop, without one last chance to recover your works. At least here it sounds like vimeo is giving you options: recover originals by August, pony up $5 or lose your originals.

I feel for you, no doubt, but dang if this doesn't seem like a totally avoidable situation.
posted by boo_radley at 2:03 PM on July 14, 2009


> In other news, in six months, Vimeo will be out of business.

I certainly hope not.


Vimeo is aimed at people who really care about the work they create and post. If someone cares about their work but doesn't bother to back it up, they have no vote of sympathy from me.
posted by reductiondesign at 2:24 PM on July 14, 2009


Never occurred to me to store original files on Vimeo. Why bother? It's just a good way to put compressed HD up to show the family and friends. Guess they got much more popular much faster than they anticipated. It's my favorite online video host.
posted by gallois at 2:32 PM on July 14, 2009


I post pictures of the child in my house for grandparents and immediate family to download. Given everyone is spread across the country, Vimeo is the easiest and most cost-effective way to send them videos. Plus I can password protect them.

I can't begrudge Vimeo for their decision and appreciate that they'll continue to leave the source files up for a week after the initial upload.
posted by parilous at 2:34 PM on July 14, 2009


Servers cost money. How much of a free lunch do people expect? I mean, you could always get a .mac/shared/VPS/dedicated/whatever hosting account and roll your own sort of video upload service.
posted by Brian Puccio at 2:37 PM on July 14, 2009


I had no idea that Vimeo kept unencoded files for any length of time.
posted by brundlefly at 2:38 PM on July 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


Most people upload a compressed version of their video to Vimeo anyway - so no big deal. Also I didn't realize people used Vimeo for storage. I have a few videos there but they are fully backed up elsewhere - where I don't have to rely on someone else's services.
posted by Rashomon at 2:38 PM on July 14, 2009


I sometimes worry about this sort of situation with my Flickr account. I have a paid account and use it as a central repository for maximum-resolution photos. That way I can upload new pics from whatever computer is convenient, or get prints without remembering which computer a given photo is stored on. I feel reasonably secure that having a paid account protects me from future policy changes on Flickr's part, but if for whatever reason they removed my pictures then some of them would probably be gone forever.

Vimeo doesn't have the funds to maintain their original business model, fine. They either have the money or they don't. But the marketing for these companies is all bluster and fanfare about how the old methods of storage are obsolete, and how everything's going to be moving to "the cloud." Yet, less than five years after Vimeo's launch, they're already invalidating parts of their business model out of financial necessity. In the very real event that they go bankrupt, the content will be gone forever unless the authors had maintained a separate storage medium.

Right now there's a photo album on my desk with polaroids of my parents from the 1960s. A small investment in the album itself and some polaroid film, probably $100 in adjusted dollars, for 40+ years' worth of storage and no imminent sign of failing. Sure, there's been some deterioration... but scanning them in and doing "I'm Feeling Lucky" in Picasa usually counteracts it nicely. Show me an established service with a long-term business plan that its shown any evidence of adhering to, available at a comparable price. Then I'll believe the hype about the next generation of content storage.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:42 PM on July 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


But the marketing for these companies is all bluster and fanfare about how the old methods of storage are obsolete, and how everything's going to be moving to "the cloud."

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say "the cloud is, and will always be free". In fact, the primary reason for companies to focus on "the cloud" is so they can start charging customers for software / storage continuously, rather than once.

But, like you, I put my total faith in Flickr. I have several TB of storage at home waiting to fill up with our RAW files, but on Flickr the photos are all tagged, geotagged, sorted and findable, which is incredibly valuable to me. Flickr acts as our final backup for precious family memories, and I'm putting a lot of trust in it still being there in years to come.
posted by Jimbob at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2009


Vimeo lost most all credibility (for me) when they publicly announced in a related forum thread that paying for a "Plus" account could only be done via credit card, and that accepting Paypal was "too hard".
posted by datter at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


In other news, in six months, Vimeo will be out of business.

Yeah, at first that's what I thought too. But if Vimeo is still keeping TWO versions of your videos around, who really gives a fuck?
posted by graventy at 3:13 PM on July 14, 2009


Paypal has higher fees, i'm pretty sure. I'm guessing that's probably why they don't want to go that route. Also, for merchants there can be a whole lot of stupidness.
posted by chunking express at 3:13 PM on July 14, 2009


Here you go, KokuRyu!
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 3:19 PM on July 14, 2009


This is dumb. Not because deleting the source files is dumb--it isn't, and arguably it was dumb to keep them in the first place--but because on first reading, the announcement reads as "OMG FREE USERS VIDEOS WILL BE DELETED!". That equates to "we have run out of money, the CEO's buddies have all shorted our stock, and we will be gone as soon as the CEO has finalized his move to Ibiza".
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:21 PM on July 14, 2009


