Instagram - Billion Dollar phone app

[marcr1230]

What do we think about a company started 551 days ago , just acquired by facebook for $1 billion
What does it portend for the future of photography ?

[thegman]

I don't think it says much for the future of photography, it's a nice toy for a certain generation to enjoy. IMHO it will come and go like all other fashions. I don't mean to criticise it at all, it's a cool idea, like digital Lomography. I like Lomo, but I appreciate it's a fashion too, and that too will go away in time.

$1bn seems a tad excessive, but valuations of companies these days are nothing to do with size, revenue, profit, or even potential, just the ill-defined concept of "strategy".

[mabelsound]

Instagram is great. I'm a little disappointed that Facebook bought them out, but it's at least an acknowledgment that a little startup handed their arses to them in the area of mobile, socially networked photography. Which is essentially what Facebook itself IS.

[furcafe]

I don't think Instagram handed FB's arse to them, because FB's never been about anything but leveraging their existing network, which goes beyond just photography, & they've always been happy to borrow/steal outside ideas to incorporate as features (e.g., geolocating/check-ins). Instagram outflickred flickr, which could have easily have taken advantage of phone photography but failed to do so. That said, I still mostly use flickr because I have little interest in iphonetography as a genre (just say no to fake cross-processing!).

Originally Posted by mabelsound

Instagram is great. I'm a little disappointed that Facebook bought them out, but it's at least an acknowledgment that a little startup handed their arses to them in the area of mobile, socially networked photography. Which is essentially what Facebook itself IS.

[Aristophanes]

Facebook took investor money from their IPO and plunked it down on a photo app with zero revenues for $1 billion.

Fools and their money...

[nonot]

I really get a kick out of instagram as well, it's a fun app. I'm happy for that team because they really developed an awesome product that has got a lot of people excited about photography and artistic practice (sure there's a lot of junk in there, but that's the same with anything). The sheer numbers make me wary of what it means for internet businesses in general, but I guess that remains to be seen.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Facebook took investor money from their IPO and plunked it down on a photo app with zero revenues for $1 billion.

Fools and their money...

Facebook's IPO is set for May. Also, I do not think that they're trying to generate revenue directly via Instagram. It's probably more about fortifying their position as the leading social network. Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible on Facebook. And let's remember that Facebook is currently valued at around $100bn which puts this purchase in perspective.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Facebook's IPO is set for May. Also, I do not think that they're trying to generate revenue directly via Instagram. It's probably more about fortifying their position as the leading social network. Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible on Facebook. And let's remember that Facebook is currently valued at around $100bn which puts this purchase in perspective.

Instagram is nowhere near worth $1 billion. It's marketing and doing something for the sake of doing it. there is no material value to Instagram, no revenues, no ROI. It's an internet bubble acquisition.

Even Facebook has paltry revenues compared to its installed user base most of whom react strongly when presented with data mining options. Use for "free" does not = revenues. Investors are paying $1 billion for an app!

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Instagram is nowhere near worth $1 billion. It's marketing and doing something for the sake of doing it. there is no material value to Instagram, no revenues, no ROI. It's an internet bubble acquisition.

Even Facebook has paltry revenues compared to its installed user base most of whom react strongly when presented with data mining options. Use for "free" does not = revenues. Investors are paying $1 billion for an app!

It's not about whether or not Instagram itself will generate any revenue.They purchased one of the photography apps on the iPhone with an established user base. Call it marketing if you will but there is a LOT of value in marketing. I don't think it's so much about investing in order to gain a ROI as it is about just buying the competition that were better at something that facebook wanted to do themselves.
Instagram is probably not worth $1bn but they probably wouldn't have sold if Facebook didn't make an offer that was too good to refuse. As for internet bubble acquisitions, everyone's been saying that Facebook's overvalued for a long time and maybe it's a bubble but I just don't see it bursting anytime soon. And while it's true that Facebooks revenue is modest in relation to it's user base they still made $3.7bn in 2011 (according to Wikipedia) which isn't bad considering it's a company with only around 3000 employees (again, accordiing to Wikipedia).

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

It's not about whether or not Instagram itself will generate any revenue.They purchased one of the photography apps on the iPhone with an established user base. Call it marketing if you will but there is a LOT of value in marketing. I don't think it's so much about investing in order to gain a ROI as it is about just buying the competition that were better at something that facebook wanted to do themselves.
Instagram is probably not worth $1bn but they probably wouldn't have sold if Facebook didn't make an offer that was too good to refuse. As for internet bubble acquisitions, everyone's been saying that Facebook's overvalued for a long time and maybe it's a bubble but I just don't see it bursting anytime soon. And while it's true that Facebooks revenue is modest in relation to it's user base they still made $3.7bn in 2011 (according to Wikipedia) which isn't bad considering it's a company with only around 3000 employees (again, accordiing to Wikipedia).

If it does not generate revenue, then why buy it?

