Instagram Loses Almost Half Its Daily Users In a Month 250
redletterdave writes "Instagram scared off a lot of users back in December when it decided to update its original Terms of Service for 2013. But even though the company reneged on its new terms after a week of solid backlash, Instagram users are still fleeing the photo-sharing app in droves. According to new app traffic data, Instagram has lost roughly half of all its active users in the month since proposing to change its original Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. In mid-December, Instagram boasted about 16.3 million daily active users; as of Jan. 14, Instagram only has about 7.6 million daily users." Towards the end of December data showing a 25% drop in Instagram's daily active users came out. While it caused quite a bit of discussion online, it was suggested that the decline was due to the Christmas holiday or an inaccuracy in the data.
Droves (Score:5, Informative)
"In droves" not "in troves."
Re: (Score:2)
Usage of teh googel is an exercize for the reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Droves (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you.
To be clear:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trove [wiktionary.org]
1. A treasure trove; a collection of treasure.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drove [wiktionary.org]
2. (usually plural) A large number of people on the move (literally or figuratively).
Of course, if you run a company that can monetize it's users, a drove IS a trove.
Re: (Score:2)
... if you run a company that can monetize it's users, a drove IS a trove.
Only if they're heading towards you and not away from you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the users all escaped hidden in armoured money transport vans. It worked for Dan Brown.
Forget the Terms of Service war... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it was just a fad (Score:5, Insightful)
A change in usability could explain the drop in users, or maybe it was a fad and people have moved on to something else. Most of social media is faddish. It's like the night club business. It's very difficult to maintain popularity, even if you achieve success, because people are moving on to the next hot club.
Re:Maybe it was just a fad (Score:4, Interesting)
You wouldn't see a 50% daily drop in users if your app started farting in the users' face after each pic was posted. This is more than just a "fad" growing cold. This is herd mentality running away from something that they were told they should be scared of or offended by.
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree it was just a fad. If people actually gave a damn about a change in Terms of Service, Facebook would have lost most of it's users by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly disingenuous (Score:5, Interesting)
Although probably hard to determine, I would venture to guess that Instagram blocking access of their images to Twitter had a bigger effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Who the fuck cares? The message is still the same: Social media companies be warned. We have absolutely no brand loyalty to you, and if you fuck up even in the simplest way, we will drop you like yesterdays trash. You could be the largest company on earth one month and completely bankrupt the next.
In other news (Score:2, Funny)
Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (Score:2)
Re:Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (Score:5, Interesting)
Key features of Instagram are image enhancement filters with pseudo HDR reconstruction.
No, those are just the carrot on the stick. The key features of Instagram are that it's a mobile-only social network, its reason for existence is location-based photo sharing, and it's dominated by iPhone users. The fact that it's mobile-only has every incumbent desktop social network scared. The fact that it's based on photo sharing had Facebook scared, because photo sharing is what made Facebook what it is; and the fact that it's dominated by iPhone users has advertisers salivating, because iPhone users are, demographically, more wealthy and more likely to spend money on products and services.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me why I need Instagram when I can do photo manipulation including simulated HDR with Corel Paint Shop Photo.
Hint: I don't need their online service.
You seem to be replying to a post other than the one I made.
oblig xkcd (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong xkcd (Score:2)
Comparing December to January numbers is moronic.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhh no not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Services like instagram absolutely require user submissions to survive. They make their money on advertising and that only works if they have stuff that people want to come and see. Since they have no content creation arm, they rely on user submissions. Piss off the users, and they've got nothing and they are boned.
It would be more like if the guy in the comic was leaving all sorts of cool antique items in Chad's garage and Chad was charging others to come and look at them, but was still saying he was going to take and sell them.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoa, whoa, whoa.. Who clicked insightful on this one?
Instagram has not had ads since it began in 2010. That's the whole point. Thus far they HAVEN'T made money. For three years, Chad's been maintaining a crapload of data for free. I would say that's rather generous, wouldn't you?
