I am so not "getting" this Instagram thing / do you guys want to look at each others pictures?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (448 of them)

brb making hostile takeover bid for http://www.poopon.it/

diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

poopon.de

iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 21:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

poopon.me
poopon.us
poopon.yu

they do do doo doo sandwiches (snoball), Monday, 9 April 2012 21:19 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah the flickr app is pretty terrible

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:03 (2 years ago) Permalink

lol flickr

markers, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

wait a minute everybody, markers has an opinion about flickr

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 April 2012 23:10 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

whereas stuff like instagram makes everyone feel like a great photographer

iatee, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:14 (2 years ago) Permalink

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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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

lag∞n, Monday, 9 April 2012 23:26 (2 years ago) Permalink

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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

nah instagram had no revenue at all
xp

iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:10 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

"We don’t plan on doing many more of these, if any at all." - zuck

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 (2 years ago) Permalink

youtube for $1.65b vs. instagram for $1b

iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 00:54 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

being a preteen today seems really bleak

iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

nothing a lil adderall wont fix

lag∞n, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:11 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

hahaha

markers, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:43 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

achilles heel for lunch, zuck

buzza, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 01:46 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

big props to instagram for negotiating their way into 1 BILL-ION DOLLARS

swaghand (dayo), Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:37 (2 years 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

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 (2 years ago) Permalink

I doubt that the infrastructure the 12 people at instagram built is better than whatever mobile shit fb is working on

― 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

idk I figured they prob have people working on something from scratch

iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:54 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

yeah but they could start from that approach w/o dropping a billion dollars

iatee, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 14:06 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.