Instagram appeals to exactly the same crowd as FB does. Likely, FB bought its own customers already!

$1 billion is a huge price for a product that is free, costs nothing to develop, and has no proven ROI. Overpaying to eliminate the competition is not sound biz, not before an IPO. These things add up. This is how guys like Zucker become marginalized by some of their own investors.

FB has had difficulty "monetizing" its user base. Their revenues are paltry and based on a single source of non-recurring data. Instagram is supposed to help? How? It's a profile acquisition, making a move to say "look what we can do with our (your) money".

Bubbles pop. Balloons shrivel. This acquisition shows that FB is more like a balloon.

I am one of those analysts that fails to see how FB is going to greatly increase its revenue stream without p***ing off its user base through intrusive hard selling. Data profiles have diminishing returns as any pollster will tell you. Instagram will not help an of that one bit.

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

Facebook took investor money from their IPO and plunked it down on a photo app with zero revenues for $1 billion.

Fools and their money...

With a market worth of $98B they spent $1B.. Wait until mid-May when they start selling stock and watch where their worth will hit.
Even a modest $105B makes 500% profit over the investment of $1B .. (Fools and their money heh?)

[michaelbialecki]

I like Instagram......I get to see so many of my friends photos that I'd never seen before......and to me, that is the most important thing about it.....I don't care who bought it and for how much.....I am just happy that I get to see some cool photos......

cheers, michael

[marcr1230]

One additional thought - I really like the square format

[uinku]

Originally Posted by marcr1230

One additional thought - I really like the square format

lol




(ten characters..)

[Sparrow]

I think I'm just getting old and grumpy as I don't really care, I'm unsure what lomography is and digital lomography is likely simply to be the same but in a greater volume.

[Sparrow]

... however it looks to have an X-Pro II filter option so it must be up to the minute ... we're not finished arguing about the X-Pro I yet!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17667891

[dcsang]

As I don't have an iPhone and I rarely, if ever, use my cell phone for any form of photography - this is sort of in the "meh" category. I understand all the kids love it and use it and that's great - it can probably create some really cool "art" but when everything starts looking like my dad's kodachrome slides from 1972 but knowing that the image was taken 5 minutes ago - it leaves me sort of cold...

Cheers,
dave

[apodeictic]

Originally Posted by dcsang

As I don't have an iPhone and I rarely, if ever, use my cell phone for any form of photography - this is sort of in the "meh" category. I understand all the kids love it and use it and that's great - it can probably create some really cool "art" but when everything starts looking like my dad's kodachrome slides from 1972 but knowing that the image was taken 5 minutes ago - it leaves me sort of cold...

Cheers,
dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph

[nightfly]

Thanks for that. Learned a new word.

Originally Posted by apodeictic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph

[sevres_babylone]

Originally Posted by dcsang

As I don't have an iPhone and I rarely, if ever, use my cell phone for any form of photography - this is sort of in the "meh" category. I understand all the kids love it and use it and that's great - it can probably create some really cool "art" but when everything starts looking like my dad's kodachrome slides from 1972 but knowing that the image was taken 5 minutes ago - it leaves me sort of cold...

Cheers,
dave

Cold? But why, knowing that your dad was 40 years ahead of his time

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by sevres_babylone

Cold? But why, knowing that your dad was 40 years ahead of his time

It doesn't make it "attractive" or "familiar" to me as apodeictic may suggest by linking to a definition. What it screams is "trend" and not "style".

There's a huge difference between the two but the lines have become blurred thanks to marketers and social media.



Cheers,
Dave

[mabelsound]

The quality of the photography is not the point of Instagram. Neither are the fake lomography filters. It's the fact that the photos you take are automatically uploaded and distributed to everyone you know, and are part of an ongoing converstation about the world. Or, about your cat.

[dcsang]

Originally Posted by mabelsound

The quality of the photography is not the point of Instagram. Neither are the fake lomography filters. It's the fact that the photos you take are automatically uploaded and distributed to everyone you know, and are part of an ongoing converstation about the world. Or, about your cat.

As someone who's never used the application - who owns the copyright of the photos that are uploaded to Instagram?

cheers,
Dave

[andersju]

Originally Posted by dcsang

As someone who's never used the application - who owns the copyright of the photos that are uploaded to Instagram?

cheers,
Dave

http://instagr.am/legal/terms/

"Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services."

The normal stuff.

I thought this was pretty funny/depressing though, under "Basic Terms":

"You may not post nude, partially nude, or sexually suggestive photos."

Because anything "sexually suggestive" or "partially nude" has no place in the life one shares with others, eh? What do those terms really mean, anyway? "partially nude [unless you happen to have a Y chromosome]"?

Thanks but no thanks.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by dcsang

As someone who's never used the application - who owns the copyright of the photos that are uploaded to Instagram?

cheers,
Dave

"Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text ... photos ... or any other materials(collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide limited license to, publicly perform, publicly display,reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels."