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: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: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.