Photobucket Distributing Custom Flock Browser

Next Story

XHTMLized Turns Your Design into Code

Photobucket, a very popular photo sharing service, is now distributing a custom version of the Flock Mozilla-based browser. A tour of the photo features of the browser is here. This comes less than a month after the release of the first public beta version of Flock (reviewed here).

The Photobucket version of the Flock browser is identical to the one available at, except that Flickr functionality has been stripped out, leaving Photobucket as the sole choice for photo integration. Details of the deal were not announced (in fact, the deal itself was not announced), but I assume that Flock is sharing search and other revenues streams generated by users of the browser with Photobucket. Based on unsubstantiated but largely circulated rumors around Firefox search revenue, the two companies can expect $2-3 per user per year from the partnership.

Given how closely Flock has integrated with Yahoo services in the main version of their browser (, Flickr and Yahoo Search), I would not be surprised to see a Yahoo version of Flock sometime soon.

TechCrunch posts on Photobucket are here, and Flock are here. The Photobucket version of Flock is available for download here.

  • Karoli

    Seems to me it might be a good idea for the folks writing the manifesto to take at least a moment to consider users. Microsoft is a player – a big player. If they care about users, they won’t freeze them out. Which is, of course, why I’m sure they don’t care about users.

  • Peter Urban

    Just the usual manipulative nonsense.

    • typical forum poster

      yep, good ol’ fear/uncertainty/doubt from a known microsoft apologist.

  • TCCritic

    OMG but I’m not surprised. I wouldn’t expect Google nor IBM to embrace openness more so than Microsoft.

    Forget about openness or “do no evil”. Where public companies are concerned, what matters is the share price and not what consumers need or want.

    Google (especially Google!) is no exception.

  • Jesse Silver

    Since it appears you’ve done little research, I’d like to clarify something.

    At no point did those involved attempt to “lock Microsoft out”. At the end of the day, the story will emerge as something much different than the one printed here.

    The goal of the Manifesto is to usher in a new era of openness and partnership in the cloud computing space. And ultimately, I’m confident it will succeed.

    • Steve Gillmor

      Typical of the whatever means to an end school of rationalization. And oh by the way I’ve done plenty of research on this, none of which you’re refutting. What does “most of” mean?

      • Jesse Silver

        Microsoft has not been, and will never be, locked out. That is not reflected in your article.

      • Steve Gillmor

        Microsoft says otherwise, and you still don’t answer the question of what the meaning of most of is. Do some research of the WS-I links I provide and ask yourself whether your parsing of this is credible. I doubt it.

      • Randall Minter

        This is Microsoft’s take on it:

        It sounds more to me like the document was taken there and presented in a “You’re either with us or against us” sort of manner.

        From the link:

        “Very recently we were privately shown a copy of the document, warned that it was a secret, and told that it must be signed “as is,” without modifications or additional input. It appears to us that one company, or just a few companies, would prefer to control the evolution of cloud computing, as opposed to reaching a consensus across key stakeholders (including cloud users) through an “open” process.”

      • Jesse Silver

        It was clearly a rhetorical misstatement Steve.

        Yes, the drama surrounding the WS-I has given just cause for cynicism. But in this case, it’s just untrue that anyone is being locked out. We hope, and still hope, that everyone interested, including Microsoft, will sign.

        Only time will tell…

    • GregA

      It was a committee having a secret meeting. End of story.

      This committee should be disbanded and a new one formed, and all the participants of the secret meetings should be barred from the new committee.

      As far as committees and committee rules go, this is an ethical lapse of the highest order.

  • Brandon Watson

    Disclaimer – I am a MSFT employee

    Reuven speaks on his blog with a claim that is in stark contrast to the Steven Martin post. I leave it to the discussion here to discuss. Here’s my posting on the topic:

  • Steve Gillmor

    Will sign. Right, write once sign anywhere. Have another cigar, Jesse.

  • Pixy Misa

    Slow news day?

  • Stu

    Last I heard, IBM and Microsoft are still pretty damn proud of WS-*. (As questionable as that pride might be)

    And I didn’t see too many people complain of being locked out of the Agile Manifesto, even though that was invite-only. Frankly, so was Marx & Engels’ manifesto, yet that didn’t stop people from adopting it ;-)

    Basically, I’m wondering in what world “more people in the room” leads to a higher quality outcome. Instead of “design by committee”, it’s “design by mob”.

    • Steve Gillmor

      Invite only in the age of real time is pure hypocrisy and is laughable when combined with the word “open”

      interesting how WS-I became a mob with the addition of Sun, or Cloud with the addition of MS. pretty lame nit picking (as questionable as it might be even to you)

      Martin was smart to jump all over this. As a friend at Google says, MS is opening up and it’s a good thing.

