Polycount Image Hosting Service?

Vito

It seems like a lot of you guys don't have any sort of online storage at all. I see lots of images being posted using free image hosts like ImageShack and PutFile and such, and I also see lots of broken links as those files expire. It also seems that lots of you also primarily used your cottages for image hosting, and it seems the paid polycount.net cottages are too expensive for just that.

Plus, when you visit your images directly, with many places you end up on a page loaded with ads, and that's not cool if it's some art you're trying to show off.

Would you guys be interested (as in, would you actually pay for) in a Polycount Image Hosting Service? It'd be something like $1/mo. or $10/yr. paid with PayPal (or other means) for, say, 1GB of storage and 1GB/mo. of transfer. You'd use a special uploader to upload your images and it'd give you a direct URL to do whatever you want with, no restrictions. It'd just be a file host, though, not a real web site, just like any other image host.

Unlike the other services, though, there'd be no ads, ever, and it'd never expire your files unless you logged in and deleted them.

Is that worth it to stop using putfile/etc.?

JKMakowka

If I can run a warez fileserver on it, sure

But to be honest, a free version with only little space (5-10MB) would probably make more sense.

Snowfly

I personally wouldn't, with Photobucket around. Besides, $1/month pays for a full web hosting service where I'm from.

Rick Stirling

Perhaps a shared one for the folk that need it? To use it, you donate 1-2 of your US dollars via paypal, and thats valid for a year?

Most will need no more than 20 meg or so anyway.

Soccerman18

If it's pretty reliable, not coming down or running out of bandwidth all the time, I'd definitly be up for it.

Tulkamir

I'd take one without a doubt. Sounds like a good deal, a buck a month is nothing really, the service would be from somewhere I trust, and I'd be supporting something I like.

If you do it, I'm in.

[edit]At the same, time, for that much space/transfer, couldn't we also be allowed to upload webpages?[/edit]

Vito

Well, it can't be free, since bandwidth costs money. Either you're paying that money directly, or you're looking at (and subjecting other people to) ads. If you like ads, and like making other people look at ads to see your work, that's your choice. But I don't.

So what's the balance between cost and bandwidth? What about Rick's idea? You put $2 in the pot and you get to upload your images, and that $2 should be good for, I dunno, several months if you're only using it for images and you're only using, say, 100MB and your image isn't the front page of Digg.