I use all three of these for my photography needs, If only one of them could intergrate all the great features of the other two.

Photobucket: - Great for storage and good for sharing. Good layout as well.
- Easy to put on ur web page as well.

• Printing with QOOP is EXPENSIVE! especially if you want stuff shipped to a country other that US!!! Photobucket most importantly needs a cheaper printing service if they want more users/

Flickr: - Great for sharing and browsing stuff. Good editing tools too!

• Again doesn’t have its own printing stuff, but the companies you can go with zazzle etc. are EXPENSIVE!!
• flickr needs printing service, and what about being able to choose the colour of the site’s background?????:D

Snapfish (powered by HP): - GReat printing and gift prices!!! as well as not being ripped off for shipping costs. Without doubt all my printing needs are in snapfish’s hands! unlimited storage as well:)

• Ok, so sharing is available but doesn’t look near as good as flickr or pbucket!

overall, if your never going to be printing ur pics, want them kept private, and want fast uploading (but make sure u;ve got java!). I say go with photobucket.

If you want to share with the world, and its unlikely u’ll want printing, go with flickr.

And if printing is most important, go with snapfish!

Enjoy

Webshots has a complicated user interface which looks good until you use it, since it does not deliver, and then again it censors lots of stuff with dumb ban words, which can be circumvented with some imagination.

Photobuckets user interface is minimal and simple to use, so the teens have no difficulty using it, and as they grow older they may just stick with photobucket?

Consolodation must be on its way tho, now that yahoo are leaving the image gallery market.

1. doesn’t myspace allow you to post photos directly on myspace? then why do I need photobucket?

2. what does photobucket charge for - is it all free? ads?

[Note: I'm a co-founder of Flickr and act as its general manager inside of Yahoo!]

Two comments on this (most people will want to skip right to the numbers section, but it’s less relevant than comparing the products):

The products:
I don’t really think of Photobucket as a competitor to Flickr. Though, as the Hitwise blogger says, “what they both do is enable people to share images online”, I’m not sure that that makes a “market”: They serve totally different purposes and I don’t think the people who use them would find either a replacement for the other. Photobucket is great at it’s job, and I humbly think Flickr is too ;) But when I think marketshare, I think direct alternatives (Toyota vs Honda or Google Search vs Yahoo! Search vs MSN Search).

But even if we accept that there is such a market as “sites that enable people to share/host images online”, these would not be the right sites to include: MySpace itself allows photo uploads and is presumably bigger than Photobucket in serving their own users (as they are reportedly are for videos). Meanwhile, Facebook claims that it is the biggest photo sharing site on the internet. But I’d happily wager than Yahoo! Mail is by far the biggest “photo sharing” site of all in this way of thinking, and Hotmail would be close behind it.

But a list of photosharing sites by marketshare that went:

Yahoo! Mail
Hotmail
MySpace
MSN Spaces
Facebook
… etc.

would seem pretty weird :)

And, a different way of looking at it: if you drew a line from Flickr to Photobucket in the “conceptual space of internet products and services” and started extrapolating, that line would probably go to Akamai more than it would to mail or SNSs (and in a way, Photobucket is a consumer counterpart to Akamai’s enterprise service). But anyway …

The numbers:
The Hitwise stats are (a) US only and (b) (apparently?) counting entries in ISP’s proxy logs. So, this is not unique users, or pageviews, or even necessarily image serving traffic (a lot of requests for different infrequently-viewed images will cause more entries in the proxy logs than a smaller number of images each with massive traffic). If that’s how it works (and I actually don’t know) it seems more like they’re counting “marketshare” of lines in ISP proxy log files than any traditional understanding of marketshare.