That said, I won't pretend to feel sorry for a business that's been sold for a billion+ dollars. They have enough green tissues to blow their noses with. But I won't hesitate to criticize 8 million users who get angry when they rea
I Love the Thought Process Here (Score:3, Funny)
Strawmanning is fun sometimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... I'm pretty sure that if I were using a service and the TOS changed, switching to another that has better terms is the most logical thing to do. How they learn about the change doesn't really matter.
That seems to make more sense than posting a passive-aggressive pseudo-rant on some nerd news site. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And eating a banana makes more sense than riding a roller coaster. @:3
Axiom mixing never works. Attempting to combine Wittgenstein's Banana with Elvis' Charcoal Briquette makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. I've never had grilled banana. And please don't call me Clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
In capitalism customers will go to the service with better conditions, what's so surprising in that? After a while, big businesses will either learn or continue being replaced by a steady supply of startups. The users don't lose on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Except... we're not really in a capitalist society. Capitalism depends on transparency and being unfettered by outside influences, and we do not have that. The government intervenes, controls and is bought by businesses. The true harm that comes with regulation is not the damage it does to business, but the interest in manipulating the government it creates in business. Social media companies will learn this, and their TOS's will not just get worse, they'll become law. We currently have a largely unregulate
Re: (Score:2)
The question is: would people be willing to pay for image hosting?
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is: They already are. You just haven't figured out the new currency yet. Instagram just hiked their prices and people aren't buying anymore.
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner instagram dies the better. There are great cameras in smartphones now, it's crazy people want to make their photos look like crap with filters.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Why? it's a fad that's why (Score:3)
It was bound to crash. How long does making your picture look like it was taken on a 1969 Instamatic keep being interesting? Especially when everyone is doing it. I mean does anyone think taking picture of yourself in a mirror in your underwear is a business model? Because Instagram is like that.
Could it another cause? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like perhaps the holidays are over? I'm sure a bump in the number of users could be due to the holidays and snapping lots of photos of family and their holiday preparations and such.
And now, a month later, the holidays are over and the drab January days are here. Which likely means well, there's less stuff to post about?
That's like saying Apple is failing because their iPhone sales are falling in January after spiking in November-December. January is a very slow month to begin with for most businesses (especially after the holiday bills come due), and likely, is very slow because it's a drab month to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
If your theory is true, where is the Slashdot story "Facebook Loses Almost Half Its Daily Users In A Month"
As for Apple, when they cut back parts orders when even Nokia is expanding is... troubling...
Wrong - (Score:2)
Due to the fact that they didn't DOUBLE the user count in response to " due to the holidays and snapping lots of photos of family and their holiday preparations and such".
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/09/instagram-use-exploding/ [wired.com] for the period of 03-2012 till 09-2012. That is not a "holiday run up". And, even if people were snapping fewer photos - they wouldn't TERMINATE the accounts, just stop using...
A lesson for all (Score:2, Insightful)
Not surprised (Score:2)
Why would anyone be surprised that a low-tier service for lazy people to do little more than crop photos and apply crappy-looking digital filters loses market share when said service announces that they're effectively going to steal all their user's photos?
Um, seasonality, anyone? (Score:2)
I hate instagram and FB and all my friends and i'm old and stupid, but, i'm also in web analytics, and comparing mid-January to mid-December doesn't make any sense. I mean, I can't think of one, maybe there's some reason that in mid-december, people might be taking a lot more pictures than at other times of the year. Oh wait, I can think of one. A giant one. The biggest one all year.
Or maybe there were more devices going into new owners' hands in mid-december and THAT drove up usage like crazy. Or maybe peo
Breaking Twitter Integation Didn't Help (Score:5, Interesting)
Breaks down to two words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Notice how this happens just around the time when a tech startup that was until then run by the founders, get an infusion of MBA executives? I've seen it happen. Not only do they change the focus of the company from great products to shorter term profits, they bring a certain bring a certain small-mindedness and blame culture that ends up polluting and demoralizing the entire workforce. Yeah, sorry. Kind of off topic.
what was it good for anyway? (Score:2)
Maybe the real problem with Instagram was just that it wasn't particularly useful?