      • Stu

        Every open source project is invite only – i.e. if you don’t like what the core group wants in the code base, you fork; from a standards perspective, the W3C and DMTF are pay to play, the IETF is an exception but they don’t suffer fools.

        I dont think anyone’s claiming “adding MS” was about making it a mob, I’m saying that someone is lying. Ruv claims MS was invited early on, and by their post, certainly it seems they were invited, and chose to fire back instead of actually working within whatever group solicited them.

      • Steve Gillmor

        I’d agree the two stories are conflicting. Where does “Ruv” claim this? Martin’s post is very specific about what was said and “offered.” If it looks like a landgrab and tastes like a landgrab, excuse me for betting you might not want to step in it.

  • Stu

    He claims it here:

    Understand your concern, I honestly share it, but I get the impression all is not what it seems.

    Take a look at the OMG Cloud Interop workshop agenda earlier this week:

    Reuven didn’t mention the manifesto in his talk, and I was frankly surprised that he implies on his blog that he’s championing it – that’s not the impression I got.

  • Above Average English Speaking Human

    What is “cloud computing” …

    (That was sarcasm for you low brow folks)

    It sickens me that the make-a-buck greedy corporate-locusts now swarm on social media for their next big feast, and have already begun the wordsmithing to create all sorts of new terminology – “cloud computing” and whatever else they can think up.

  • Fred Grott

    Hmm the new players do not get it..

    Each time this strategy has been played out by vendors outsiders come up with new innovative technology and route around this effing bulllshit.

  • as
  • FloridaLotteryService

    I totally agree with you Steve Gillmor about Microsoft.

  • FlLottoResults

    SO true, good post.

  • Is it too early for “cloud standards”? « The SiliconANGLE

    […] Steve Gillmor over at TechCrunch is call bullshit on the manifesto stating: It’s the same back room cigar-smoke-filled scam of the good old days when Web Services first began its inexorable move to reshape computing. […]

  • Sam Charrington

    Now that everything is out in the open, the question is what the community does with it.

    For this we need the Open Cloud Manifesto Manifesto (yes you read that right!)

  • Randy Bias

    A lot of screed about a lot of nothing.

    I’m not a big Reuven fan, but the Manifesto is simply nothing more than a statement of principles. Ones that already largely apply to the Internet.

    Getting hot and bothered about a restatement of general Internet principles as if they were some de-facto standard handed to us via back room deals by some kind of evil overlords is the worst kind of demagoguery.

    The original posting by Steve Martin was a bit over the top and so is this one.

    Yes, Enomaly and others should have opened the discussion up. Yes, there is a disconnect between their stated position and how they went through their process.

    But shrill alarmist blog postings don’t move the discussion forward either.

    –Randy Bias
    VP Tech Strategy

    Ps. Yes, I have my own WS-* battle scars.

    • Steve Gillmor

      in fact, shrill alarmist blog posts (called back page of InfoWorld in those days) profoundly moved the discussion forward. In those days Microsoft and IBM were in the drivers seat, today others have the backing of most of the media. I’m proud to even the balance a bit. But I appreciate you acknowledging the central point that Manifestos should have opened up and that their process damages their efforts. Looking forward to seeing where IBM comes down on their role in the process.

  • Benjamin Black


    You give this group far too much credit by suggesting they have any power at all since the only real players, Google and Amazon, aren’t participating. WS-I was a stinking pile of committee design, as it had to be, given its process and participants. This open cloud nonsense won’t even rise to that level.


  • Structured Methods › links for 2009-03-27

    […] Out of Order 2.0 Microsoft’s Steven Martin has ironically blown the whistle on an attempt at an “open” coalition that freezes out certain companies. Ironic in that Microsoft and IBM played this game years ago with the WS-I, an industry standards group that pointedly stonewalled Sun Microsystems’ involvement before caving under media pressure. (tags: Standards IBM Microsoft) This was written by Chuck Allen. Posted on Friday, March 27, 2009, at 10:05 am. Filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback. […]

  • Gillmor, you've crapped the bed again

    Horrible article, Steve, just horrible.

  • quux

    You Manifesto guys need to get specific, and need to do so in a hurry. if you want to gain credibility, then you should seriously consider posting a log of who you spoke with at each company, and when, and some summary of the substance of each conversation.

  • Inaugural post: Controversy and the Cloud Manifesto « SilverGuru: Jesse Silver’s Weblog

    […] Manifesto controversy, read James Urquhart, Geva Perry, or for a deeply antagonistic viewpoint, Steve Gillmore. Though we’re wildly proud of the CCIF’s association with the Manifesto, we screwed […]

blog comments powered by Disqus