I question the entire vimeo premise. You want to stream high quality? Really? Online? To me high quality imagery is to be seen on a large screen off a DVD or similar solution, not crappy bitrate stuttering across a computer monitor. Bottom line, I don't see any reason to bother with vimeo when you have Youtube - given the difference in quality. The difference in quality between vimeo and youtube is not great enough, and frankly I don't see how that would change in the future... except youtube getting better. Vimeo does not have a viable business model. They will die.
posted by VikingSword at 3:33 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


When Digital Railroad shut down (see here), users had no heads-up. Professional photographers who used this site to not only sell and license photos, but to archive photos, were blindsided. A lot of them could not recover their photos because in the hours after the announcement, their FTP servers were so bogged down with download requests that users couldn't get their photos out of the system. Soon after, the servers were then cut off to the outside world and the servers became property of the asset liquidation company -- with all of the photos still residing on those servers.

I wasn't personally involved with that, but many colleagues around me had to suffer through it. It obviously taught me a valuable lesson -- don't trust anybody.
posted by Kevin Sanders at 3:38 PM on July 14, 2009


I question the entire vimeo premise. You want to stream high quality? Really? Online? To me high quality imagery is to be seen on a large screen off a DVD or similar solution, not crappy bitrate stuttering across a computer monitor.

Works for Netflix.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:56 PM on July 14, 2009


Works for Netflix.

What works? That they have a service at all? That's not the issue. Yes, Netflix has a streaming service, but I'm not arguing that streaming services don't work. I'm saying you need to have something to go against the competitors. Netflix does not advertise their service with high quality as their distinguishing characteristic.

Vimeo's entire raison d'etre and distinguishing characteristic is allegedly high quality. Which is not really possible online. And their competitor is youtube from whom they distinguish themselves as having higher quality - because really, they've got nothing else (being worse than youtube in selection etc.). And my point is that quality of imagery cannot be a distinguishing quality online, because the difference in quality of streaming services online are too small for technical reasons. So if quality of imagery is your calling card in online streaming (as it is for vimeo), then it spells FAIL as a business.

Netflix is a completely different ball game.
posted by VikingSword at 4:17 PM on July 14, 2009


To me high quality imagery is to be seen on a large screen off a DVD or similar solution, not crappy bitrate stuttering across a computer monitor.

And to me, high quality photography is best viewed in print hanging on a gallery wall...but I can assure you Flickr isn't going anywhere, because it's good enough.
posted by Jimbob at 4:29 PM on July 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say "the cloud is, and will always be free".

They did, however, believe for a long time that ad-supported content would be sufficient to cover their costs. Not that I think they were reasonable to believe that, but I think they genuinely marketed these things with the expectation that they had a sustainable business model from the get-go, and probably convinced many of their potential customers of the same.
posted by Riki tiki at 4:36 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Shorter version: "We aren't making money" (aka not generating enough revenue to maintain a positive cash balance and far from a path to profiltabilty).

Also, see: JPG magazine, published by 8020 Media. Previously.
posted by ericb at 4:37 PM on July 14, 2009


Or, what Riki tiki said!
posted by ericb at 4:38 PM on July 14, 2009


And to me, high quality photography is best viewed in print hanging on a gallery wall...but I can assure you Flickr isn't going anywhere, because it's good enough.

Ack, people completely misunderstand what I'm saying. My fault.

Here's my point. People look at stuff online because of convenience and a thousand other reasons. One of those reasons is NOT "because I can get great quality of image". Therefore, a business that competes explicitly because of alleged "great quality" (as vimeo is) is missing the boat. Youtube is their competitor - and beats them at what is the most important characteristics (ease, ubiquity, selection etc.), so that vimeo beats them at "quality" is FAIL, because we don't go online for "quality of image". If the web allowed (technically) to compete on quality, that would be a viable strategy - since by its nature it does not, trying to compete on quality online is a lost cause.
posted by VikingSword at 4:43 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


In related news: Yahoo shelving Maven Networks’ video platform.

Online video hosting -- whether for amateurs or professionals -- has been/has become highly-competitve. Venture financing for such flooded the market segment after the explosive interest in YouTube in late 2005/2006. That bubble is bursting, as projected returns on original VC dollars are not looking-so-good for many "also rans." Market dynamics at work. Advertising revenues aren't there. Sponsorhip dollars are rare. Only hope: omnthly/annual subscription fees. Good luck, Vimeo and others!
posted by ericb at 4:48 PM on July 14, 2009


May 29, 2009: Should YouTube Charge To Host User-Generated Video?
"In an eye-opening essay, Bernstien Research analyst Jeffrey Lindsay proposes a radical idea on how Google might address the business model problem that now afflicts YouTube: charge people listing fees for uploading video to the site.

