Instagram - Billion Dollar phone app

[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

[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

[nightfly]

Thanks for that. Learned a new word.

Originally Posted by apodeictic

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

[igi]

I thought one prevailing idea here on RFF is that "if you can afford it, why not (buy it)?"

And now people are complaining that 1bn is excessive? LOL

[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).

[Sparrow]

It's a brave new world out there ...

[emayoh]

Flickr dropped this social ball so hard and booted it so far as to be heartbreaking. It had all the tech, it had the brand cred, it had the users and it had all the tech available -- maps, Yahoo! location data, engineers. But they sat on their hands, built the worst phone app they could, and focused on... what exactly? The Flickr head of that time dropped out -- thankfully -- and we'll see how the new guy Markus (with a mobile background) does playing catchup. I don't have high hopes, but...

In answer to the question of what the rise of Instagram mean to photography, there is some possible optimism:

1) It injects much-needed competition in the sphere of photo management on the Web/Mobile. More innovation, more money, means more smart people are out there thinking of new ways to share photographs. This is good. Even if you think Instagram is silly, the frictionless ways it has enabled photo-sharing will become required for other platforms. Even Flickr and 500px will have to improve. This is (probably) good.

2) The generally fun nature of Instagram may make candid street photography slightly more socially acceptable again over time. A photog snapping a scene with a rangefinder may align more closely in people's minds with someone snapping a fuzzy warm Instagram, instead of the image of a paparazzi with an SLR hell-bent on putting ugly photos of you on TMZ. Or, so I can hope. Smile for the camera!

3) Resurrection of the square format. I'm hoping the rise of Instagram will bring (cheap) square-format clip frames back at some point. Can't find those anywhere in the States!

Addendum: Instagram will also help FB's geo-tracking. Instagram really did a great job integrating with Foursquare for geo-tracking. I assume FB will eventually funnel that data directly into FB and shut out Foursquare. Hugely valuable for FB is the info of where you are. This will be another way to figure that out.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fizzlesticks

Let Facebook make money off of all the lemmings of this world. Not me. I am with the above poster who likened Facebook to the Stasi.

Sorry but likening Facebook to the Stasi is quite distasteful and shows an incredibly lack of historical awareness. When's the last time Facebook exectued anybody?

As for not joining Facebook, you're of course free to do that. I care much about my privacy but I still use Facebook. I just don't feel that I have to make every personal detail of my life public on Facebook. I don't post any pictures of myself there and I don't use 'status updates' to tell peple when I'm taking a crap. Does Facebook make money off me? I'm sure they do. But on the other hand I'm using Facebook for free. And while there are some downsides to using Facebook, for the most part it's been an improvement in my life.

As for Instagram, I never really got into that. I'm just not much of a sharer. Never cared for twitter either.

[nightfly]

^^

Smart analysis. Flickr really did drop the ball. It looks pretty much exactly the same as it did when I started with them years ago. They were THE photo sharing community and blew it.

I think you are spot on about geo-tracking also.

I really don't see how any of us can value Instagram as an independent entity, Facebook is basically betting on the additional data gathering to add to their already impressive store of data. Instagram is worth far more to Facebook than it would be to virtually anyone else.

[nightfly]

When was the last time anyone used a metaphor to indicate one to one verisimilitude?

Just as Juliette is not actually the sun, Facebook is not actually the Stasi. It's merely a purposefully overwrought literary trope meant to point out how they gather data without most of their users awareness.

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Sorry but likening Facebook to the Stasi is quite distasteful and shows an incredibly lack of historical awareness. When's the last time Facebook exectued anybody?.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by nightfly

When was the last time anyone used a metaphor to indicate one to one verisimilitude?

Just as Juliette is not actually the sun, Facebook is not actually the Stasi. It's merely a purposefully overwrought literary trope meant to point out how they gather data without most of their users awareness.

Firstly, it was a simile, not a metaphor. At least get your tropes right.
Secondly, I'm quite aware of the point you were trying to make about privacy. But using such a far fetched analogy really trivializes the actual doings of the Stasi.

And even if we leave good taste out for a second it's still a ridiculous thing to say. Facebook is not the Stasi. But they aren't Mother Theresa either.
I think most people are quite aware that Facebook uses their data in some way to generate revenue. They don't always know exactly how but they do know that it's happening. The truth is they mostly don't care.

[filmfan]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Firstly, it was a simile, not a metaphor. At least get your tropes right.
Secondly, I'm quite aware of the point you were trying to make about privacy. But using such a far fetched analogy really trivializes the actual doings of the Stasi.

And even if we leave good taste out for a second it's still a ridiculous thing to say. Facebook is not the Stasi. But they aren't Mother Theresa either.
I think most people are quite aware that Facebook uses their data in some way to generate revenue. They don't always know exactly how but they do know that it's happening. The truth is they mostly don't care.

Well said.

[nightfly]

Metaphor is the overarching term for figures of speech using a comparison of one thing to another. Simile is just a type of metaphor which explicitly uses as or like. So all similes are metaphors although all metaphors aren't similes. In any case it's a trivial distinction.

As it relates to the discussion, Facebook's data gathering goes far beyond what users knowingly provide as content since their Facebook login id can be used to track people beyond Facebook. The Instagram purchase is an effort to further this reach without explicitly needing someone to be "on" Facebook.

The data collection becomes more secretive and nefarious than what most people generally assume is happening. I agree that most people don't care either way but it is this type of data collection that makes the purchase of Instagram much more valuable to Facebook than it would be to another company that doesn't relie on user data as their product, which is essentially what Facebook's business model is, selling user data to advertisers.