Wowee! (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with the TOS (Score:2)
new record (Score:2)
The trouble with being a fad site (Score:3)
One mistake that makes you uncool, and it's downhill from there.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it to be a decent example of how not to treat your users.
Maybe it's a better example of true worth (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose. I was thinking it more accurately demonstrated the illusion of worth of any web-supplied service. Popularity != true value.
Re:Maybe it's a better example of true worth (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything that gets Facebook to get closer to ultimate FAILTARD is great by me.
They'll try this again, on another front, unless they cross the hot, burning, electrified wire of their user's tolerance.
Re:Maybe it's a better example of true worth (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything that gets Facebook to get closer to ultimate FAILTARD is great by me.
They'll try this again, on another front, unless they cross the hot, burning, electrified wire of their user's tolerance.
They are desperately looking for revenue streams and they are fucking things up at every other step. If they had created a mechanism by which companies could make customers purchase offers for publishing/usage rights to images and simply taken a commission they might actually have succeeded in creating a revenue stream. Simply grabbing a people's images and expecting them to be happy about it like some potato-head Israeli politician making a land-grab in the West Bank did not go down very well with their users. People don't like having their stuff confiscated... mass exodus follows... shocking result... whoddathunkit? What did they pay for Instagram, $1 billion wasn't it? Then they turn around and wreck the service with one ham-handed act of stupidity. It kind of speaks volumes about exactly what the kind of inept tossers it is that seem to be running things at Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest I'm surprised the users reacted at all, good to see that people still have some fight left in 'em.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it to be a decent example of how not to treat your users.
In their defense, the 20th century is over. What company doesn't shit on their customers these days? From MS's W8 to Sony's XCP and otherOS, Apple's "you're holding it wrong" and its replacing Google Maps with a turd sandwich, Oracle's refusal to fix Java bugs until the government gets involved... fucking over your customer is the new normal.
It's one of many downsides to a global economy. With seven billion prospective customers you can afford to target only those who are stupid and lack self-respect. The rest of us are boned, all we can do is bitch, and refuse to go along with the stupidity.
Whenever I see users act like this, it gives me hope. I'd be more hopeful if Instagram died, maybe it would give other companies pause.
Different kinds of customer (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one of many downsides to a global economy. With seven billion prospective customers you can afford to target only those who are stupid and lack self-respect. The rest of us are boned, all we can do is bitch, and refuse to go along with the stupidity.
Sadly, one thing the big tech success stories of recent years have proved beyond any doubt is that a lot of people will place convenience and cheapness above almost anything else, including quality, customer service, respect for privacy, etc.
This will continue unless and until enough people (a) make it clear that they would prefer to have a better product and better service from the business running it, and (b) are willing to pay enough actual money for it that it becomes commercially attractive.
What we seem to have today is a curious distribution of customers/commercial interest. There are mass-market, cheap and nasty products that make money on sheer volume (or even make money based on the mere expectation of making actual money from sheer volume one day). That includes the "you are the product" services where you don't pay any money at all to use them. To some extent it also includes creative industries with the ever-present IP and black market/piracy issues. Then there's a middle-ground, where the products and service are qualitatively better than the cheap junk and the price is higher accordingly, but there are enough people paying the higher price to keep these offers accessible below the die-hard specialist/enthusiast/elite market who will pay just about anything to have the best possible stuff. And finally, sometimes there are very high-end products that do a much better job and come with good service, but they have a much smaller potential market because of the price tag they come with, so it's mostly only that enthusiast crowd who buy.