Lindsay writes in a note to clients today that YouTube in 2009 should generate revenue of $200 million to $250 million, but with costs in the $400 million to $700 million range. I would note that Google doesn’t provide any financial data on YouTube, but the numbers are consistent with what other analysts have estimated: back in April, Credit Suisse analyst Spencer Wang calculated that Google will lose $470 million on YouTube this year.

[more]...
I can only imagine what Vimeo's financials are. As just one of the many online and media properties of Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp, I suspect that if Vimeo doesn't show an encouraging path to profitability soon, they could likely be shut down and join the "dot-com graveyard."
posted by ericb at 4:59 PM on July 14, 2009


Vimeo's entire raison d'etre and distinguishing characteristic is allegedly high quality

I think it's also the case that the videos and comments on them at Vimeo are higher quality in a less quantifiable sense. There's less crap on Vimeo.
posted by chunking express at 5:02 PM on July 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think it's also the case that the videos and comments on them at Vimeo are higher quality in a less quantifiable sense. There's less crap on Vimeo.

Better videos? I don't think so. There is a lot of very good stuff on youtube, short films and whatnot. Better quality comments - yes. Less crap - yes. Not enough IMHO to win over youtube, and even youtube is losing money. Vimeo is toast.
posted by VikingSword at 5:06 PM on July 14, 2009


A couple weeks ago Flickr deleted someone's account and erased all the files, which the author claimed not to have backups of, all because he complained about the Obama administration's policies on the whitehouse's Flickr page.

So, uh, trusting your photos to Flickr is not really a very good idea.
posted by delmoi at 5:07 PM on July 14, 2009


So, uh, trusting your photos to Flickr is not really a very good idea.

Besides which, if the possibility of Microsoft buying Yahoo ever gets revived, Flickr may well be one of the jewels in the crown, and may end up being remade into a Silverlight-only application with hooks into Windows 7, with all images converted to Windows Media format. (Microsoft need something popular to coernvince large numbers of people to get onboard the Silverlight bandwagon, and Flickr could be ideal (it's popular and not owned by Google).
posted by acb at 5:28 PM on July 14, 2009


Get 'em hooked, wait until it takes off, then charge for anything good. Like, you know, Instructables.

Whoa whoa whoa. I don't know about everyone else, but my argument with Instructables isn't that they went from free to non-free. My problem is that they stole all the Creative Commons-licensed contributions.
posted by DU at 5:50 PM on July 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


Not enough IMHO to win over youtube, and even youtube is losing money. Vimeo is toast.
Best business model for them IMO is sell their stuff to Google to add to YouTube.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:05 PM on July 14, 2009


"So, uh, trusting your photos to Flickr is not really a very good idea."

Has anyone trusted Flickr since Yahoo bought them?
posted by Mitheral at 7:01 PM on July 14, 2009


Has anyone trusted Flickr since Yahoo bought them?

Has anyone trusted Vimeo since IAC/InterActiveCorp bought them?

Has anyone trusted YouTube since Goggle bought them?

Your point?
posted by ericb at 7:06 PM on July 14, 2009


delmoi, i looked up Shepherd Johnson, and after a cursory review, i think i agree with their opinion that he was being a dick. but i admit flickr was lying when they said his stuff was gone.
posted by lester at 7:17 PM on July 14, 2009


Never occurred to me to store original files on Vimeo. Why bother? It's just a good way to put compressed HD up to show the family and friends.

For which my family has been using Vimeo these past months ... especially nieces and nephews who had originally posted slideshows/videos on YouTube only to have them "silenced" (i.e. musical mix/soundtracks stripped off) due to the licensing dispute between Warner Music and Google/YouTube. Their soundtracks remain intact on Vimeo. None are likely to "upgrade" their accounts. Are there enough "professionals" paying fees to justify an on-going business model for Vimeo. Only time will tell. My bet is "no way José." YMMV.
posted by ericb at 7:22 PM on July 14, 2009


"Your point?"

Uhh, given Yahoo's extensive history of cancelling and downgrading services, especially those not developed in house, at the drop of a hat no one should be trusting them to be there or to even be usable tomorrow.
posted by Mitheral at 7:22 PM on July 14, 2009


*Goggle*

That's *Google*, as seen through 10-year anniversary beer goggles!
posted by ericb at 7:23 PM on July 14, 2009


This could have been *a lot* worse.
posted by majikstreet at 7:41 PM on July 14, 2009


Uhh, given Yahoo's extensive history of cancelling and downgrading services ...

Point taken -- as per Geocities (set to go dark on October 26, 2009: -- purchased 10-years prior), AudioNet/Broadcast.com (purchased April 1999) and most recently (as per my own contribution to this thread above), Maven being shed.

