Will you guys plz post your usernames so I can look at these pretty photos you're taking?
― her hipster hair dude is making me pale ale (Stevie D(eux)), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:03 (2 years ago) Permalink
But like seriously, this shit is so contrived. You can make the incredibly mundane look "so profound, dude" with these stupid filters.
― her hipster hair dude is making me pale ale (Stevie D(eux)), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:04 (2 years ago) Permalink
add me 'bsdf'
― minecraft on a milk sea (diamonddave85), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 17:08 (2 years ago) Permalink
How in the fuck. I was just going to start this thread.
trebaker. And is there any easy way to look at feeds through a browser on my computer and not on my mobile?
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:18 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://instagram.heroku.com is the first web based client but it's not very user friendly
― minecraft on a milk sea (diamonddave85), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:48 (2 years ago) Permalink
You have some interesting people following you.
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:54 (2 years ago) Permalink
But cool. That client was helpful enough.
http://instagram.heroku.com/users/786729
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 20:57 (2 years ago) Permalink
is there an app that makes your photos look like they were taken with a rolleicord iv yet?
― colby, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:09 (2 years ago) Permalink
I wish there was an app that made your photos look like they were taken by someone who can't take photos
― VegemiteGrrrl, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:10 (2 years ago) Permalink
I put that Instagram thing on my phone but then realised it was this whole 'social network' thing and quickly lost interest.
― VegemiteGrrrl, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:11 (2 years ago) Permalink
You don't have to share or follow anyone.
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:19 (2 years ago) Permalink
You don't? Neato.
Sharing and following is lame imo :)
― VegemiteGrrrl, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:25 (2 years ago) Permalink
I was using it as just another lens app before I realized that there was a whole nother thing behind it.
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:27 (2 years ago) Permalink
xp but then the only way to explore is to look at the Popular pix page which is pretty terrible imo
― minecraft on a milk sea (diamonddave85), Tuesday, 18 January 2011 22:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
i have an older ipod touch that doesn't have a camera. can instagram be used to apply filters to photos that are on your device but weren't taken with it?
― markers, Friday, 11 November 2011 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think so. There's a "Load from Library" option.
However, I don't know if the app they're using now will work on an older ipod.
― pplains, Friday, 11 November 2011 14:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
thanks dude!
― markers, Friday, 11 November 2011 15:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait what does instagram 'do' that is worth one billion dollars
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
it puts...a filter on a photo? and lots of people use it? and that is worth one billion dollars?
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
its free in the app store no one tell zuck
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
is facebook gonna monetize hipsters?
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
hint: a lot (I don't know exactly how much) of the purchase price is in facebook stock, which is probably not actually worth as much as they say it is
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I am (surprise surprise) enbb and mostly post pictures of (surprise surprise) my dog.
― wolf kabob (ENBB), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
the facebook stock is almost certainly going to be worth much more than its valued at atm when it goes public in a few months
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
but yeah I generally find it annoying when people put those cheap instagram-type filters on their photos. The iPhone camera takes such nice photos so easily, and people ruin them with this hazy nostalgia bullshit.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
Exactly my thoughts.
― Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
iphone camera (at least anything before the 4S) kinda sucks
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't want to yell 'internet bubble' cause clearly fb and twitter and some things have a value that couldn't really have existed 10 years ago but this is just...a camera filter
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
wasn't there another identical thing called hipstamatic?
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
fb and google do this kinda thing all the time tho? buying up technology to integrate it into their own platforms... not that i'm saying instagram is worth ONE BILLION DOLLARS *dr evil pinky* but it's kinda their m.o.
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but why do you even need to 'buy up that technology', do they really have a patent on hipster-camera-filters? as hurting said they're not even the first to do this
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
my guess would be that instagram was working on some kind of expansion and fb caught wind of it and just decided to snatch whatever up whatever it was
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
instagram's "value" such as it is is in the social network aspect, not the filter aspect
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is just...a camera filter
― iatee, Monday, April 9, 2012 2:27 PM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
naw its a rapidly growing social network w/50m users whos main utility photo sharing is also facebooks main utility - idk abt the price but its obvs why facebook felt they needed to eat them
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I guess it makes more sense in that context
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have never used it so I just see the pics *on* fb
ha guessing you all are not instagram users lol xp
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
really its "buying" 30 million users + ownership of the most popular photo-sharing social network. facebook loves photos b/c theyre significantly more interesting than links or status updates, as measured by the # of ppl who click on them and the amount of time they spned
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp joe otm
i mean that being said 1 billion dollars is hilarious
i want a billion dollars
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
have you considered making an 'app'
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
brb making an app
hipstamatic started out as just a camera filter app. they added on social stuff later after instagram took off.
or what max and joe said.