Unfortunately, often that middle ground doesn't really exist in a given market because it's too hard for commercial organisations to identify and target it, and sometimes the high end of the market is barren or empty as well, leaving cheap junk the only option left. Economic theory might suggest that if enough people want better products and are willing to pay more for them then someone will come along and fill the gap, but so far that theory isn't standing up well to modern market dynamics where competition doesn't always work as well as it's "supposed to" for various reasons: literally global networking effects, artificial barriers to competition, and other such factors that can create a huge advantage for an incumbent with a mass market cheap and nasty product and a war chest.
I'm optimistic that this is just growing pains as we learn to cope with the implications of modern technologies and truly global markets with near-instant feedback, and that in time (perhaps after the global economy recovers from the current extended mess) new players really will enter the markets and start to compete on genuine quality and customer service again. If it becomes clear that this is still a viable option, then it's possible that businesses who treat their customers well could take advantage of the same modern efficiencies and word-of-mouth advertising to rise rapidly, and I think cultural change from apathy to acceptance or even positive support for such models is not only plausible but potentially something that could happen very quickly if momentum builds.
However, I fear the situation is going to continue deteriorating for a while longer before it starts to pick up, and I do worry that an entire generation may be growing up never knowing the alternatives or understanding the hidden prices they pay for what they use today. It's going to be hard for cultural change to happen if a significant chunk of the population have no concept of what the alternative might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Get some perspective! Windows 8 look like a stupid tablet, whine whine whine!
Tell Upton Sinclair that 21st century business practices are a new form of evil, because Apple's new maps application included with their cell phones isn't quite as good.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Get some perspective! Windows 8 look like a stupid tablet, whine whine whine!
I'm 60, in my day corporations couldn't get away with this nonsense because they knew we wouldn't stand for it. I can't understand why you kids have no immunity to advertising and propaganda.
If the new iPhone had come out when we were your age it would have bombed badly, but your generation gives all sorts of excuses to sociopaths. I find it both sad and hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm 60, in my day corporations couldn't get away with this nonsense because they knew we wouldn't stand for it.
My grandfather was 87 when he died back about 5 years ago, and we had a similar discussion. And you know what his statement was on the issue? Corporations got away with it just fine back then, they simply couldn't be as open on it as they used to be. If anything, it was worse even 50 years go as the media and advertising was tightly controlled, and disagreements over a product came only though word of mouth or when something catastrophic happened. Otherwise it was much easier to hush someone up, and let
Re: (Score:3)
You're looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. Back in "your day" what did you do when Ma Bell screwed you over, like by forcing you to pay a monthly rental fee for your phone, or charging insanely high long-distance charges? Did you go to some other phone company? hahaha. What'd you do when Ford, GM, and Chrysler all conspired to keep important safety features out of cars, and then when someone tried building a car with excellent safety features (Tucker), they conspired to drive him out of bus
Yet I doubt it will matters. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
to be fair, the user bleed isn't about ToS.
It's because of the twitter disintegration.
Already was treating them badly? (Score:5, Insightful)
They already had pretty lousy terms to start with. Nobody reads terms when they sign up. They only start getting enraged once somebody else tells them the terms suck, usually after they get changed and people influential enough to be listened to complain vocally. In fact, Instagram merely made the terms more specific and by doing so, allowed users more freedom in a lot of cases than with the previous terms. The only real difference was that they actively stated that they might print ads over users pictures when displaying them. They already had that right with the previous terms, so meh.
The true lesson here is that people should read terms before they sign up and if a company makes the terms illegible, they should vocally complain to the company about the terms being illegible. Since most people can't be bothered, they end being part of a human centipede. I guess people need to have that happening to them every once in a while to be reminded that there's no such thing as a free lunch and if you're not paying, you're the product.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Might take a couple more of these types of cases to pop up before new business practices are drawn.
ahahahahaaa... (wheeze, gasp) aaaah ha ha ha haaaaah. Hundreds of sites are doing stuff like this. Privacy online has become a joke, and marketing firms are coming up with exciting new kinds of fraud to build comprehensive profiles on everyone, from a preference for two or one-ply to search terms that might flag you as a terrorist or ciminal. They're not going to reverse this trend... they're going to bury it in even smaller and more obtuse fine-print -- or just get a law passed giving corporations all that data with immunity from prosecution by coming up with some kind of "implied consent," etc.
