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.

[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...

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[uinku]

Originally Posted by marcr1230

One additional thought - I really like the square format

lol




(ten characters..)

[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

[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.

[Brian Legge]

I'm assuming that purchase is primarily is $1 billion in facebook stock which doesn't mature for a little while? If so, its eventual value in real money...

[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.

[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!

[apples]

It's a great app for sharing pictures to your friends and followers. The filters don't bother me, and you don't have to use them if you feel that it feels fake artsy. What it portends? No idea, but at least it exposes people to photography and maybe some of them will be inspired by it.

[River Dog]

1. Broadens Facebook's target market.
2. Negates a competitor.
3. Stops someone else buying them.

Gartner - Ray Valdes, an analyst at Gartner, says: "You can view the $1bn as an insurance payment against a possible mortal threat if it fell into the hands of one of its competitors. If Facebook is valued at $100bn, 1pc of that figure seems like a reasonable payment."

$33 per user doesn't look to bad either.

FORBES - Instagram is getting bought for $33 per user. Facebook is supposedly trading with a market cap of close to $100 billion and has 850 million users, giving it a value of $117 per user. So it looks like a decent bit of funny-money arbitrage, using well-endowed Facebook shares to acquire users and solidify hold of a strategic asset at a lower valuation

[smasher]

I've been toying around with Instagram and Hipstamatic. I'll probably drop Instagram now that they've been swallowed up by Facebook; I'd imagine a lot of people feel the same way, and would love to play with a toy camera app that isn't married to Facebook.

Shame that the current release of Hipstamatic (v250) is so buggy. It's a huge missed opportunity for them!

[kdemas]

Originally Posted by smasher

I've been toying around with Instagram and Hipstamatic. I'll probably drop Instagram now that they've been swallowed up by Facebook; I'd imagine a lot of people feel the same way, and would love to play with a toy camera app that isn't married to Facebook.

Shame that the current release of Hipstamatic (v250) is so buggy. It's a huge missed opportunity for them!

I haven't had any problems with the current Hipstamatic version. Are you on the latest IOS?

[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

[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?)

[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."

[nightfly]

Facebook's business is monetizing your data by selling it to advertisers ultimately.

The more of your data they own, they better.

They think that by buying Instagram they can get more of your data that they can sell.

Whether it's worth a billion dollars is really ultimately determined by how much an advertiser is willing to pay them to for access to you. This remains to be seen but any way they get more info about you, your likes and dislikes etc adds value.

I downloaded Instagram awhile back but never used it. Probably won't now because Facebook to me is just the Stasi with tacit user consent.

The only thing that scares me is more and more services that use a facebook log in to more easily correlate all the data they are gathering.

As a service Instagram looks fun and welll designed and I don't mind the fake analog-ness of it. To me it points out how digtial photos are ultimately a little sterile and need a bit of jazzing up to make them more visually compelling.