― dmr, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
if i had one the mega millions i would've bought scoopsnoodle for $1 million
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
won*
so they paid like 35 bucks per user
still smh
― the late great, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
no wonder my kids don't want to study math, obviously careers are for fools, i should be sitting around brainstorming the next killer social media platform
― the late great, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
number of instagram users should be getting a big bump up now that they have it for android too, the fact that they have as many users as they do and it was iphone only until last week is kinda crazy
― dmr, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
they paid $1 per photograph too
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
its hilarious b/c its so overvalued, but also because like "one billion" is such a funny number
~1million new instagram users is the first 24 hours of andriod
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
and only $55 million per filter
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
so really this is just fb being really, really, really risk averse w/r/t competition
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
hipstamatic could integrate a lot of products (books, prints, postcards) relatively easily. God knows if they'd actually make any money off of them, though.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've met so many people in the past couple years who just want collab on apps
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
er, Instagram not hipstamatic. (but them too)
collapps
― J0rdan S., Monday, 9 April 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
a billion chinese, mark
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
hipstamatic's problem is that it's called hipstamatic
I dunno, everything has a stupid name these days
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
did I post about how I met one dude who wanted to create some kind of app where you could trade stocks within some graphic framework that had lasers and explosions, like you are in some sort of virtual high octane vid game action movie etrade world or something
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
he was 100% serious too
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― the late great, Monday, April 9, 2012 2:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i wonder if part of facebooks thinking is theyre abt to go public and theyll be getting more than $35 per user so they could actually make money off the deal as soon as they ipo
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
that sounds kinda fun xp
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've not read anything about this being Internet Bubble 2.0 only for billions more - am I just not seeing it, or is everyone just kinda looking the other way?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
challaps
― flopson, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
How about an app where you can share your challops with your friends? Call it 'challapp'.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
instagram is also a big image service for twitter users so its a way for facebook to get some inroads to twitter
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp oh balls flopson got there first plz don't sue me
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
well everyone pretty clearly looked the wrong way on groupon
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry already sued you plz pay 1 billion dollars
― flopson, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, April 9, 2012 2:43 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
no this is definitely talked about in the financial press, with the same kind of hedgy language that you probably see before any bubble burts, although tbf this actually isn't really as big a bubble in terms of sheer numbers of ridiculously valued companies.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
the other guy who was trying to get me to collapps was using the "fart app" from a while ago (that got bought for like a milli) as his example over and over of what is possible, like it was the pinnacle of apps, or for some reason it was the perfect app to explain every part of his ideas w/
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxp Fortunately I foresaw this and invented a currency called 'snoball dollars' - current exchange rate is about a trillion snoball dollars to the US$.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, April 9, 2012 2:43 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
people talk abt this all the time at least in the tech media, maybe its not as much of a mainstream story because most of these companies are still privately held where the 1st tech bubble was all in the stock market
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
hearing people who just want to develop shit for money talk irl scares the fuck out of me
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know if you can call this a bubble, there is srs, srs money in having detailed personal information on every single human in america, but there will be a limited number of winners
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I always feel like I should ask them if they've ever asked themselves why they're alive but then again I post on the internet so who g'saf
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
I wanted to design a bar bingo app that could be tailored to fit whatever kind of bar you're at
a) I don't know how to programb) I figured it would have to be social with leaderboards and Foursquare type coupons from bars and shit, but I don't know to do itc) there are probably already 40 of these
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
hint: the public won't be one of the winners.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
well the first internet bubble had the same qualities -- legit value underneath some of it, limited number of winners.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
also I only hang out in dive bars, so the bingo app would be limited for pretty much everything else
yeah but the original internet bubble was built on assuming things about the way people were gonna use the internet that were wayyy out of line w/ how the internet was being used at the time.
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
from what I understand (e.g. reading one article on some camera blog) the Instagram photos aren't good enough to make prints off of. they're just web quality. (might be a bandwidth thing, even at the quality they are now it takes forever to load your feed and you have to have a good connection on your phone)
Hipstamatic photos are saved at higher quality and they do offer prints
― dmr, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
i have a bunch of app ideas, feel free to PM me if u are a VC
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Monday, April 9, 2012 2:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yeah i mean big companies came out of the last bubble too, maybe its just all ~creative destruction~ & the gamification of reality
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
otm a lot of people just use it as a less annoying Plixi with square cropping
― dmr, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Why are the pictures people take worth so much to Facebook and Instagram?
I assume that this is a big part of it. In 2092, the U.S. Department of Commerce with the Bureau of Census and Online Media will release the first installment of the 2020 Tumblr and Facebook profiles.
― pplains, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Instagram makes full-resolution (for the iPhone/iPad camera and given the square crop) files. They should be good for 8x8 prints now.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
the Instagram filters can be bad, but square is a more sensible format for what people use cell phones for than the oddball vertical format of the iPhone.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw instagram has like 15 employees everyone
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I agree but the underlying assumptions about what was going to happen in the late 90s seemed 'more optimistic' than they do today, which allowed for a bigger bubble. there def will be winners and the giants today are a lot more savvy than the giants back then.
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
"gamification of reality" hopefully also a bubble
― the late great, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
reality is a bubble
When you post a picture on Instagram and then share it with your friends, Instagram know who your friends are, and can build up a map of who knows who. And this is worth $$$, somehow.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
because Facebook and now Instagram are really just NSA fronts
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 18:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
its all data mining to figure out who to strip search is the bottom line
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think one way the social shit might end up looking more like a bubble is if a large and sustained campaign for privacy builds.
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
was twitter ever valued at one billion dollars
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
facebok wants peoples pictures because people click on photos more than text updates and links, and they spend more time looking at photos
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
also I'm not that surprised considering Draw Something sold for like $200 million a few weeks ago
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Just saw on Twitter: "Facebook buying Instagram to provide seamless integration between photos of your dinner and the people who don't want to see them."
― Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
p sure fb bought instagram so they could insert a crude drawing of a penis into everybody's pictures, good prank zuck
i mean im sure theres some kind of data mining aspect but mostly its an engagement thing. photos mean more time spent on facebook and more links followed.
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:02 PM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
im sure its currently more
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think draw something was pretty similar to this in that zynga saw it as a potential large game company and just wanted to squash it
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
brb coding 'twitter shitter' app
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Monday, April 9, 2012 3:03 PM (0 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
7b internet says
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
they could have saved $200m by just playing draw something and realizing how it gets boring after like 2 days but instead they just looked at how many users it had and wrote a check
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah the backlash over this is p funny and extremely pointless. But yeah i suppose some people just need something to talk about.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
7b tweets
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
A friend of mine who works in tech told me the thing about facebook increasingly being seen as "for old people" by the young and I kind of didn't believe it, but now I can totally see it becoming the AOL of tomorrow.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
what was yahoo gonna get sold at back when companies still wanted to buy yahoo
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
that almost gives me hope for the future, kids can take down this awful company
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
I mean it's just the inevitable thing of it being impossible for something to stay cool and also have your mom on it.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
it'll be replaced by some justin-bieber-social-network or something but still
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:04 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Too late dawg http://www.getshitter.com/
― Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
obviously that means fb needs to branch out with exciting new hip variants like facebook: code red and facebook: baja blast
I think hating on Facebook is probably the cool thing among the young, but yeah those ppl also have to check their phone every time someone comments on a post like 10x a day.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I would love it if 29,999,997 Instagram users stopped using Instagram tomorrow in disgust, meaning that Facebook has paid $1B for 3 people's details.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
btw whatever Twitter is valued at their cash flow is balls. The company I work for just ventured into the world of Twitter advertising (or "promoted products" lol) and they expect all their advertisers to be never-ending money faucets.
― Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've hardly used Twitter, so I'll probably only get two squares of paper. Better cut out the high fibre diet.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
brb coding 'yourmomdefinitelywontbeondisting' app
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
In my case 'dis ting' is the entire internet, so wvs...