Businesses adapt to bad press by burying things in deeper and deeper levels of bureauacracy to avoid it. They don't change their process; Just decrease its transparency.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we'll see them lobby for legislation to make secret TOS's legally binding.
Re: (Score:2)
and once caught, they have revealed themselves. its very unlikely that a core idea they had (that they thought was really great) was fully backed out and a 180 was turned.
just unlikely. once they show their hands, you know what kind of company they are. once rotton, always rotton; pretty much.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
A switch is inevitable in companies that need to become profitable after the bait of building popularity with a service that seems like a gift to the world.
But you need to be slow and subtle to boil a frog.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
trial balloons are sent up by lawmakers all the time, though. they test the waters (sopa, example) and then back off just enough and wait just enough so that they can try again.
Re: (Score:3)
Lawmakers can get away with it because A: leaving the country is a bit more difficult than abandoning a company, and B: only people who are effectively single-issue voters are going to remember about the issue come the next election and care about it more than anything else the legislator has done in their term.
Re: (Score:2)
"There must always be a Groklaw."
-- Bolvar Fordring (almost)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
you can get away with something outrageous and just recant later if the users notice without suffering any negative long term effects.
Well, if you read the linked article, and both the New and Reverted language, you will see this was all about nothing. The reverted (original) language was just as bad as the language the triggered the outcry.
So by recanting, they fell back to the original language which gives them FULL RIGHTS TO EVERYTHING you post on instagram:
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service
Not sorry to see it meet its demise in any case.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the only portion of that TOS quote that is objectionable is "sub-licensable." If you decide to post a photo via Instagram, they pretty much NEED you to grant them a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free license. Otherwise, you could post a photo and then sue them for distributing your copyrighted content. (You might fail, but enough lawsuits like this would be filed that would make a photo hosting service too risky to run.) The worldwide license is needed so that a user posting a photo
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the following link to xkcd is instructive here: http://xkcd.com/1150/ [xkcd.com]
as is the following regarding Facebook: http://www.ethannonsequitur.com/facebook-you-customer-product-pigs.html/facebook-and-you-pigs [ethannonsequitur.com] .
Instagram has no business model. It operates at a loss. The whole reason Instagram operates is to attract "customers" that provide it with free content. The whole reason Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram was to gain access to a ton of users who now depend on the site to host their content, and who may cede their rights to said content depending on how sneaky the ToS change can be. It's just got "sucker" written all over it.
A better analogy would be if I opened a parking garage in a city and let anyone store their car(s) there for free. Then, after a year or two, let people know that I reserve the right to auction their vehicles without additional notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you.
People need to ask themselves something on all "free" services. "How is this company making money off of this service?"
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Free or not, people still hate the bait-and-switch. And why shouldn't they? Before the TOS change, the free service left their content under their control (and copyright). Then, after the switch, the same service suddenly grabbed your copyright away from you and decided to do whatever they want with your stuff.
I recognize that they don't have any obligations to provide a good service, especially since it is free. I also recognize that "you can host your images here at no cost, and in return we get a license to use them" is a bargain that some might find reasonable. The problem here is not the deal itself, but that the deal was so suddenly and significantly changed.
I will add that this deal, however reasonable, is not one that many people want to take.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:4, Informative)
Before the TOS change, the free service left their content under their control (and copyright). Then, after the switch, the same service suddenly grabbed your copyright away from you and decided to do whatever they want with your stuff.
