itsallwater wrote:
I don't really get what Facebook get out of the deal? I would have assumed the're big enough to build and push a far better version of such software. They already have the market share of internet users data and images (citation needed), so why pay so much for the marginal users?
Probably got some interesting IP somewhere.
MaliA wrote:
Quote:
Then explain to me why, exactly, you want to bastardise a photograph taken with the current end-product of one hundred years worth of photographic technology to make it look like something from forty years ago for nothing more than aesthetic wankery. Perhaps when you're done with your list of overdone cliches, you can spare the time to explaining your rather quite frankly ridiculous and breathless defence of an awful photo app. Please, I'm all literally breathless with unspeakable anticipation.
....
I do so love someone who - inbetween feeling superior and worrying that their self-proclaimed superiority is failing them - resorts to lots and lots of italics. Why don't you ask the Guardian team very nicely if they'll write in some code to allow you to put sparkly effects on your words as well.
I suppose the reason I despise Instagram and all of it's little fans - such as yourself - stems from my love of The Dickhead Song. Which really sums up the whole stinking community of Instagrammites in one fell swoop - "we're having nu-age fun with a vintage feel!"
No one has actually explained just *why* they feel the need to fuck up a perfectly decent digital camera shot with a fucktarded Polaroid filter though.
....
I do so love someone who - inbetween feeling superior and worrying that their self-proclaimed superiority is failing them - resorts to lots and lots of italics. Why don't you ask the Guardian team very nicely if they'll write in some code to allow you to put sparkly effects on your words as well.
I suppose the reason I despise Instagram and all of it's little fans - such as yourself - stems from my love of The Dickhead Song. Which really sums up the whole stinking community of Instagrammites in one fell swoop - "we're having nu-age fun with a vintage feel!"
No one has actually explained just *why* they feel the need to fuck up a perfectly decent digital camera shot with a fucktarded Polaroid filter though.
LoL
No idea what any of this is about one way or another, obviously, but the above exchange did make me chuckle over my coffee.
I've not actually used Instagram yet - can you actually upload a pic to it without any filter being applied at all?
MaliA wrote:
itsallwater wrote:
I don't really get what Facebook get out of the deal? I would have assumed the're big enough to build and push a far better version of such software. They already have the market share of internet users data and images (citation needed), so why pay so much for the marginal users?
Probably got some interesting IP somewhere.
Maybe they don't like the idea that people have found a need of a way to upload and share images that isn't the way built into Facebook.
kalmar wrote:
MaliA wrote:
itsallwater wrote:
I don't really get what Facebook get out of the deal? I would have assumed the're big enough to build and push a far better version of such software. They already have the market share of internet users data and images (citation needed), so why pay so much for the marginal users?
Probably got some interesting IP somewhere.
Maybe they don't like the idea that people have found a need of a way to upload and share images that isn't the way built into Facebook.
Possibly. Wasn't tehre soemthing about Instagram harvesting phone data or somesuch?
MaliA wrote:
Quote:
Then explain to me why, exactly, you want to bastardise a photograph taken with the current end-product of one hundred years worth of photographic technology to make it look like something from forty years ago for nothing more than aesthetic wankery. Perhaps when you're done with your list of overdone cliches, you can spare the time to explaining your rather quite frankly ridiculous and breathless defence of an awful photo app. Please, I'm all literally breathless with unspeakable anticipation.
....
I do so love someone who - inbetween feeling superior and worrying that their self-proclaimed superiority is failing them - resorts to lots and lots of italics. Why don't you ask the Guardian team very nicely if they'll write in some code to allow you to put sparkly effects on your words as well.
I suppose the reason I despise Instagram and all of it's little fans - such as yourself - stems from my love of The Dickhead Song. Which really sums up the whole stinking community of Instagrammites in one fell swoop - "we're having nu-age fun with a vintage feel!"
No one has actually explained just *why* they feel the need to fuck up a perfectly decent digital camera shot with a fucktarded Polaroid filter though.
....
I do so love someone who - inbetween feeling superior and worrying that their self-proclaimed superiority is failing them - resorts to lots and lots of italics. Why don't you ask the Guardian team very nicely if they'll write in some code to allow you to put sparkly effects on your words as well.
I suppose the reason I despise Instagram and all of it's little fans - such as yourself - stems from my love of The Dickhead Song. Which really sums up the whole stinking community of Instagrammites in one fell swoop - "we're having nu-age fun with a vintage feel!"