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:05 PM (2 minutes ago)
if somebody develops a useful alternative they could capitalize on this disaffection but there aren't any real competitors atm. I have some late teens/early 20s friends on FB from the local music scene, one posted that he was going back to myspace and everybody kind of laughed at him.
google couldn't pull off a viable vehicle and they were already in the catbird seat. if it does happen it will prolly come out of left field.
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
the buying of instagram was a great boon for graphic designers who work at tech news sites
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
one thing that's interesting about this is that, well, can the social giants always and forever just eat their competition? millions of people can start using something new very, very quickly...it in some ways justifies the draw something / instagram prices but you can't do that indefinitely when it's so easy to compete.
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
if somebody develops a useful alternative they could capitalize on this disaffection but there aren't any real competitors atm.
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:18 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
see but the thing is the next facebook isnt a facebook clone, it doesnt need to be an alternative, it just needs to be the next thing people will dick around with every day, which is why instagram was more dangerous to fb than google+
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
implicit in "useful alternative" is something that has legs, it obv doesn't have to (and prolly won't) be an fb clone (tho fb was not substantially diff than friendster or myspace)
stuff like instagram is a challenge to fb in terms of stealing a user's time from fb, but as a challenge to their hegemony, no
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
FB = nu-AOL is very apt metaphor imho
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
"f*** facebook goodbye" looks like a shop
― the late great, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:30 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
if users dont spend time on facebook what hegemony do they have exactly
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
I dunno, it's like how much time ppl spend at the macaroni grill not connected to the mall vs in the mall itself, it's still most likely a 80/20 split, and macaroni grill is never going to BE the mall
also hipstamatic 4 lyfe, stupid name or no
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
and according to my palm pilot anybody can be nu-AOL
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
How many 'fuck facebook!' posts are going to be posted on facebook today?
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
what were your guys' fav aol dailup noises
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:45 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
if instagram steals facebooks photos and twitter steals their status updates and foursquare takes location and blah blah etc soon theres nothing people use facebook for anymore and the mall sits defunct and forlorn
its ironic that fb has spent all this energy trying to be everything to everyone when people seem more n more happy to use diff services for each thing, sometimes they route that stuff through fb but increasingly not so much
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
malls are also dying btw
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
because of the internet... lol
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
that internet will never kill the macaroni grill
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^lyrics to my new song
― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
brb writing a macaroni app
― Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
when i make a billion off my dating site tenderoni grill i don't wanna any of y'all coming to me for handouts
― ghostface protocollah (some dude), Monday, 9 April 2012 19:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Monday, April 9, 2012 3:37 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yeah, this is one of those interesting internet class/education things, as more people start using FB you have more people -- usually older, poorer, ppl with fewer years of schooling -- using it "wrong" (this is kind of bill hitchert's thing), which means the tech bros and the youngs will go somewhere else for the social stuff. instagram is probably a good bet for a place theyd jump, which is one reason facebook bought it, and one reason people are freaking out about it
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
path is totally better than instagram via my personal experience of using neither of them
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
i mean compare w/ last week when instagram introduced the android version of the app and tons of instagram users freaked out b/c all the poors would start posting photos
― max, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
i tried path, i really did, but fuck that
based mostly on the fact that instgram has those stupid filters and uses the words quirky to describe themselves
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
prepare yrself now for the backlash against quirk
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
im launching a new backlash sharing app called quirk
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
well this goes back to what I said above - if fb really feels threatened enough to drop a billion on these dudes, is its hold on social networking really as strong as people think?
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
idea for iphone app:Redophane -- makes it so that when you look at stuff through your iphone camera, it looks like you're looking through a red piece of cellophane.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
ive pivoted and now quirky is an augmented reality app where you look through yr iphone and everything in the world is worthy of backlash
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
high dynamic range will be the new trend in social media photos and everything is gonna look super awesome and gross, get ready
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://oldpeoplefacebook.tumblr.com
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp why does that picture look like something that would have been airbrushed on the side of a panel van sometime in the late 70's?
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
A: "Whatcha sprayin' on yer van, buddy?"B: "The van I'm gonna be drivin' in thirty years time!"
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
if fb really feels threatened enough to drop a billion on these dudes, is its hold on social networking really as strong as people think?
it may be less a matter of "feeling threatened" and more one of seeing opportunities, preferring co-option to combat, etc.
― preternatural concepts concerning variances in sound and texture (contenderizer), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
LDR versions of HDR photos always look super weird
or low-rez, i guess i should say
seeing opportunities...in filters...on pictures
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 20:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
one billion dollars worth of opportunities
Seeing opportunities in grabbing all the personal details of all the people who apply filters to their pictures.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
But as Lincoln said, you can't have all of the personal details of all of the people all of the time, because, erm... they stop using your website and then shoot you in a theatre. Or something...
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
and they way they share them, and follow them, and the idea that this might be worked into FB. makes good sense to me, especially if it's as popular as they say.
― preternatural concepts concerning variances in sound and texture (contenderizer), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
xxxp I saw LDR and thought "Lana Del Ray? Huh?"
― Frank Youngenstein (Phil D.), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
really though I'm not really prepared to think anything until I get the take of a markers on this
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 20:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Monday, April 9, 2012 3:53 PM (26 minutes ago)
*certain* ppl are happy to use diff services for each thing - but fb still trounces everybody else in terms of users and visitors, and if they're able to successfully absorb serious competitors they can guard their flanks. the trouble will come by A) distinguishing serious competitors from the thousands of flash in the pan timewasters like formspring, B) competitors that have something which can't be easily absorbed into facebook's hive of villainy, or C) competitors that flat our refuse to be acquired because they think they can take the crown. frankly C is prolly the most dangerous type of threat to fb, tho A could collapse them under their own rome-like weight.
c/r the last time I checked in on twitter fwiw
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
facebook both seems like the best guess for 'tech company that won't exist in 20 years' and 'only tech company that will exist in 20 years'
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
(w/r/t the amazon/google/fb/microsoft/apple 'giants')
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
groupon will not exist in 2 years
brb starting poopon, social network for scat enthusiasts
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think I posted about my plan to start grouporn.com in the "terrible ideas" thread
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
it would basically be social coupons for porn, which is why it's a terrible idea
Already been done.http://www.poopon.it/
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol @ ".it"
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
I had to double-take for a moment, at first thinking it was an Italian site.
