pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: isyndica is closing  (Read 22147 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 27, 2010, 04:26 »
0
im just opening http://www.isyndica.com/
too bad now they're closing...

but dont worry there will be refund
in my country where internet speed is slow than US or europe
we still need service like this
cause its time saver :)

we miss you isyndica...


*are there any service like isyndica..?
im need this thanks


« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2010, 04:33 »
0
Oh no !!  that is bad news !  Been using them more and more lately, and love the analytics :)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 05:00 by Stu49 »

« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2010, 04:45 »
0
too bad, it was very useful for uploading pictures when traveling...
And of course, there is no explanations...

« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2010, 04:56 »
0
Very sad to hear, they had a great site.  Best of luck to Hugo and the rest of the iSyndica team in the future.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 05:32 by leaf »

« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2010, 05:06 »
0
There's another "didn't see that coming"...

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2010, 05:22 »
0
the idea was good but credits were too expensive, compared to current cost of bandwidth
so I never actually used it - besides registering for free.


Now, the only similar alternative is Photoshelter *

They offer an FTP export option, priced by bandwidth usage instead of credits. It is possible to upload to every site which accepts FTP - basically, all sites except IS. It's working pretty well, I am using it when I have to upload too many files at a time, otherwise I countinue to use plain old FTP.

*for those using my link to photoshelter above, yes it's a referral but there's also a discount for you!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 01:02 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2010, 05:29 »
0
Yes they will be missed, back to square one now ....:(
Will be a pain to upload footage now for sure even pictures...


« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2010, 06:30 »
0
Wow... We almost joined them 2 months ago but I thought their integration fee was too high and we decided not to... I'd be pretty mad if we did...
pixmac did that, their preferred submission method is (was) via isyndica...

Fotonaut

« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2010, 06:34 »
0
Darn it! I like Isyndica. With restricted upload bandwidth capacity (slow ADSL), it was a lifesaver.

Are there any comparable alternatives?

« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2010, 06:46 »
0
No alternatives I am afraid:( hopefully in the future...

« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2010, 07:36 »
0
This is a major bummer.  It was especially useful for footage and I loved/used their analytics daily.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2010, 07:48 »
0
Darn it! I like Isyndica. With restricted upload bandwidth capacity (slow ADSL), it was a lifesaver.
Are there any comparable alternatives?


No alternatives I am afraid:( hopefully in the future...


As I posted above, there's an alternative at least for multiple uploads: Photoshelter
(it's a referral link but there's a bonus for referred people as well)

I don't know of an alternative for analytics.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 08:02 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2010, 08:07 »
0
PhotoShelter is stills only, isn't it?  They don't support footage?

« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2010, 08:25 »
0
humm I am already on smugmug :(

Fotonaut

« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2010, 08:40 »
0
Im already on Photoshelter. Havent found them useful enough to continue, though.

E.g. The lack of iStock uploading is a bust.

jbarber873

« Reply #16 on: September 27, 2010, 08:43 »
0
Add me to the ones who will miss isyndica. It made uploading to 5 or 6 agencies at once literally a one click operation.
Especially for video, it was worth the cost.  But my favorite thing was to click on it in the morning and instantly see where and how much you were selling.
The support response was almost real time, incredibly helpful.
Like sjlocke said- I didn't see this coming. They had just enabled the process to upload to istockphotos archaic and stupid video folder system ( a true steampunk system), which must have been a lot of work down the drain.
I think the biggest problem is that the market they were going after counts the pennies on everything, and did not want to pay the price.
 I'm on photoshelter for the ecommerce capabilities, but the system they have is too awkward to replace Isyndica. Photoshelter only does images, not footage, which was the real selling point for me at isyndica. I looked at smugmug, but I really didn't want little smiley faces all over my site.

« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2010, 08:48 »
0
Wouldn't it be interesting if iStock had quietly bought them and shut them down to make it more difficult for their exclusives to jump ship?

jbarber873

« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2010, 10:05 »
0
Wouldn't it be interesting if iStock had quietly bought them and shut them down to make it more difficult for their exclusives to jump ship?

I think you're giving istock too much credit for intelligent business decisions, which does not seem to be their strong point...

« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2010, 10:21 »
0
I'm gutted. Uploading on my internet speeds is just so slow. iSyndica was such a great time saver, plus great to have my stuff all organised. I could see what was submitted where, check analytics, edit keywords with ease. It just made the whole process less cumbersome. I'm dreading the thought of it not being around anymore. Seb, Hugo and Kate, thanks for a great service and wish you all the best..

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2010, 10:31 »
0
PhotoShelter is stills only, isn't it?  They don't support footage?

I never tried uploading video, but help says "PhotoShelter supports all major image formats including JPG, TIF, RAW, PSD and PDF" so I am afraid you are right

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2010, 10:37 »
0
Wouldn't it be interesting if iStock had quietly bought them and shut them down to make it more difficult for their exclusives to jump ship?

I think you're giving istock too much credit for intelligent business decisions, which does not seem to be their strong point...

It would be interesting if other sites - especially low earners - tried to introduce new upload methods to attract photographers, e.g.:
1. allowing FXP (site to site file transfer)
or
2. grabbing pictures (or a password-protected .zip file) from a free online storage (skydrive / dropbox / etc...) or generic server;or
3. peer-to-peer file sharing between a cloud of associated minor sites

 we could then upload once to our preferred service and upload to a lot of minor sites which otherwise aren't worth the bandwidth
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 10:41 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2010, 10:40 »
0
Wow, this ruined my whole week!   I used their upload system every week, though I joined them just because of the Istock upload possiblity, so Photoshelter is no alternative for me.

Any one know why Photoshelter cannot include istock?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2010, 10:43 »
0
Wow, this ruined my whole week!   I used their upload system every week, though I joined them just because of the Istock upload possiblity, so Photoshelter is no alternative for me.

Any one know why Photoshelter cannot include istock?


because Photoshelter sends files through generic FTP, and iStock doesn't

however, for iStock you may use deepmeta; it doesn't save bandwidth, but saves a lot of time with keywording - the boring part everywhere but particularly boring at iStock
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 01:16 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2010, 10:45 »
0
It would be interesting if other sites - especially low earners - tried to introduce new upload methods to attract photographers, e.g.:
1. allowing FXP (site to site file transfer)
or
2. grabbing pictures (or a password-protected .zip file) from a free online storage (skydrive / dropbox / etc...) or generic server;or
3. peer-to-peer file sharing between a cloud of associated minor sites

 we could then upload once to our preferred service and upload to a lot of minor sites which otherwise aren't worth the bandwidth

Some of us are doing that now.  I upload new images to my web provider and then FTP to Shutterstock.  I remove what they reject, and then run a script that does an FTP to all the other sites.  Except for iStock of course, but that ceased to be a problem a couple of weeks ago.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
19209 Views
Last post May 23, 2010, 13:50
by cascoly
61 Replies
21802 Views
Last post May 22, 2010, 12:16
by cascoly
79 Replies
21003 Views
Last post May 08, 2018, 02:54
by BDC
8 Replies
3732 Views
Last post November 27, 2017, 10:00
by Chichikov
2 Replies
863 Views
Last post November 06, 2018, 16:26
by msg2018

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results