No one has actually explained just *why* they feel the need to fuck up a perfectly decent digital camera shot with a fucktarded Polaroid filter though.
Did EBG write all of those.
I have read a lot of versions of that '100 years of photographic technology made to look like it was taken 40 years ago' thing on Twitter, last night.
Mostly amused to think that some people view the camera on the iPhone and iPod as the pinnacle of photographic excellence...
Really can't see the problem with some people liking clean, natural photography and some playing with their pictures. Some people get scarily precious over things that have nothing at all to do with them (like a complete stranger's iPhone picture preferences).
kalmar wrote:
Someone's drastically missing the point there too. It's not about applying filters to "the current end-product of one hundred years worth of photographic technology", it's about applying filters to the output of $2 VGA sensors with grimy lenses, taken of domestic scenes and such. Which are otherwise, with the best will in the world, not brilliant looking photos. Where's the harm?
is what I was trying to say, but with less technology know how. Where's the harm, especially when discussing the pictures if people you don't know or care about.If Instagram was forcing itself on your camera and forcing filters on every one of your pictures, ok. But let people do what they enjoy doing with their pictures.
devilman wrote:
I've not actually used Instagram yet - can you actually upload a pic to it without any filter being applied at all?
yes.
itsallwater wrote:
They already have the market share of internet users data and images (citation needed)
I'd be surprised if they were in the top three.
I have a Windows Phone and I'm not on Facebook so this bothers me not.
kalmar wrote:
Maybe they don't like the idea that people have found a need of a way to upload and share images that isn't the way built into Facebook.
So the argument that Facebook is after their data is to use another service that is after their data (and which, by the way, doesn't offer a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does).
Plissken wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Maybe they don't like the idea that people have found a need of a way to upload and share images that isn't the way built into Facebook.
So the argument that Facebook is after their data is to use another service that is after their data (and which, by the way, doesn't offer a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does).
Until userbase >X, at which point is is 'sold out' and one has to find athing where userbbase <X
Mimi wrote:
Did EBG write all of those.
That's not very nice.
Hipstamatic (autocorrects to Hips Fanatic) is a far cooler app for adding filters and whatnot.
Instagram has many uses though.
Instagram has many uses though.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Did EBG write all of those.
That's not very nice.
aw, sorry. They were just kind of angry.
Curiosity wrote:
Hipstamatic (autocorrects to Hips Fanatic) is a far cooler app for adding filters and whatnot.
Instagram has many uses though.
Instagram has many uses though.
that works out quite expensive, though, if you buy all of the filter packs, etc. Also, I think it is just (or primarily) for adding filters to pictures, whereas I'd say that Instagram was primarily a photo sharing app.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Grim... wrote:
£2 a month.
For that though you actually have to be providing something.
I am
Mimi wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Hipstamatic (autocorrects to Hips Fanatic) is a far cooler app for adding filters and whatnot.
Instagram has many uses though.
Instagram has many uses though.
that works out quite expensive, though, if you buy all of the filter packs, etc. Also, I think it is just (or primarily) for adding filters to pictures, whereas I'd say that Instagram was primarily a photo sharing app.
Indeed.
Plissken wrote:
kalmar wrote:
Maybe they don't like the idea that people have found a need of a way to upload and share images that isn't the way built into Facebook.
So the argument that Facebook is after their data is to use another service that is after their data (and which, by the way, doesn't offer a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does).
I'm a bit confused by the way that this is worded. Are you saying that Instagram dosn't allow its users a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does? If so, how is that, and what do you mean?
Curiosity wrote:
Hipstamatic (autocorrects to Hips Fanatic) is a far cooler app for adding filters and whatnot.
Instagram has many uses though.
Instagram has many uses though.
Nah, it's too finickity. IG transforms your imagine with the click of a button onscreen. Hipsta has you dipping back in and out of the main interface to change the film, camera etc and then it has to 'develop' the picture. It's neat but needs to be more user friendly for casual users.
lemeleme and lemecam are quite fun little apps, too.
Grim... wrote:
I am
Not you. But technically if you turned around and said the forum was being bought for a zillion pounds tomorrow the options for the users would be simple. Put up with it and stay, or piss off to your own forum. That doesn't quite apply here because this is a mini-community and not a business.
I am not opposed to someone selling their business, even if doing so radically changes or annihilates it. If you've built something up yourself, it's yours to do with as you see fit. You can sell it to a mega-corp for the money, or not. It's up to you.