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Like I was asking myself if poop jokes were big in Italy.
brb making hostile takeover bid for http://www.poopon.it/
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
poopon.de
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
poopon.mepoopon.uspoopon.yu
― they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
Facebook seems like the hardest to replace of all the big social things. I haven't looked at Twitter since I downloaded Zite (I was mostly using Twitter for interesting links - I don't really give a shit what celebs think about 140 characters at a time), I never see G+, I never look at the social aspect of Instagram (use the app to take a picture, post to FB sometimes), etc..
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
fb the web site is super easy to replace, fb the network of 'everyone on the world who does not live in china' is not
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
the weird thing about instagram as social network is that it's pretty hard to discover new stuff on it, I don't ever really "stumble across" anything on it without a good amount of effort (looking at photos that the other people you're following have liked is the best way I guess)
people who have a lot of fans on instagram seem to do it through using 8 million hashtags on every photo which is just super tedious and dumb
― dmr, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't really understand the backlash here, it's mostly coming from people that check their FB like all day on who commented on their Instagram posts and it doesn't make any sense other than yeah it's cool to hate FB.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
how come instagram ate flickr's lunch?
(NB have never used the former, but use flickr on the reg)
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 22:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
flickr can't decide if it wants to be social or professional
also (I'm guessing) really bad iphone integration
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 22:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah the flickr app is pretty terrible
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol flickr
― markers, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait a minute everybody, markers has an opinion about flickr
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
I never started a flickr account cause I realized putting my photos on the site just made me feel like a shitty photographer
― iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
whereas stuff like instagram makes everyone feel like a great photographer
My flickr profile has no coherence since it's half shitty cell phone pics from 2006 and half semi-artsy pictures I took on vacation.
― mh, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i get the feeling that a lot of people see flickr as like a permanent showcase instead of a streaming conversation, there a hesitation to use it unless you're really "proud" of a particular picture.. i guess instagram is more disposable and immediate, like a tweet rather than a blog post? if so, i can see why they're considered competitors for FB, or something that FB wants to own
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
flickr was around at the right point to where they could have diverged and done well in multiple spaces, but instead Yahoo bought them and then did jack shit for yeeeears
― mh, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
flickr really did seem like the future for a little while.. it was the first real "web page that acts like a full-featured app" that i ever saw.
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think flickr actually costs yahoo money because of the unlimited storage for pro accounts, idk
― swaghand (dayo), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
instagram prob largely own its success to the fact that its not a full featured app
― lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
like you open it and the camera is on, you press a button to take a picture, then you press another button to share
Nah, not for that reason, at least. Storage for photos is relatively cheap, even now with really high-res ones.
― mh, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
i actually pay real money to flickr yearly. does anyone do that with instagram?
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
instagram wins because their entire product has one use, and they're just starting to flip into a second by letting third-party apps send pictures to their cloud. Pretty much one of the best cases of doing one thing really well.
― mh, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
the pictures I take with it always look shitty so I don't use it
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah instagram had no revenue at all xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
"We don’t plan on doing many more of these, if any at all." - zuck
does not sound like a guy who is super thrilled bout his billion dollar baby
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
He's taken it as far as it could possibly go based on its original functionality. Now the only thing left to do is progressively convert it into a multi-billion dollar, nearly useless, privacy-destroying piece of shit. So, where's the fun in that?
― Mr. Peabody (Aimless), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
Even Google - by whom almost every single startup dreams of getting bought up - haven't acquired that many companies (100 or so iirc). This is Facebook's equivalent of the YouTube acquisition - but YouTube already was one of the biggest websites on earth and Instagram is a currently popular phone app. Obviously I'm lol old and can't understand this new world of upside-down commerce.
― You always tell me: "Perhacs Perhacs Perhacs" (seandalai), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
youtube for $1.65b vs. instagram for $1b
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
okay I just dl'd this stupid app, it is a lot more like an entire social network than i thought
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
being a preteen today seems really bleak
nothing a lil adderall wont fix
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://gigaom.com/2012/04/09/here-is-why-did-facebook-bought-instagram/
Facebook was scared shitless and knew that for first time in its life it arguably had a competitor that could not only eat its lunch, but also destroy its future prospects. Why? Because Facebook is essentially about photos, and Instagram had found and attacked Facebook’s achilles heel — mobile photo sharing.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
Basically, instagram has its mobile platform down pat and fb, even though its usable on mobile devices, is not MADE FOR mobile devices. Zuck just bought the infrastructure to remedy that.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
I doubt that the infrastructure the 12 people at instagram built is better than whatever mobile shit fb is working on
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha
― markers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
does that mean I can share something on fb from my phone? cuz that would be worth $1b
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
achilles heel for lunch, zuck
― buzza, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
'does that mean I can share something on fb from my phone? cuz that would be worth $1b'
you can do that already
'I doubt that the infrastructure the 12 people at instagram built is better than whatever mobile shit fb is working on'
the infrastructure probably not; the app, yes. instagram is one of the best UX experiences I've ever seen for a mobile app. incredibly easy to use.
still, yeah, no revenue and no apparent plan for revenue. I don't blame them for selling. fb bought it because it could afford to and was scared that instagram getting 500 mil in funding last week meant that it was on the verge of doing something bigger that was going to be a threat. in this sense, this makes fb start to look like a monopoly, or microsoft or some shit.
― akm, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 06:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
big props to instagram for negotiating their way into 1 BILL-ION DOLLARS
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
how?! I've used the fb mobile app on a couple diff phones and there's never a share button next to links and posts, just like and comment
this info is worth at least $500m to me
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Monday, April 9, 2012 9:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
nah theres a good chance it is, just by virtue of the fact that facebook has been in existence as a website for nearly a decade now and has only lately been trying to build a mobile platform on top of that (and doing a bad job), whereas instagram is built *for* mobile. building platforms that work seamlessly with all the same features between desktop and mobile is pretty hard, and probably even harder on a site like facebook where you have both a large company and a massive user base. twitter is the only company i can think of that actually pulls it off.