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Firstly, it was a simile, not a metaphor. At least get your tropes right.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by nightfly

Metaphor is the overarching term for figures of speech using a comparison of one thing to another. Simile is just a type of metaphor which explicitly uses as or like. So all similes are metaphors although all metaphors aren't similes. In any case it's a trivial distinction.

As it relates to the discussion, Facebook's data gathering goes far beyond what users knowingly provide as content since their Facebook login id can be used to track people beyond Facebook. The Instagram purchase is an effort to further this reach without explicitly needing someone to be "on" Facebook.

The data collection becomes more secretive and nefarious than what most people generally assume is happening. I agree that most people don't care either way but it is this type of data collection that makes the purchase of Instagram much more valuable to Facebook than it would be to another company that doesn't relie on user data as their product, which is essentially what Facebook's business model is, selling user data to advertisers.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Metaphors and similes are two different types of figures of speech. A simile is not a metaphor and a metaphor is not a simile.
But yeah, trivial distinction.

It is true that Facebook was caught tracking users activities even after they leave the page but as far as I know they got into quite a bit of trouble for that. I'm not sure if Facebook really sells user data or if they just use the data in order to show specific advertising to specific people. I think officially it's just the latter.
Why I still keep seeing the advert for 'tantric massage' in my town is beyond me.

[nightfly]

Aristotle and many others would disagree with you:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Metaphor

"Metaphors are comparisons that show how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in one important way. A metaphor is more forceful (active) than an analogy, because metaphor asserts two things are the same, whereas analogy implies a difference; other rhetorical comparative figures of speech, such as metonymy, parable, simile and synecdoche, are species of metaphor distinguished by how the comparison is communicated.[1]"

1 The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992) pp.653–55: "A rhetorical figure with two senses, both originating with Aristotle in the 4c BC: (I) All figures of speech that achieve their effects through association, comparison and resemblance. Figures like antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile are [in that sense] all species of metaphor.

I think for most people whether a comparison uses the word "as" or "like" is really irrelevant to the overall sense of meaning so I side with those who think that a simile is a type of metaphor.

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Sorry, but you're wrong. Metaphors and similes are two different types of figures of speech. A simile is not a metaphor and a metaphor is not a simile.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by nightfly

Aristotle and many others would disagree with you:

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Metaphor

"Metaphors are comparisons that show how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in one important way. A metaphor is more forceful (active) than an analogy, because metaphor asserts two things are the same, whereas analogy implies a difference; other rhetorical comparative figures of speech, such as metonymy, parable, simile and synecdoche, are species of metaphor distinguished by how the comparison is communicated.[1]"

1 The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992) pp.653–55: "A rhetorical figure with two senses, both originating with Aristotle in the 4c BC: (I) All figures of speech that achieve their effects through association, comparison and resemblance. Figures like antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile are [in that sense] all species of metaphor.

I think for most people whether a comparison uses the word "as" or "like" is really irrelevant to the overall sense of meaning so I side with those who think that a simile is a type of metaphor.

If you're going to quote an enotes.com page which quotes a Wikipedia page, why not go directly to Wikipedia

Metaphors are most frequently compared with similes. The Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, explains the difference as:

"Metaphors are most frequently compared with similes. The Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, explains the difference as:
a simile states that A is like B, a metaphor states that A is B or substitutes B for A. "

But in all fairness, going back to your original comment I see that you actually did say that Facebook is the Stasi while Aristophanes whose post I was originally replying to was likening Facebook to the Stasi.

[wblynch]

It's all part of the US government's spying and tracking infrastructure. Since everything is posted publicly and voluntarily, there is no 'right to privacy' and no warrants are required.

Face recognition systems can isolate you or anyone in your pictures instantly and GPS information embedded in the photo or at least IP address mapping can find out everywhere you and your friends have been.

$1 billion is cheap.

[useless generation]

It's only a matter of time before Facebook ruins instagram. With adds or stupid updates and their own cool new features integrating Facebook and instagram blah blah it was fun while it lasted.

[PatrickCheung]

it's become my form of twitter. It's just an app for me to connect with my friends with. They snap a pic, I snap one, we can instantly see what the other is up to. It's kinda cool! But as mentioned before, it doesn't say much for the future of photography. Well. Depends on what you think photography is. Do you think iPhonetography is a form of photography? If you do, then maybe instagram has the potential to change the future of photography in your eyes.

I just wish the android version of instagram had the fake tilt-shift effect!

[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.

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by wblynch

It's all part of the US government's spying and tracking infrastructure. Since everything is posted publicly and voluntarily, there is no 'right to privacy' and no warrants are required.

Face recognition systems can isolate you or anyone in your pictures instantly and GPS information embedded in the photo or at least IP address mapping can find out everywhere you and your friends have been.

1. You sign a contract when you use Instagram. So, no, you have no right to privacy when you contract it away. It's not public. It's a private contract. A warrant is required to access private data.

2. Huge amounts of data without context are not a business asset, they are a liability. Information overload friction is a drag on productivity, not a lubricant.

[marcr1230]

to moderators re the moved thread - this has little common ground with "Making Photo $$$" - I object. This is about the business to business transaction and about how we use/like instagram. not how to make our own version and sell it for $$$

[wblynch]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

1. You sign a contract when you use Instagram. So, no, you have no right to privacy when you contract it away. It's not public. It's a private contract. A warrant is required to access private data.

2. Huge amounts of data without context are not a business asset, they are a liability. Information overload friction is a drag on productivity, not a lubricant.

Go ahead and keep believing that. There is Homeland Security and the "Patriot" act. You have no more rights.