IMO its a different tone. The first says "no. well... maybe..." [I don't want to undercut the value of the property] whereas the other says "yes. well... maybe..." [I don't want to appear unappreciative of the resources of the company that owns mine].
Fair! :) I see how you read it that way; to me perhaps is corporate speak for a noncommittal yes, and eventually is a way of making it even less committal by specifying a long timeline. I mean, anything could happen eventually, it just depends on when you mean.
NYT "journalists" do not care if the drivel they produce even makes sense, they only care to impart a tone.
In this instance, they desired to use this as a setup for a confrontational dynamic between Zuckerberg and the original founders, even though they essentially are saying the same thing.
Z: Look, I don't give a fuck, but the boys'll feel better.
A: Fuck their feelings!
Z: [Brian], we're a team.
A: A team? You guys are fucking insane. I'll go back to the Valley, I'll [create messaging apps]. It can't be like this.
Z: It is. I'm sorry, but it is. It's ugly, but it's necessary.
A: I became a [developer] to put away dealers and criminals, not to be one.
Z: You sound just like me. I know what you're going through and feeling. You're scared.
A: I'm not.
Z: Yes, you are. Everyone goes through that the first time. I did. The sooner you match what's in your head...with what's in the real world...the better you'll feel.
Z: In this business...you gotta have dirt on you to be trusted. When all this is behind you, a whole other world will open up for you.
This story focuses on the Instagram founders. By staying 6 years, they've probably already received all compensation related to the original acquisition, so they're only "saying no" to continued salaries/management-incentives – not "$850M".
A bit of math: $3MM x 5% annual return = 150K. On top of that, you could start spending the principal when you get older. Compare that to median household income of US of $60K.
That is assuming no interest rate, and that the economy keeps going the way it is going. Also, that is before capital gains tax and/or income tax. Plus it assumes that the economy stays the way it is right now.
And it's easy to look at the poor founders and forget that if you're going to talk about their humanity, then it's pretty crazy to then ignore the fact that they signed a deal to sell all of their employees to Mark Zuckerberg, and not only that but they did it on Valentine's Day weekend.
He walked away from $850M. How many of his employees walked away from money and a job they previously liked to get out of that situation?
Side note: For anyone interested, the third picture down[1] in the article is a fairly high resolution photo of a computer monitor where you can see Xcode and some very neat Objective-C code.
Heh. The "shouldShowAlertForRequest" function is checking if a userInfo.message key equaling "Not authorized to view user". I would have expected something a little less dependent on a string isEqual check against an English phrase.
ASIHTTPRequest is one of those libraries that seem cool and easy, but lack a formal description on how to handle non-succesful paths. It likely just ends up there with generic error, and there is no way to check for a specific condition unless you use [isEqual:] on one of non-standard userInfo keys you found experimentally. Moreover, that string could go from a server error response, not from a request library. It is all text down the way due to how web is designed. Nothing here that would not pass a review, I think.
I wonder when this picture was taken. The iPhone design in the simulator, the old Gmail favicon, the old OS X scrollbars all indicate this being several years old.
Wouldn't be surprised if this code has been rewritten multiple times since.
Not necessarily; for the same reason many companies haven't jumped on Swift (specifically, not wanting to run all your hundreds of thousands of lines of code through a potentially buggy translator all the time), people didn't immediately jump onto ARC either. If I recall, that migration was far from painless. I remember some serious regressions introduced when I bit that bullet. Since all your code changed at once, tracking it down was hardly entertaining. IMO could have been anywhere from 2012 to 2013...
This code also appears not to be using automatically synthesized properties. On the left screen, they're directly accessing Ivars and their Ivars have trailing underscores rather than leading (the default when synthesized). I suppose they could be doing this anyways, though it wouldn't exactly be standard industry practice.
On the right Xcode screen, though, the code does use property syntax, so potentially ARC, although one doesn't imply the other.
Let's see - the Simulator is running, at the latest, iOS 6. As such it was probably taken before iOS 7 GM (September 18, 2013). Based on the scroll tracks on Xcode, it also looks like it was running Snow Leopard; Lion was released in Mid-2011, so maybe even earlier.
Between iOS and macOS, and given the acquisition was in 2012, I'd imagine these photos were taken around then.
One thing omitted from the Instagram genesis story is that they effectively stole the Hipstamatic "filters" feature and added a basic timeline a la Twitter. Sharing to Twitter fueled their growth from that point. And the rest is history!
Around the same time as these there was another app that made you drag a depiction of your photo around a mock darkroom to "develop" it with those "filters".
Wasn’t that the app that had the genius idea to make your photos more “important“ by charging you an in app purchase for “film“ so you would only take pictures of things that mattered?
I’ve made some comments here previously about how Facebook has been ruining Instagram by making it into Facebook, and it looks like the founder agrees.
Facebook would have leveraged its user base and clout to smother them in the crib.
This is why they ought to be one of the first targets for anti-trust regulation. Any company that can leverage its market size to kill competition, irrespective of the quality of their product, needs to be taken down a peg.
Google and Amazon should be close behind. And Apple needs to be put on notice.
It's not even that those 3 companies are bad actors in themselves (thought they are and aren't in various respects). It's that their investors need to know that lock-in and megalomania as business strategies aren't acceptable.
While you're not wrong from a regulatory standpoint, I think consumer product-wise both Instagram and Snapchat were among the strongest challengers to Facebook as far as insurgent social media networks went. If they had merged- well, the leadership would be dysfunctional, but it would have been very entertaining to see Facebook on the defensive.
> I think consumer product-wise both Instagram and Snapchat were among the strongest challengers to Facebook as far as insurgent social media networks went.
Maybe. I feel like one of the issues with a lot of start-ups is that the engineers who build them and happen on the ideas don't have the business instincts to outmaneuver bigger, well-funded challengers. And when they bring on VC funding or people into their companies who do have those skills, they inevitably push them to the same sorts of unfriendly monetization and invasive schemes that the big players have. Very few people have the political acumen to tell investors to STFU the way people like Jobs or Bezos were able to, so they're just open to predation by VCs.
I'm not sure that Facebook using Instagram as a way to funnel people back to Facebook is a great strategy. Companies need to be willing to cannibalize themselves or someone will do it for them.
I don't know if Zuck had the foresight at the time, but Instagram has obviously been an amazing hedge against apps like Snapchat. People like Instagram and Snapchat partly because they are less formal than Facebook, most users don't even know that Facebook owns Instagram, my girlfriend is always shocked (and a bit annoyed) when I tell her.
I think it'd be smart to simply enhance Instagram's ad platform and be willing to cede Facebook MAU over to Instagram, at the end of the day the dollars all go to the same account.
If people start to become dissatisfied w/ Instagram because of "Facebook-ification" that may open up a market for a new competitor.
I don't use Facebook so I can't vouch based on my own usage, but based on conversations w/ her she's been dissatisfied with Facebook for quite some time. She still checks it every day (this is the power of Facebook) but feels compelled to because it's the best way to discover events. I'd bet she spends more time on Instagram but Facebook is right up there.
Other than that she uses Group Me, which is basically a big chatroom app, it can get overwhelming though and from what I know she's muted the chats.
"Companies need to be willing to cannibalize themselves or someone will do it for them." --> This. exactly what Steve Jobs said when the iPhone was launched and there were questions about if the iPhone would cannibalize the iPod.
"Oh no, a more expensive, higher-margin product that we own will cannibalize a less expensive, lower-margin product that we own." -- nobody ever
This kind of "cannibalization" is a modest tactical concern about the details of your financial forecast. If someone cannibalizes their more expensive, higher-margin products with a less expensive, lower-margin product, strategically and intentionally as part of a big plan, then quote them as a visionary.
That'd be more convincing if they had any really dynamic, powerful product lines within Mac. Given how many Mac skus are in danger of disappearing, it looks a lot more like neglect for a company that makes like 95% of its revenue through iOS and basically keeps Macs alive as a dev tool for iOS.
Isn't that part of the cannibalisation ?
For instance their push for the iPad Pro killed a lot of their own desktop sales I think.
It's often overlooked because the iPad is not squarely a desktop replacement, and compared to the iPhone it's small potatoes. But it still sells a ton more than the Mac.
I mean, Kodak invented the digital camera, said it was too expensive to ever be viable, and then let it kill them because film was their "high margin" cash cow.... It happens. Short term blinds long term more often than you would think.
> I don't know if Zuck had the foresight at the time, but Instagram has obviously been an amazing hedge against apps like Snapchat.
I wish all of us have the "foresight" to give away a "free" data-security VPN app to "protect" browsing and keep the user "safe". You can then surreptitiously use the traffic to for competitor intelligence and buy them off [0].
I came from the context of data compression apps (worked on one). Before the Onavo acquisition FBs internet.org was on full blast. Made sense FB would want to incorporate compression with it. Looks like it was just a smoke screen.
Onavlo from the get-go looked like a data harvesting operation though. The app was clunky at best, the compression lacking.
> I'm not sure that Facebook using Instagram as a way to funnel people back to Facebook is a great strategy
Nit, this strategy seems to have failed—alternatively they’re just changing instagram to be more like facebook (ads, no timeline control, messaging and stories).
I saw some usage data in a quartz article, that I can’t find, earlier this week. Facebook was the most popular social media platform across teenagers, millennials, generation x and baby boomers.
The real interesting data was in teenagers though, their most popular platform is Snapchat, but none of the platforms had managed to make more than 40% of teenagers create an account with them.
I think this is interesting because it shows that Facebook isn’t really sucking that much worse than Instagram and that Instagram isn’t going to save Facebook on its own.
From a more anecdotal perspective, I think the integration was smart. I’m not very active on social media, but I do use Facebook to arrange events with my friends that live in multiple cities. Because I see people sharing Instagram posts on Facebook through the integration, I’ve considered creating an account. Of course I’ve also considered leaving the platform because Facebook keeps doing the wrong thing.
I'm guessing that data was based on simply having an account? Because I feel like teenagers all have a Facebook account, but few actually use it with any frequency.
It was, twitter, Instagram and Facebook were lower than 30% and Snapchat was around 40%. For teenagers.
For millennials Facebook was above 80% with Instagram and Snapchat sitting above 60% and twitter somewhat lower.
I mean, having an account isn’t as interesting than usage, but when less than 30% of teenagers have an account, they probably aren’t using it a whole lot.
I wonder where they went though, the article didn’t say anything about that. Discord maybe?
> I think this is interesting because it shows that Facebook isn’t really sucking that much worse than Instagram and that Instagram isn’t going to save Facebook on its own.
I think this is a stellar observation. Fb, right now, is only a dominant force for users of age 30+ and the battle for the next generation(s) is just starting out. Instagram does show the most significant growth but isn't a clear winner, yet.
FB is a dominant force for millennials and up, but Instagram is also really strong in the millennial group.
What was interesting was that none of the existing social networks had much of a presence with teenagers. I mean, if you’ve gotten less than 30% of teens to even create an account, are you even in the run?
Because I see people sharing Instagram posts on Facebook through the integration, I’ve considered creating an account
---
It's been possible to share directly to Facebook for a long time - the change was that the facebook posts stopped indicating the photos were from instagram. There used to be links and references back, but now they seem native.
One could argue that this could have privacy benefits (i.e. you don't have direct access to their instagram profile from facebook anymore), but in any case it's part of Facebook wanting Instagram to fuel native Facebook use.
>I saw some usage data in a quartz article, that I can’t find, earlier this week. Facebook was the most popular social media platform across teenagers, millennials, generation x and baby boomers.
It's really surprising to me. I don't see anyone around me using Facebook (or only to meme on large private groups). Messenger is still prevalent but more for legacy reasons than anything else and can be displaced. It reminds me of MSN messenger. Wizzz!