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk I figured they prob have people working on something from scratch
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't know anything about coding but when fb was created in 2004 or w/e, not sure the zuck anticipated it growing to include half the western world, from what I've heard fb has had problems scaling up their database infrastructure et cetera, hard to do when the world counts on you to be have an uptime of 100%, you can't just take it down for a week to transfer everything into the sleek new scaleable database your $500000/yr programmer bro just designed
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but you can't just say 'okay let's dl all of fb onto this awesome instagram platform' either
like, mobile is pretty clearly the future of the $100 billion company, surely there was something in the works
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
not sure the zuck anticipated it growing to include half the western world
yeah...he anticipated it growing to include the entire western world
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think facebook has some good devops people and software engineers, but I'm not sure if they've got everything pointed in the right direction! I know that several years ago their general direction was to work on creating a backend that would optimize the hell out of their existing codebase and give them the ability to continue working in the same languages while letting the site perform. Whether they've retooled, I have no idea.
Instagram is all amazon/s3/cloud-deployed, right? I think you gain a lot from starting from that approach in that if you do it right you are concentrating on scaling and the ability to dynamically add resources from the start.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah but they could start from that approach w/o dropping a billion dollars
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's no way facebook or anyone else would have to actually take down a system to transfer to a new one, though. Might be some hiccups across regions and some weirdness with notifications, but I doubt we'd tell the difference since that happens anyway.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think for them to do it they would have had to create a separate facebook iphone photo app, then people would get confused
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:07 (1 year ago) Permalink
if you're talking about infrastructure (databases for account authentication, user profiles, image storage) then that is the same for mobile or web.
client/app/mobile web interface is entirely separate from that.
― akm, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
xp No, certainly, buying Instagram is more about buying the user base and the whole package. A team of good engineers could create their own Instagram, but no one is going to jump over to a duplicate product.
dayo, facebook has their own Messages app, though! I see no real issue with multiple facebook apps.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
akm otm, although I think that facebook's website doesn't actually call their APIs, public or external, and that's one of their big issues.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
or *internal* I mean. I think they really do have sloppy direct-at-data store calls.
edward III, do you use fb mobile through the app or via their web interface on the phone?
― akm, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
'facebook's website doesn't actually call their APIs'
their apis are awful actually. have you tried to use them? their documentation is a fucking nightmare, they depricate things all the time and don't really tell you; they introduced and then killed this fbml thing in like 2 years. now the only fb apps I ever had to use and/or build don't work. I hate dealing with it.
― akm, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
mh otm
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
'certainly, buying Instagram is more about buying the user base and the whole package.'
right. but its an exorbiant buy.
I work(ed) for KodakGallery until last week. We have a pretty cool event photo sharing app; plus a website and a whole product line. But we're tied to eastman kodak which means we're going down the toilet and up for sale. First bid? Shutterfly, who have worse products and a worse experience overall; but Shutterfuly ONLY wants to buy the membership base to cut down on their competitors and will kill the rest of the company. If they win the auction, they'll have gotten millions of users for 23 million. Bargain price. But compare that to this buy. 1 billion for a membership base? Really? FB is saying they will let instagram run as is and not interfere with it or force anything on the members; maybe because they would face a big backlash on it; but that is a LOT of money to buy something that you aren't going to 'do anything' to.
― akm, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Yeah, I have no idea what the real goal is, and maybe there isn't a solid one. Zuckerberg seems kind of cool on the whole deal in media quotes, right? I kind of wonder if this was a consensus board pick or if there's something going on the business side of things.
Either that or they're real dicks and don't trust what their internal mobile app programmers say -- which may be the case, since at least one guy left because he was kind of bored -- and they're going to have some Instagram guys guide their mobile team.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Remember, you can have the best people working for you, but anyone you hire to give you direction will always be better. Or so management always seems to think.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
well its a membership base and also a play to stop instagram from overtaking facebook
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
that to me seems to explain 90% of it
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah. i mean i should be clear that $1 billion is ridiculous no matter which way you slice it unless instagram is just like an office filled with $2 billion and the 11 employees are all security guards or something
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk, that might be the lowest amount of money that facebook considers pulling out their pocketbook for
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's a good point, maybe zuckerberg just forgot all digits smaller than a billion
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
biking in to work today i really wished i had gotten a job in palo alto instead of going to grad school
― Lamp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
in other words i am so not 'getting' this instagram thing
― Lamp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's ok, I witnessed my high school friend who founded p1nterest getting grief from his family for not being a doctor a few months ago
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol @ "fbml". worst company
― am0n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
fbml wasn't a horrible idea but kind of betrays the fact they're still in a php or even coldfusion mentality
like seriously, guys, they created a php compiler and optimizer and shit, I think they're mentally ill
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh, sorry, it's a converter that changes php to c++ and it's called "hiphop"
shoot me
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
how well did you know mr.p1nt3r3st mh?
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
We both did science fair, went to the same magnet school for AP classes and the like, had a computer science class together. Sadly I knew only a bit about said website when he was in town and he was like "man, I don't know anyone else here and don't want to talk to the other speakers all day, let's chill over lunch"
so, not that well, but enough to shoot the shit I guess
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'm not even sure I believe this 100% but a lazy thought is that Facebook's brand has never been about cutting-edge technology, at least compared to Google...it was initially about game-changing usability and now it's really just about the fact that everyone you know is there. Most of their attempts to expand the feature set have met opposition or apathy. I know they do have some really clever people working for them and obv they have to juggle massive amounts of real-time data but idk I feel the tech aspects are probably not beyond the reach of a potential competitor.
― You always tell me: "Perhacs Perhacs Perhacs" (seandalai), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
that will probably always be the case with social networks tho
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
like facebook's goal is gonna be to institutionalize itself as much as possible but in the longer term it's still gonna be easier for 100m people to switch to new networks
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
the underlying technology has nothing to do w/this at all, fackbook has tons of dudes and tons of money they can code the shit out of whatever they want, of course there will always haxors sniping at their php or w/e online, they are im sure crying themselves to sleep on pillows stuffed w/million dollar bills
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
feel like 'facebook is about photos' or 'what people use facebook for is essentially photos' is wrong
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
hahaha, FB is the new AOL!