But, that does not leave immune the cancelling and downgrading of services by other "big players," such as Google, IAC, Microsoft and others. Such happens all of the time, especially when economics and market issues come to play. Not to mention changes in technology and market demand (e.g. Wordstar, DB2, Visicalc, Multiplan, Lotus 123, Lotus Notes, E-rooms, Groove Networks and the "Internet Darlings" pre- and post- bust)!

Also, let's not forget that from a marketing P.O.V. the on-going designation of BETA for Google often stands in their favor -- "we've decided to cancel such and not release it to GAMMA). However, Google has recently realized that a perpetual BETA designation needs to be addressed when dealing with the "business" market:" Google Brings Some of Its Apps Out of Beta -- "Wants to appeal to a wider business base." Businesses seek stability, longevity. But, in this world "nothing is forever!"
posted by ericb at 7:50 PM on July 14, 2009


This may be getting a little OT, but as a Flickr user one of the sites I like to keep an eye on is the Flickr Dev Blog.

When Yahoo bought Flickr a few years back, they basically promised not to do all the shitty stuff that acquiring companies generally do to their conquests in the name of "integration," and Flickr has mostly existed as an autonomous unit since then. IMO, this is probably why it doesn't suck (looking at you, Yahoo Groups).

My plan is, and has been since the Yahoo takeover, to take a wait-and-see approach: if Yahoo starts to pull the Borg act (as evidenced by a talent exodus), or if Flickr gets sold to someone else who does, I'll be jumping ship.

But — and despite really, really wishing that Google had bought Flickr when it happened — I've always felt like it's premature to ditch a service when it's still being run by the same or many of the same people. Typically, core developers aren't willing to let a product get totally trashed before they'll just leave (or make such a fuss that they get canned), especially if it's one that they're heavily invested in and/or helped create initially. So you can use staff turnover as a pretty reliable barometer of impending doom.

This is generalizable to many, if not most, web startups and is the reason I love it when a site has a developer/founder blog that lets you connect with the core staff. It's not so much that I really care what they had for lunch or what their cat looks like, but I want to know that they're still around and working on the project. Bonus if it's an off-site personal blog that's less likely to be sanitized during a VC takeover or founder purge.

You can ride the early-stage-Internet-startup freebie train for a long time if you're careful; the key is just realizing when it's time to get off — and pack up your data — before the wheels come off and it turns into a drama-filled wreck.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:30 PM on July 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


I have something very [CPU 100%]..........important to say about vimeo. But you will have to endure [CPU 100%]....... a lot of pauses before I can [CPU 100%]...... get it out.

Vimeo is a great idea but with a shit implementation. I suspect they bought the very best machines for their dev team so they don't realize it is horrible for anyone without the latest $2K rig.

I don't trust them to even be able to serve video little less hang onto it.
posted by srboisvert at 4:40 AM on July 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I have something very [CPU 100%]..........important to say about vimeo. But you will have to endure [CPU 100%]....... a lot of pauses before I can [CPU 100%]...... get it out. Vimeo is a great idea but with a shit implementation. I suspect they bought the very best machines for their dev team so they don't realize it is horrible for anyone without the latest $2K rig.

To be fair, you aren't complaining about Vimeo as much as HD video in general.
posted by datter at 6:15 AM on July 15, 2009


Kadin2048, if Google bought Flickr, they would probably have turned off new users while they rewrote the whole site in python, and then after a few years decided to shut the site down. That's usually how things seem to go with Google. (Dodgeball and Jaiku off the top of my head, I'm sure people can think of others.)
posted by chunking express at 6:38 AM on July 15, 2009


In other news, in six months, Vimeo will be out of business.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:59 PM on July 14 [1 favorite +]


Vimeo was never in business. Like 90% of the internet, that site was put up for some reason other than money. But now that no one involved in any of these projects cares about anything but money, they will disappear.

So long, Vimeo. You were a gracious host to countless base64-titled pirated movies that I watched seamlessly through front-ends that shall remain nameless. Your passing will be...acknowledged.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:50 AM on July 15, 2009


Vimeo died a while back for me when they decided that any videos featuring videogames were unwanted and deleted them, regardless of the effort put into the videos.

It sucked, because for a while there was no other option for high-quality, lengthy video hosting.

But the internet always moves on.
posted by flatluigi at 10:58 AM on July 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Yeah, when I said "I put my total faith in Flickr", I didn't mean I was certain it would still be around in 20 years. I mean it had fucking better still be around in 20 years. Or it had better provide some damn efficient way to transfer all my data to another site when it kicks the bucket.

There is room for stability on the web, though. Not everything is a flash in the pan. Amazon's been around for ever. Ebay's been around for ever. Maybe in 50 years we'll still have these grand old "traditional" internet businesses, with all our data safe and happy.
posted by Jimbob at 5:44 PM on July 15, 2009


« Older Fancy Fast Food   |   It Begins Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments