What is Digg?43 Comments
- teckjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31The real buisnes model:
Step 1: Allow members to upload as much as they want to our site
Step 2: ?????
Step 3: Profit!! - sauron256, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32Link to blog with plenty of ads. And what he says is nothing like this description: in the second paragraph he says it's disruptive because it'll make some startups go out of business (nothing new), and then spends the rest of the article talking about how cool AllYouCanUpload is! Here's is summary:
"If it gets traction (and it will, even if it didn%u2019t have CNET behind it), it will force PhotoBucket and Imageshack to rethink their offerings. And that is great for consumers."
So is it disruptive or not? Seems he can't make up his mind. No digg. - VoraciousPanda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13With the way the digg post is phrased, "disruptive" seems to have a negative connotation. The actual article puts the "disruptive" nature of AllYouCanUpload in a positive light. The article is praising AllYouCanUpload and is not some sort of warning.
By the way, TechCrunch isn't just any ol' "blog with plenty of ads." - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Then again, Google didnt strike me as the type to roll out a mail service two years ago.
It's always great to see a one-dimensional company add a new product/service type to its arsenal... (Microsoft haters, don't jump on me -_-;;) - Skeuomorph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Naysayers are asking, "What's the business model?"
For years now, email marketers and web sites have been using tracking bugs (small embedded images) to understand audience flow, and spending big bucks to do it.
If your business depends on staying on top of Internet trends as CNET's does, the data from a service like this is more valuable than the infinitesimal costs for storage and bandwidth consumed by JPEGs.
A nice web gallery size image is less than 500K. Storage and bandwidth these days is often under $0.50 per gigabyte. Amazon's S3 charges about 20 cents per gigabyte. That's $0.0001 per image. For CNET to know what sites 100 people have visited, only costs them a penny with web gallery images.
They don't just get data about the web sites visited where people posted photos, they also get tracking information about the audience visiting those sites. Since forum images are typically under 50K, CNET can probably learn about 1000 sites and 1000 visitors at that price.
It's well worth it. - ernkush, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11CNET did not strike me as the type to roll out a service like this
- PiGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8No filesize or bandwidth limits?
- Metal_Guru, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lol, you can't post an honest opinion these days on Digg without being modded down.
What's your problem with my comment?
Plus, I had a question... you shouldn't mod down honest questions, it's in the ethical FAQ of Digg.
... oh, and here come the diggers to thumbs down this and my above comment even lower. Democracy.... - elpayo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The First Rule of Web 2.0 Business Models is:
YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WEB 2.0 BUSINESS MODELS. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The word is "*****". Did you think your statement was any cleaner for that asterisk? And do you think that anybody on Digg cares?
- JohnnyVu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The CNET service seems pretty much the same as other image hosting services. I wouldn't mind using it since it's rather organized and not bloated with useless content.
- ddigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those of you having a problem with the term "disruptive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology - ddigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those of you having a problem with the term "disruptive":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology - DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1use png instead.
- diafel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3First of all, I don't see what's disruptive about it. Isn't being disruptive a bad thing?
Secondly, it comes from TechCrunch. I was hoping we'd boycott the greedy bastard behind the site, but here we are. Reported as lame. - jkendel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7????? = "(there are ads on the hosted part of the site, which you see if you click on a hosted image)"
- Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Time to upload a 50 megabyte picture and post it all over the place.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Cnet is awesome. I've always enjoyed their websites. I already use Flickr for my online photo purposes, but perhaps I'll give this a try for stuff I don't want to bother putting up on my Flickr account.
- Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No success here either. Uploading a GIF with transparency resulted in a badly colored and incorrectly matted non-transparent image.
- SoulMaster2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It doesn't work, they must check for non-image code :(
- quinnk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Arguably, not when they're only doing it to try to keep pace with a more fluid, creative organization that they're afraid of. So will the markets reward the former companies, or the bandwagon jumpers?
- enoughrope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Hmm, I can't seem to upload GIFs - it will automatically convert to JPGs. Meh.
- clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Disruptive is a bad word to use to describe or not describe the site. And post a link to a real news site or the actual site, not a blog. Lame.
- JasonHilton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I'm not sure if this is spam, an inaccurate story, or a marketing ploy. Either way, no digg.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The unlimited cap thing is just a gimmick and it won't last. Even CNET has to pay for bandwidth -- in the long term they cannot sustain this type of service for free.
- Soccrmastr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1ye lol Gimages would be great, Gimages Beta for another 5 years.
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I hope Google will come out with Gimages.
Unlimited every thing! - tommanb182, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0www.tinypic.com has been providing this service for years now. The only difference I see is CNET's take provides thumbnails for forums and gives a direct link to the jpeg.
- guigouz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Will keep using imageshack.us
Just because it gives me a real link to the file I just uploaded.
And I can copy it without using the keyboard. - noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3i hate cnet
- peerk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I picked spam
- Metal_Guru, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Digg is becoming a Techcrunch news feed and it's getting kinda annoying... and instead of linking it to the profiled site one needs to go through a blog. *Link straight to the site, and be creative with the title please.* (I guess one could argue for the review bit, but if you really need that, post it in the comments.)
Dont get me wrong, I read Techcrunch every day (but it's more for the actual sites and comments than the reviews). I don't need it in 2 feeds.
// Where is that Greasemonkey filter for Digg? Userscripts appears to be down right now. Will it filter links to Techcrunch? // - futaris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Whats to stop people from embedded stuff in their JPGs, etc?
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1my bet is marketing ploy
- richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1b3tan?
- ryllharu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2How exactly is it going to kill imageshack? It's is basically just a copy of imageshack's interface. It's not particularly any faster, and can it ensure that my images will *never* be removed? It's no better than imageshack, in fact, some of its features are inferior (you can make albums on imageshack so as not to lose the links). I don't have to register with some other company on imageshack. Thumbnails? Imageshack has had them. Easy copy/paste links? same.
So what, exactly, am I missing that makes it better than imageshack and "Disruptive" to the current image upload sites? - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Agreed. Blog spam. The worst kind.
- lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5ads? what ads?
http://www.getfirefox.com - Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2It didn't fu*king work. WTF! Not distruptive and no digg.
- nokaagnew, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3What's step 2? What's step 2?
hehe... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Ah,
I misread it, I thought it meant that cnet owned imageshack and was discontinuing it, that's a relief!
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is