― I will transmit this information to (Viceroy), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
otoh i just looked at path (which i had never heard of) (lol old) and closed the website in rage because my options were 'watch the demo' and 'watch the trailer', so maybe i just don't understand that everyone in my generation is illiterate
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
its a simplification but it has been repeatedly proved that the thing people use facebook for the most is photos
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
if i go on facebook and send one important message and click through a gallery of 100 photos because i am bored i do not think that means i am getting 100x as much use out of photos
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
― lag∞n, Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:35 AM
its even implied in the name "facebook"
― am0n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
there are lots of other ways to send one important message
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
1 weird tip
― am0n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
and that totally doesnt describe most Facebook usage, I cant recall the last time I went on there to do something important, it's all abt dicking around
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
my dicking around is of vital importance tbf
― Lamp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
I think the main way to make inroads on facebook is via the young (probably college age and younger) who will want something where NOT everyone is on it. Was it not initially the air of exclusivity that helped to launch facebook as a brand? Of course now it's morphed into something totally different, and it is institutionalized, in fact it's almost become a kind of utility -- a combination universal phone book, universal yearbook, universal greeting card conduit, e-mail system, chat system, photo album, etc. You don't do it because it's cool anymore, you do it because it's useful. But some college kid will come up with something that's appealing to young people and revolting or bewildering or just unavailable to older people and that will gradually eat into fb, eventually. It probably won't be just an edgier fb, it will be something paradigmatically different.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
well myspace actually had younger users, fb had elitism
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
they pretty much opened up the site college by college going by the us news rankings
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
― thomp, Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
well, YOU arent, but facebook is
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is already happening, thus purchasing instagram, theyd buy twitter in a second if they could too xp hurting
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol google+
― am0n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I use facebook so I know it's not cool
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:43 (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ads refresh three times when i write that message and not at all when i click through the photos iirc
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
k so theyre getting 30x as much use out of photos
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
ime 'important messages' are increasingly taking the form of fb photos, i.e. sonograms
i have plenty of feelings about this phenomenon (not good) but that's neither here nor there
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
nah, they're getting 30^0.3x as much use - xp
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
pwned by math
― max, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
thomp your individual experience on fb is probably not something you should consider representative of a half billion people
― iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't know, possibly it's because fb came in when i was an undergrad, and since then i have spend three years dicking around then gone back to school (sigh) -- it seems like everyone i have known in my 20s has been more contactable via facebook than via any other internet medium, and uses that for making most of the arrangements about their social lives. probably these people would stop if facebook suddenly turned into timbernersleebook overnight but i still don't think it is true that graphical dingdongs are a large part of the appeal
ha, xpost
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:42 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
myspace was also very susceptible to spam and general ugliness. myspace pages became kind of miserable. and they got bought by a company that proabably had the least idea of anyone what to do with it.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah IME people actually do use facebook for a lot of important shit. For example, it's become the central repository of photographs of my baby for three generations of family spread across the globe.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
also (mainly bcz i don't have any friends) my 'individual facebook experience' is more like:
- open facebook- click on qrank- refresh until qrank actually works- play qrank- close facebook- hate myself
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
srsly my Israeli grandfather-in-law gets on fb and posts shit like "thek you for sending the puctures to us"
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
- open facebook - is anyone else in my life actually doing something more interesting than me - comment on that thing - post a picture of my cat
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't understand what FB has gotten wrong with pictures and mobile picture uploads? It's easy to upload from my phone when I want to, and I'm constantly seeing other peoples' pictures (until I unsubscribe from Photos of Y)
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― akm, Tuesday, April 10, 2012 10:09 AM (1 hour ago)
thru the app... I know you can go into desktop mode on the browser vers to share but it's such a basic function idk why the app can't do it (attn hackers, prolly an attack surface)
― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I don't know how it is from other phones but on an iPhone it's very easy to take a photo and send it straight to facebook as it is if you have the app.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
The thing is, every camera app on iOS that lets you post images to facebook does it better than facebook itself.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
the Facebook app is truly terrible for posting photos
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 15:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
like, it is not at all difficult, and compared to a few years ago, it's like... damn! I can put pictures on facebook
then you use instagram or camera+ or something and it's like two button pushes and one of them was the actual click to take the picture
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
don't basically all android phones have 'share to facebook' as an option whenever you take a photo via the onboard camera app? it had never occurred to me to try and put photos on facebook via the facebook app
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
having looked it is remarkably difficult to do that
oh I actually assumed the "share to facebook" option on the iphone was a result of installing the app. Maybe it's just the iphone.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
i'm actually just like my older relatives in that i didn't really start using facebook until my wife and all our other friends/relatives started using that as the primary place to share pictures of our/their kids. like if anyone sends me messages on FB i'm like "here's my e-mail address, let's talk there" but i'll actually go on FB to see the pictures everyone put up of the easter egg hunt we had the other day. so i totally get the whole photocentric facebook experience thing.
― some dude, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:02 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this option does not exist on the native camera app, u can tweet tho
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
mainly what i have learnt from this is that america has a thing called a 'macaroni grill'
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
It's the destination of choice for out-of-towners to go for a "fancy" meal. It eclipsed Olive Garden in this aspect a few years ago.
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
every time i hear about one of these things i go 'that is ridiculous' and then i go to the website and look at every item on the menu and go, okay, i'd eat that
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
apparently they will deep fry little balls of mac and cheese and serve them to you with a truffle dip
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, that part is probably pretty ok
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
some foreigners should come over and make one of those fish out of water docs abt all the amazing casual dining chains America has to offer
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
We really do have the fat+sugar balance to a point where you're like "man this food is made of total bullshit but I feel like I should finish this oversized platter"
― mh, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
is there any way i can volunteer to take this particular carbohydrate bullet
― thomp, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
god, they have a whole selection of random things they've fried and put on a plate with a dip and it's called 'italian tapas'
I assume the lack of Share to FB in the iPhone camera is Apple's fault.
Seems like a standalone FB camera app would have cost less than a billi.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
It absolutely would, just like Dailymotion could've been had for less than Youtube. EXCEPT, people actually use Youtube.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
I don't see those as equivalent. People don't use DailyMotion to put stuff on Youtube. YouTube is a content hub, Instagram isn't.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
Instagram IS a content hub, though.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
one thing I kind of wonder as an aside is why Vimeo, which is so much nicer than Youtube, wound up not really taking off, or at least I think it didn't
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
vimeo is high class youtube
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I like that Vimeo markets itself more to filmmakers and proper productions whereas Youtube has always been the place people upload phonecam footage. The world is big enough for both to exist imo.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
idk but youtube seems to have integrated 'social' much better w/ video responses and vlogs and stuff
vimeo is where you go to show off that cute little short you made w/ an illegal copy of final cut pro you copped from your film school grad roommates
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 16:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah maybe vimeo's model is to stay higher quality and more specialized and limited.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
youtube was the first video site whos player worked good, end of story
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
^^
― some dude, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
youtube's player still works like crap though : (
― swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
it works good tho
― am0n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
didn't sign up to the instagram thing before because i thought you it did everything with that horrible filter that makes all photos look identical
signed up yesterday, immediately saw why fb considered this a threat, interface is great and more importantly i saw friends on there using it regularly, that aren't really on fb so much
where does this leave flickr? feel like really this should be been flickr. I'm a flickr user, i like the user base - not quite sure what i want - i shoot film too - i guess will use both but in different ways
― coal, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 09:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
will not ever use this after seeing all the Bieber fans photos on tweeter. eurgh creepy fuckers.
