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

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.

The thing is, every camera app on iOS that lets you post images to facebook does it better than facebook itself.

the Facebook app is truly terrible for posting photos

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

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

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'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.

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, 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

mainly what i have learnt from this is that america has a thing called a 'macaroni grill'

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.

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

apparently they will deep fry little balls of mac and cheese and serve them to you with a truffle dip

yeah, that part is probably pretty ok

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

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"

is there any way i can volunteer to take this particular carbohydrate bullet

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.

It absolutely would, just like Dailymotion could've been had for less than Youtube. EXCEPT, people actually use Youtube.

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.

Instagram IS a content hub, though.

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

vimeo is high class youtube

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.

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

yeah maybe vimeo's model is to stay higher quality and more specialized and limited.

youtube was the first video site whos player worked good, end of story

^^

youtube's player still works like crap though : (

it works good tho

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

will not ever use this after seeing all the Bieber fans photos on tweeter. eurgh creepy fuckers.

damn tweens with their pop idols *shakes fist*

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

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)

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.

So how many people are going to migrate over to the Flickr app?

tbh I don't really care if instagram 'makes money' from my pictures, I don't put my best work on there

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.

Preparing for the eventual "I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever" YouTube supercut.

(I'm a paid Flickr user - now and forever!)

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.

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

spotify for pictures

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

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

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.

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

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.