All interactions online are transactional. You're getting something in return for giving something. What you're giving can be variable, be it hits to adverts that make money, demographical details that can be mined for marketing purposes (where you've inevitably given your consent, if you bother to ever read terms), or some kind of active purchasing that supports the site. You are both engaged in the transaction because you both believe that it's worth it. At any point either of you can decide to change the relationship. Websites owe users nothing, much like users owe the sites nothing. Accusations of disloyalty can be flung in both directions, but both are based upon the false premise that you're using a service out of the goodness of your heart, rather than it being useful.
Mimi wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the way that this is worded. Are you saying that Instagram dosn't allow its users a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does? If so, how is that, and what do you mean?
No, it doesn't. Simplifying massively, if you share an Instagram image via, say Twitter, you share it with the world. If you share an Instagram image via Facebook and you don't.
Erm...turns out I'm on about Instant 110. I'm sure I've had Hipstamatic do why isn't it on my phone... No, I'm thinking about the right one though, aren't I? Maybe they're made by the same people.
Ian Fairies wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Hipstamatic (autocorrects to Hips Fanatic) is a far cooler app for adding filters and whatnot.
Instagram has many uses though.
Instagram has many uses though.
Nah, it's too finickity. IG transforms your imagine with the click of a button onscreen. Hipsta has you dipping back in and out of the main interface to change the film, camera etc and then it has to 'develop' the picture. It's neat but needs to be more user friendly for casual users.
I said it was cooler, not better!
itsallwater wrote:
I don't really get what Facebook get out of the deal? I would have assumed the're big enough to build and push a far better version of such software. They already have the market share of internet users data and images (citation needed), so why pay so much for the marginal users?
My take would be: Facebook aren't particularly well set up for mobile social networking. Sure, it has native apps, but they're a bit clunky (they're mostly just web views) and it's hard to find anyone who's in love with them. Meanwhile, there are other social networks that were either accidentally perfect to use used in two minute bursts on a mobile device (Twitter) or specifically designed for that (Instagram). The general consensus seems to be that we're heading towards a world where smartphone/"post PC device" usage dwarfs PC usage (both through growth in the third world, where computers have never had a foothold, and through consumers in the first world preferring to use simpler, more reliable appliances). As we move towards that world, Facebook becomes threatened by the social networks that work better on those devices. Acquiring the competition is a sensible move, therefore, as it not only makes Facebook more credible in the new market, but also directly removes the threat.
Did Facebook overpay, though? Consider that $1bn sounds like a lot, but is actually just 1% of the expected market cap Facebook will attain when it IPOs in a few weeks. On the other hand, just last week, Instagram closed a $50m funding round with some VCs that valued the company at $500m; Facebook paid twice that days later. There is some evidence, then, that Facebook panicked (it seems likely that if Instagram was up for sale, other companies would have been sniffing around also), but also that it hasn't paid more than it can afford.
Plissken wrote:
No, it doesn't. Simplifying massively, if you share an Instagram image via, say Twitter, you share it with the world. If you share an Instagram image via Facebook and you don't.
I'm not sure that's what is meant by "privacy" in this context.
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
I'm a bit confused by the way that this is worded. Are you saying that Instagram dosn't allow its users a fraction of the privacy that Facebook does? If so, how is that, and what do you mean?
No, it doesn't. Simplifying massively, if you share an Instagram image via, say Twitter, you share it with the world. If you share an Instagram image via Facebook and you don't.
I thought you were talking about the companies in question and the sharing of user data.
But, wait - what you say is completely incorrect, anyway.
Instagram doesn't force you to share your images via Twitter or facebook or anything like that. You have to select the option to share a picture to Twitter (etc) when you upload it. On top of that, you don't even have to share them to Instagram users. There is a setting to allow you to set your account to private so that only approved users that you allow to see your pictures can view them.
I use Camera+, it has prettifying filters and lets you upload to any of the existing social thingies as well as saving it back to your photo album.
Mimi is right that the built in photo-centric and subject-centric community aspect of Instagram is what sets it apart from all these types of apps - and I suppose I can understand devotees being upset at a takeover by the evil empire, but until they actually break it or borg it there's not much point complaining.
