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
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
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, 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