For purposes of comparison:

Nielsen/NetRatings just announced US numbers for April which were significantly different. Summary (in thousands of unique users):

Photobucket: 7,838 (vs 5,419 a year ago for 45% growth)
Y! Photos: 7,772 (vs 6,439 a year ago for 21% growth)
Kodak: 7,633 (vs 6,508 a year ago for 17% growth)
Webshots: 6,070 (vs 6,070 a year ago for -15% growth)
Flickr: 4,816 (vs 1,080 a year ago for 346% growth)

Meanwhile, Comscore’s US numbers for May have been out for a while. For the sites mentioned by Hitwise (Hitwise didn’t include AOL Pictures, but if they had, they’d be in the middle of the pack on these two lists):

Y! Photos: 11,328 (vs 9,778 a year ago, for 16% growth)
Photobucket: 10,292 (vs 3,224 a year ago, for 217% growth)
Webshots: 8,478 (vs11,082 a year ago, for -23.5% growth)
Kodak: 7,431 (vs 5,625 a year ago, for 32.1% growth)
Flickr: 5,163 (vs 923 a year ago, for 459% growth)
Imageshack: 5,006 (vs 3,593 a year ago, for 39% growth)
SnapFish: 4,755 (N/A)
Shutterfly: 4,126 (vs 2,732 a year ago, for 51% growth)
PIcturetrail: 1,286 (vs 2,020 a year ago, for -36% growth)
Slide: 1,072 (N/A)

Comscore’s latest worldwide figures for all these sites only go to April:

Y! Photos: 30,736 (vs 27,217 a year ago, for 13% growth)
Imageshack: 23,862 (vs 12,448 a year ago, for 92% growth)
Webshots: 19,755 (vs 24,901 a year ago, for -21% growth)
Photobucket: 16,763 (vs 8,896 a year ago, for 88% growth)
Flickr: 16,516 (vs 3,423 a year ago, for 383% growth)
Kodak: 9,552 (vs 7,313 a year ago, for 31% growth)
SnapFish: 6,714 (N/A)
Shutterfly: 4,609 (vs 3,841 a year ago, for 20% growth)
PIcturetrail: 2,493 (vs 2,778 a year ago, for -10% growth)
Slide: 1,360 (N/A)

Photobucket says they have 18m users, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. So, Photobucket’s self-reported numbers are pretty close to Comscore’s (Comscore or any other reporting system is never going to be perfect - I have access to internal data for two of the properties on that list, so calibration is a little easier). Comscore’s numbers are fairly close for Flickr too (the ratios are off though: they seem to undercount Flickr’s US traffic and overcount the rest of the world).

Bottom line: NNR, Comscore, Alexa, Photobucket’s public statements and our internal data all roughly agree[1]. E.g., in unique users worldwide, Photobucket:Flickr is about to 1:1, while in the US the ratio is somewhere between 3:2 and 2:1 — as opposed to the 7:1 Hitwise reports.) Averaging them all out, Hitwise is definitely the outlier by a very wide margin. So, take it with a grain of salt.

[1] And other anecdotal facts align with these, like the number of incoming links to Photobucket and Flickr on Goolgle. Flickr with 260k and Photobucket with 218k.

I love this: “Amazing - success has nothing to do with Ajax, or cool stuff. It has everything to do with simplicity and giving users what they want.”

Re: “officially the king” - your bar is pretty low for what counts as “official”, but in any case, check the numbers section of my follow-up post on TechCrunch.

“ahead of old timers … Flickr”: Photobucket launched a year before Flickr (and if you remember, Flickr was something pretty different for the first six months or so of its existence, so Photobucket’s been around close to twice as long as Flickr).

Looking at the Hitwise numbers describes a scenario where most Photobucket users must link externally. Meaning fewer direct pageviews but a much wider reach. I was playing with the new Flock browser, and it has a feature called photo streams. Use Flock to browse any site and Flickr and Photobucket images are marked so you can view additional content from that publisher. It’s obvious where the hitwise numbers are coming from, Photobucket goes much wider then just blogs.

Search for word photobucket in craigslist

Now search flickr

Photobucket returns 82,600 results
Flickr returns 886

Photobucket is the most popular website for listing on cragslist…have hardly seen anybody use flickr

2 thoughts:

• I put my thoughts on the numbers here:
  http://fuzzyblog.com/archives/2006/06/22/hitwise-versus-alexa-and-flickr-versus-photobucket/

• Simplicity and giving users what they want. Brilliantly said. Thank you for reminding all of us, so succinctly, why we all build startups. Its not for the Ajax.

Scott