Mimi is right that the built in photo-centric and subject-centric community aspect of Instagram is what sets it apart from all these types of apps - and I suppose I can understand devotees being upset at a takeover by the evil empire, but until they actually break it or borg it there's not much point complaining.
kalmar wrote:
I suppose I can understand devotees being upset at a takeover by the evil empire, but until they actually break it or borg it there's not much point complaining.
Kalmar, you logged into the wrong universe this morning.
Mimi wrote:
There is a setting to allow you to set your account to private so that only approved users that you allow to see your pictures can view them.
You mean... like Facebook?
I'm not sure what the default account settings are for Instagram (wild guess - auto share via Twitter), but I was more passing comment that people are bitching about Facebook for a lack of privacy via tweets and images that I can read without ever being logged into Twitter.
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
There is a setting to allow you to set your account to private so that only approved users that you allow to see your pictures can view them.
You mean... like Facebook?
I'm not sure what the default account settings are for Instagram (wild guess - auto share via Twitter), but I was more passing comment that people are bitching about Facebook for a lack of privacy via tweets and images that I can read without ever being logged into Twitter.
Not quite sure what your point is there. You said that Facebook is more 'private' with your pictures' I questioned that, you said that Instagram shares your pictures with the world, I said you were wrong on that point. I do not know about Facebook, which is why I asked for clarification. It turns out that they both have settings that allow you to only share your pictures with people you choose to share them with, which is what I was trying to figure out. Not sure what your 'You mean... like facebook?' is trying to prove
Yes, like Facebook, then. You said that Instagram was worse than Facebook in this regard. After a little discussion it turns out that it isn't. That's all.
Plissken wrote:
Mimi wrote:
There is a setting to allow you to set your account to private so that only approved users that you allow to see your pictures can view them.
You mean... like Facebook?
I'm not sure what the default account settings are for Instagram (wild guess - auto share via Twitter)
Default is set to not share. And it;s a per photo setting for every photo you upload, rather than an app setting.
As a complete aside, I find the whole notion of valuing/paying $1 billion for some photo-sharing virtual business or whatever (that's probably never made a profit?) utterly obscene. Just think of the real companies, designing and making real stuff, making real profits, in real factories and office accommodation, that such a vast sum would buy!
I mean, $1 billion...? It's just such an arbitrary, round number apart from anything else - not as though it's been meticulously costed I assume, probably because there's very little to actually cost as such?
For me, this syndrome explains much that is wrong in today's world? IMO, bullshit really does baffle brains.
I mean, $1 billion...? It's just such an arbitrary, round number apart from anything else - not as though it's been meticulously costed I assume, probably because there's very little to actually cost as such?
For me, this syndrome explains much that is wrong in today's world? IMO, bullshit really does baffle brains.
I'm right in saying Instagram is 2 years old? From $0 to $1 billion in that amount of time is ridiculous.
Captain Caveman wrote:
For me, this syndrome explains much that is wrong in today's world? IMO, bullshit really does baffle brains.
Selling stuff and really making money is soooo last century. Not selling stuff and potentially making money is where it is at now, daddio.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
I'm right in saying Instagram is 2 years old? From $0 to $1 billion in that amount of time is ridiculous.
Indeed, and it's hardly as though they've had to build, then tool up vast factories in that time either. Mind you, Facebook itself is supposed to be "worth" $500 billion or something similarly ridiculous. Pffft.
I'm minded to guess that this acquisiiton by Facebook is just to 'do something' to help justify the IPO price. From an investor point of view that 100bn valuation is always going to look pretty full, and you'll be wondering where future growth over and above that value is going to come from.
Signalling that Facebook is being acqusitive in areas where it isn't the market leader, but also saying that they're not going on a general buying spree sends out the message that A - We're going to develop in areas that we have the skills to do so and B - Buy in those aspects where we need that cohesion but don't yet have the skills.
Note also that from the point of view of this $1bn price, values-smalues. There is no cheque for $1bn being written here, probably not a cheque for $1 being written, this will all be shares issued that will dilute the current shareholding. If the message it gives out increases the IPO price by over $1bn (and we'll never know the answer to that, as the alternative reality will not exist) then Zuckerberg and co win. The current Instagram shareholders are lucky chancers.
And stop being so angry about it.
Signalling that Facebook is being acqusitive in areas where it isn't the market leader, but also saying that they're not going on a general buying spree sends out the message that A - We're going to develop in areas that we have the skills to do so and B - Buy in those aspects where we need that cohesion but don't yet have the skills.