― PSOD (Ste), Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
damn tweens with their pop idols *shakes fist*
― i think this is serious (elmo argonaut), Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
they will deep fry little balls of mac and cheese
not on topic but I must emphasize that deep fried mac and cheese is properly served in wedges, not balls
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://allthingsd.com/20120423/that-1b-for-instagram-that-would-be-23m-shares-of-facebook-and-300m-in-cash-plus-a-200m-termination-fee/
So apparently the $1B = $300m cash plus 23m shares (which would make the shares worth $31/each and value Facebook at $77B if the numbers are right)
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Monday, 23 April 2012 20:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
With all due respect to anyone here who's done this, stop posting snapshots of album covers or whatever the hell is playing on your iTunes.
― pplains, Saturday, 28 April 2012 18:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
So how many people are going to migrate over to the Flickr app?
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:18 (5 months ago) Permalink
tbh I don't really care if instagram 'makes money' from my pictures, I don't put my best work on there
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, if they ever saw fit to use some crap I'd posted on there, then they'd really be scraping the barrel. However, whenever everybody ends up in one place and then decides to scatter, it's nice to have a (mostly) unanimous landing spot.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:22 (5 months ago) Permalink
Preparing for the eventual "I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever" YouTube supercut.
(I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever!)
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:27 (5 months ago) Permalink
idk i'm pretty lazy about engaging with rights agreements & being concerned about copyright when it's entering the realm of the theoretical but this seems so cynical & dubious to me. like it already sounds like the kind of thing you can hear some shamefaced ceo retracting in a couple of weeks because it sounds like the kind of thing to trigger the righteous, petition-circulating libertarian tendencies of internet users. it isn't a million miles away from the thing about amoeba digitising other artists' records & selling them for profit - the idea that you host your photos somewhere & then that some hotel licenses one of them & a corporation makes fifty five cents on it seems super gross & depressing to me.
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:38 (5 months ago) Permalink
yeah now that Ithink about it I wonder if they could do some sort of revenue sharing model? like 30/70 splits between instagram/the user? idk
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:48 (5 months ago) Permalink
spotify for pictures
― iatee, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:51 (5 months ago) Permalink
ppl seem to think that a mass majority of instagram users/young people wouldn't die of happiness if one of their photos was used in an ad regardless of compensation fundamentally misunderstands the entire generation
― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:58 (5 months ago) Permalink
let me rephrase:
ppl seem to think that a mass majority of instagram users/young people wouldn't die of happiness if one of their photos was used in an ad regardless of compensation and that fundamentally misunderstands the entire generation
I don't think that's true, it's really easy to get people upset about stuff. like if it were a one time thing or something whatever, but if pepsi is running billion dollar ad campaigns and using instagram pics on a regular basis, you think that info is not gonna set anyone off? see: amanda palmer thing
― iatee, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:03 (5 months ago) Permalink
Yeah maybe they would be happy for a day or a week but once all their friends ask them how rich they are getting (cos everything in the media makes people rich) they'd probably have second thoughts about it.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:04 (5 months ago) Permalink
this isnt going to be used for million dollar ad campaigns anyway, theyre not going to use jordans pic for pepsi, theyre going to use jordans pic to sell like 8 of his friends something theyve been microtargeted on
― max, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:05 (5 months ago) Permalink
i sorta feel you, it becomes prestige-y, like some strange colour in the ebay-user star spectrum, but i feel like there's a difference between seeing your holiday photo blown up & nicely accessorised on the page, & just knowing that your photo (/maybe even you!) is being used on a car company's website or in hotel literature for somewhere you don't give a shit about. this just feels so textbook-reason-for-an-indignant-reception, at least if there's a visible faction calling facebook out on it & presenting it as cheap theft, which there is.
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:06 (5 months ago) Permalink
additional complications to the mixtape economy
I think the amanda-palmer-reaction is still gonna hold.
xp
― iatee, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:06 (5 months ago) Permalink
I thought s1ocki's cat pictures were already a viral campaign for his film features
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:07 (5 months ago) Permalink
my impression is that there were still way more ppl excited to play on stage w/ amanda palmer than there were ppl who were mad abt it. and anyway there are a lot more amateur photographers whose instagrams are good enough to sell products to their friends than good-enough amateur musicians to play onstage at a ticketed gig
― max, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:08 (5 months ago) Permalink
If this was Soundcloud saying they were going to give samples of your music to agencies for commercial jingles without compensation, there'd be petitions to whitehouse.gov made on the hour.
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:09 (5 months ago) Permalink
Im totally gonna chug this pepsi because I was attracted by mh's picture of his cat w/ a pepsi logo put on top of it
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:09 (5 months ago) Permalink
'everything can be sold to everybody' is probably the principle that makes me most depressed these days
RIP Instagram
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:13 (5 months ago) Permalink
heaven needed an X-Pro filter
catpepsi
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:16 (5 months ago) Permalink
dudes, i've been posting hipstamatic pix to my MySpace account this whole time.
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
― pplains, Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:09 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark
this is true but also there's something fundamentally more time-intensive about a piece of music... mustering up outrage over someone jacking an instagram photo of mine would cost me more time than it does to take and upload an instagram photo (and i care about my instagram photos)
― salute me or crut me (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:19 (5 months ago) Permalink
I dunno I don't usually get worked up over Facebook-rights stuff but this is p gross
selling off to 3rd parties is another level above rotating user pictures on Facebook ads I think
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:24 (5 months ago) Permalink
I've never used instagram but this is a whole other level of evil, and I'm actually pretty surprised that so many people are 'meh' about it.
― emil.y, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:26 (5 months ago) Permalink
agreed
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:27 (5 months ago) Permalink
I know a dude who accidentally gave permission for a band to use his friend's cell phone picture in their live album art.