That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE
The prior language (and the language they reverted to) said this:
you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service,
You have ZERO control once you accept that. Re-read the second link in the summary.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Informative)
You're not correct here. Go read the ToS on their site. The old ToS (the one currently in use) doesn't include "sub-licensable". I don't know why people keep talking about them back-tracking and going back to their old ToS. Nothing has changed. They're still adding the "sub-licensable" term.
Here's their old ToS [instagram.com]:
Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
The new ToS does include "sub-licensible":
the new, updated ToS [instagram.com]:
Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/ [instagram.com], including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Interesting)
What nitwit modded you insightful?
Look, I pay money for a hotel room-- that fee goes to an expected level of security. I pay nothing for Instagram's services-- no expectation of security, or of any service at all. Is instagram an online storage business? No. Therefore, the pictures you upload are not there for you to store-- they're for Instagram to use however they want... your pictures are free, as in beer.
Point of fact, since no one is paying you for your pictures, they are literally worth nothing.
Link to an XKCD [xkcd.com] in case you're still confused as to what storage, business, and free is.
You can split hairs about his analogy all you want but he still has a point. Your pictures are only free (as in beer) for Instagram to flog to their corporate buddies as long as people are willing to put up with it. Shockingly, for whatever bunch of arrogant and inexperienced young Turks at Facebook who came up with the dumb idea of hijacking user's images, it seems that Instagram users are in fact not willing to put up with it and are fleeing the service in hoards.... well DUH! the joke's on Instagram/Facebook. Instagram is it's users, without the users and their images Instagram is worthless (as in used paper-towel that somebody has blown their nose with). Because somebody failed to realise this a $1 billion investment is circling the drain. It is always fascinating to watch as a real world example of truly epic ineptitude unfolds.
Re: (Score:2)
What nitwit modded you insightful?
Look, I pay money for a hotel room-- that fee goes to an expected level of security. I pay nothing for Instagram's services-- no expectation of security, or of any service at all. Is instagram an online storage business? No. Therefore, the pictures you upload are not there for you to store-- they're for Instagram to use however they want... your pictures are free, as in beer.
Point of fact, since no one is paying you for your pictures, they are literally worth nothing.
Link to an XKCD [xkcd.com] in case you're still confused as to what storage, business, and free is.
It's all about leverage. And it looks to me like Instagram doesn't have much of it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Today's lesson: maybe you shouldn't pay a billion dollars dollars for a service that users can easily drop and replace with dozens of other similar services...
...(emphasis mine)...
Care to name just one of the dozens?
Or should I say you're trolling?
I think the point is that the fundamental service offered by Instagram is not so complex or revolutionary as to be irreplaceable. Like Google could probably in-house it in no time. (I mean, they've already got Picasa.) Do I speak correctly on your behalf, wile_e8?
Also, there's a breed of trolling in which a troll accuses a non-troll of trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't even know what the fuck Instagram is, but a google search that took me all of three seconds turned up
Starmatic
Flickr
Blipfoto
23snaps
Snapseed (bought by Google)
Mobli
EyeEm
Tadaa
Cinemagram
TripColor
Snapchat
picplz
dailybooth
hipstamatic
step.ly
burstn.com
Blurtopia
lightbox
And now I'm bored, because I've already spent upwards of a minute copypasting company names.
Re: (Score:2)
DeviantArt has a better business model than Instagram. Some lovely content there, too -- much of it available for sale, by content makers willing to work on commission.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think he is the one who is trolling...
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we care because why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this kind of beating is critical for corporations to experience. It shows that decisions have consequences, and you have to treat your customers/users with respect. Quite frankly, this should happen more often when corporations step over the line. Otherwise how will any of them learn?
Re:What is this Instagram? (Score:5, Funny)
That, and apply a filter so you can make a perfectly good digital photograph look like an old Polaroid from the 60's after someone's cat peed on it.
Re:What is this Instagram? (Score:5, Funny)
so, in a nutshell, it's doing to pictures what slashdot keeps doing to news stories?
Re: (Score:2)