Note also that from the point of view of this $1bn price, values-smalues. There is no cheque for $1bn being written here, probably not a cheque for $1 being written, this will all be shares issued that will dilute the current shareholding. If the message it gives out increases the IPO price by over $1bn (and we'll never know the answer to that, as the alternative reality will not exist) then Zuckerberg and co win. The current Instagram shareholders are lucky chancers.
And stop being so angry about it.
Plissken wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
For me, this syndrome explains much that is wrong in today's world? IMO, bullshit really does baffle brains.
Selling stuff and really making money is soooo last century. Not selling stuff and potentially making money is where it is at now, daddio.
Yeah, so they tell me mate, but as the dinosaur that I undoubtedly am, I'm still looking for 'real value' here as elsewhere, and can see very, very little. It all smacks of a fool's investment to me, much like gold is but even moreso in many ways (and at least gold is physical stuff that has *some* actual uses). But still, what do I know.
Mimi wrote:
Yes, like Facebook, then. You said that Instagram was worse than Facebook in this regard. After a little discussion it turns out that it isn't. That's all.
We're at cross purposes. My point is that people are bitching about Evil Privacy Killah Facebook buying Instagram. A lot of this bitching is being done on Twitter, which is pretty much wide open from a privacy point of view in a way that Facebook wouldn't dream of. It is kind of like praising Saruman for beating Sauron.
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges there Plissken.
Captain Caveman wrote:
Yeah, so they tell me mate, but as the dinosaur that I undoubtedly am, I'm still looking for 'real value' here as elsewhere, and can see very, very little. It all smacks of a fool's investment to me, much like gold is but even moreso in many ways (and least gold is physical stuff that has *some* actual uses). But still, what do I know.
Putting my serious head on, either it is a vanity investment ("chucking a billion at them because we can... bitch") or it is a buy them now before someone else does type move. Like Google bailing out YouTube.
Despite the financial crash it seems that the sport of CEO Dick Swinging is still in vogue.
The problem I think Cavey is describing is that valuations are enormously speculative and not representative of fixed, tangible assets, and demonstrable profit and performance history. That apportioning such high valuations to entities with very little to show for it is a very risky thing to do, and reminds me of the dotcom bubble that eventually burst. You have to wonder if these whizzkid startups are going to realise their alleged worth in the long term. Myspace certainly didn't.
Who cares. What the fuck is instagram?
kalmar wrote:
Again, you're comparing apples and oranges there Plissken.
Twitter and Facebook?
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
The problem I think Cavey is describing is that valuations are enormously speculative and not representative of fixed, tangible assets, and demonstrable profit and performance history. That apportioning such high valuations to entities with very little to show for it is a very risky thing to do, and reminds me of the dotcom bubble that eventually burst. You have to wonder if these whizzkid startups are going to realise their alleged worth in the long term. Myspace certainly didn't.
Yeah, precisely that mate - $1 billion is seemingly such a vast yet arbitrary, round sum afterall, as per my last post edit. This, I suspect, is rather telling, purely of itself.
nickachu wrote:
Who cares. What the fuck is instagram?
As evidenced by the fast moving thread, a lot of people here obviously care.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
The problem I think Cavey is describing is that valuations are enormously speculative and not representative of fixed, tangible assets, and demonstrable profit and performance history. That apportioning such high valuations to entities with very little to show for it is a very risky thing to do, and reminds me of the dotcom bubble that eventually burst. You have to wonder if these whizzkid startups are going to realise their alleged worth in the long term. Myspace certainly didn't.
And Friends Reunited. And Bebo. In fact, the numbers I saw re Bebo (takeover price vs sale price two years later) were the most horrific of all, but I think part of that can be put down to AOL stopping investment due to their own failings and then having to firesell it when the lack of investment bit them on the arse.
My original perception of twitter was that its just facebook status updates without anything else, and therefore a bit pointless. Its only advantage over Facebook what they it didn't require you to establish a relationship as significant as a 'friend' to read people's shit. 'Following' was a more lightweight version of the same, with a character count that encouraged brevity. I think if Facebook had had a 'subscription' mechanism from the word go, Twitter would have gained much less of a foothold.
Mr Russell wrote:
nickachu wrote:
Who cares. What the fuck is instagram?
As evidenced by the fast moving thread, a lot of people here obviously care.
And, even if they didn't, it would still be a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say on a discussion forum.
Page 2 of 3 [ 142 posts ]