Now I make fun of said friend for having his fuzzy picture inside a Metallica album booklet, credited to someone else
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:29 (5 months ago) Permalink
so what I'm basically saying is this way, they will always be credited to your instagram name or not, at least
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:30 (5 months ago) Permalink
what what's going on?
― go to party leather (ENBB), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:31 (5 months ago) Permalink
lesson: make sure you have a cool instagram name
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:31 (5 months ago) Permalink
otm
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:31 (5 months ago) Permalink
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:32 (5 months ago) Permalink
xpost to ENBB
ENBB: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/
Obviously everyone here is being all arch about it, b/c hipsters with instagram can never produce anything of any worth. But that really isn't the point. My family snaps aren't "worth" anything, I'd still be appalled if they were sold without my permission to companies I had nothing to do with to use as they like.
xxxpost
― emil.y, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:34 (5 months ago) Permalink
only solution now is to pollute instagram with enough garbage that it's impossible to find useful pictures or game the system by taking pictures that would obviously fit into an ad for self promotion
brb have to take a few dozen pictures of me eating a KFC double down sandwich
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:35 (5 months ago) Permalink
What's the point of a privacy setting if your pictures can be sold to whoever
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:35 (5 months ago) Permalink
This is called a "Tuesday" in Instagramland.
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:36 (5 months ago) Permalink
xpost- no point
also no way to opt out of the policy other than delete your account before Jan. 15
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:37 (5 months ago) Permalink
^^ that is what gets me - the chance of my few photos of boring stuff actually being sold/used is zero, but that lack of an opt-out option is stupid. plus i have no problems deleting my acct bc i don't use it as a social site, i just like the dumb filters.
― just1n3, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:45 (5 months ago) Permalink
i don't use it as a social site, i just like the dumb filters.
Me too, really. I don't follow a single person on Instagram that I'm not already friends with on fb.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:46 (5 months ago) Permalink
wait until someone needs stock photos of boring stuff, then you'll regret
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 17:46 (5 months ago) Permalink
i "quit" instagram weeks ago-- instagram was going to be played out in 2013 before this news even hit
― ❏❐❑❒ (gr8080), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:12 (5 months ago) Permalink
definitive standpoint
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:15 (5 months ago) Permalink
as a stand-alone social network I never really got into it but as an, I dunno, rich-featured version of Twitpic or whatever it was pretty useful
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:15 (5 months ago) Permalink
Another article: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean
― pun lovin criminal (polyphonic), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:18 (5 months ago) Permalink
relevant facebook terms:For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
sooo, pretty much the same as facebook, with the exception that facebook has theoretically more privacy control
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 20:58 (5 months ago) Permalink
is it though? I don't think this is in the Facebook TOS. could be wrong
"a business or other entity may pay us to display your... photos... in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you."
>>> with the exception that facebook has theoretically more privacy control
maybe that's the difference. Facebook lets you opt out of the creepiest third-party ad shit.
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:06 (5 months ago) Permalink
geez i hope my stupid pictures of my dog wind up advertising for-profit colleges someday
― passion it person (La Lechera), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:09 (5 months ago) Permalink
http://seattleipguy.tumblr.com/post/38238067044/instagram-wont-be-putting-most-of-your-photos-in-ads
Patent attorney takes a look at the Instagram TOS and makes us feel better.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:13 (5 months ago) Permalink
Uh, facebook shows "these three friends like this movie" with your profile picture on it. Not other pictures you've taken, but with an image of you.
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:14 (5 months ago) Permalink
right but you can opt out of that I think
― dmr, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 21:26 (5 months ago) Permalink
Well okay Jeane Dixon, so tell me where I should put my priceless photos of the sidewalk then.
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 22:12 (5 months ago) Permalink
let's bring back Cellpwn Pics in 2013
― ❏❐❑❒ (gr8080), Tuesday, 18 December 2012 22:30 (5 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, I'm never going to top that helicopter landing in the hood.
― pplains, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 23:00 (5 months ago) Permalink
oh hey they're working on rewording it
― mh, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 23:01 (5 months ago) Permalink
Re: people not really caring about this, I think it's endemic of at least some subset of millennials who just don't seem at all bothered by really overt online invasions of privacy. Which I feel has something in common with "being famous" as a goal that some of these same people pursue. Some sort of complete dissolution of private walls in the value-free (in the "all publicity is good publicity" sense) pursuit of being seen/noticed (see also: the seemingly carefree proliferation of online nudie snaps). It's all part of some strange gestalt that I totally don't get and that marks the most overt sense I've ever had of a distinct generation gap between me and people younger than myself.
― Oral Kiosk (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 00:10 (5 months ago) Permalink
I don't think the issue is necessarily privacy, or even ownership, although these are both concerns. These are images that are already public in some ways, and I don't think the intent is to make them visible to individuals who couldn't already browse and find them.
It's entertaining that flickr is seen as a good alternative, which it mostly is, if you're worried about ownership. But flickr is more highly-searchable and -indexed than most sites, too. If you have public images, it's interesting to see who tags them as favorites or views them. I would get people coming from Google searches or flickr searches for concert pictures I took. Then there were cases where an image would get favorited, you check out their profile, and every image they've added is of a shirtless man. Or they only add images of people smoking cigars.
― mh, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 00:33 (5 months ago) Permalink
i once had 200+ views on a picture of my foot
― passion it person (La Lechera), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 01:06 (5 months ago) Permalink
only that many?
― mh, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 01:09 (5 months ago) Permalink
must have been on some "look at this grotesque picture of a foot" blog or sthg
― passion it person (La Lechera), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 01:11 (5 months ago) Permalink
whenever i think abt flickr i think about jaxon (r.i.p.) uploading a photo he took of his wife during a hike that some creep added to the "sweaty Asian women" group
― ❏❐❑❒ (gr8080), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 01:15 (5 months ago) Permalink
eek
yeah, I was weirded out the other day when I realized that if you search for a famous actress or celebrity, the top few google search suggestions always include "x's feet"
― mh, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 02:55 (5 months ago) Permalink
1. Become global social megasite2. Buy rival3. Shut rival down by making all the users leave.4. MORE PROFIT!
― give me back my 200 dollars (NotEnough), Wednesday, 19 December 2012 15:26 (5 months ago) Permalink
im on there as datpurp666 fyi
― flag this post and die (roxymuzak), Tuesday, 12 February 2013 06:04 (3 months ago) Permalink