>'m not sure that Facebook using Instagram as a way to funnel people back to Facebook is a great strategy
It's a stupid strategy. All my friends (early 20s) are hardly active on Facebook, if at all and instead prefer the likes of Instagram and Snapchat for a simple reason: you can actually share your life with your friends and see theirs.
Speaking for myself, I hardly care about my Facebook account. My feed is plastered with garbage content and tired memes. I understand why they made the shift to being a content-consumption platform but it seem very short-sighted given that the content is low-quality, redundant, and seriously getting boring now.
I wager that people, like myself, are looking for an actual online social network. That's why I like Instagram, I can actually see videos and photos of my friends, whether it is celebrating their birthday, sightseeing, dancing at a party, or simply going through the grind of everyday life.
Not being a product-visionary, I cannot tell what drives Facebook to adopt this strategy but I find it puzzling that they could fail to understand that my demographic is leaving Facebook (in terms of engagement) because it is hardly social anymore. In fact, it is more akin to a worse 9Gag/Reddit/Buzzfeed mashup, with the occasional aunt or elderly family friend sharing some obscure article using CAPS LOCK.
I don't remember seeing anyone I know publish a status or a photo album in the past... what, three or four years?
> think it'd be smart to simply enhance Instagram's ad platform
The amount of ads has exploded over the past few months, it has made the product far less enjoyable for me. I don't mind ads but it bother me that they disguise it as content in your feed.
>If people start to become dissatisfied w/ Instagram because of "Facebook-ification" that may open up a market for a new competitor.
I think Snapchat would be in a nice position to take-over. I do prefer Instagram over it, but at this point I'm just desperate for a platform that doesn't sucks or isn't headed that path.
This comment seems to be all about your network. Just because your network on IG is different from your network on FB doesn't mean that the platform is fundamentally different. I'm ~15 years older than you, and was in college when FB came out. Hence, almost all of my friend are on FB. On FB, I regularly see photo albums and status updates.
I enjoy IG, but I see just as many obnoxious posts with 20 lines of .
.
.
.
.
.
.
so a boring post can contain 30 lines before 500 hashtags you don't care about and will never click on. And I will never want to watch a video on FB or on IG, so the platform doesn't matter.
If anything, it sounds like a more common usage of IG is to follow "influencers" which is code for "people you don't care about". Again, garbage in, garbage out.
It sounds like you've followed crappy people on FB, and that colors your view of the platform. The same way I've never been able to make Twitter work for me. It's not always about the platform.
>On FB, I regularly see photo albums and status updates.
I don't disagree with you as much as you think. That's my point, no one in my extended circles of friends actively uses Facebook. I only follow a couple pages but my feed is 90% recommendations from "Pages I might like" and the rest are likes or comments on content my friends follow.
Yes, you could say "you have the wrong friends" but I will counter that "maybe" they consciously made the decision to optimize for engagement and that the feed curation reflects that: over-exposing third-party content over the one produced by your social network.
And maybe we are using two different websites, it's not impossible that Facebook would turn into a different product depending on your age and location.
I suspect you might be in the opposite situation wrt. Instagram. I have never seen a single post from "influencers" since I don't follow any, that is to say beside the promoted content that is being shoved down my throat since a few months.
>like a more common usage of IG is to follow "influencers"
The bulk of the usage around me seem to be Instagram stories. People still post photos but now the trend is to put them+videos in your story, sometimes along with polls, weird filters, or Q&A (you have a little box to reply). It's actually pretty fun to use!
> my girlfriend is always shocked (and a bit annoyed) when I tell her.
I think it is remarkable that this experiment was repeatable.
Zuckerberg has hit upon an amazing strategy in a world where almost no one cares where the money goes: when a platform is dying, buy a new one relatively quietly, ferry customers over to the new platform. Rinse, repeat.
Facebook is Zuck’s baby. He has spent years working day and night to build it. Instagram and WhatsApp are the adopted children. Children that would otherwise eat his baby’s lunch.
Ceding to instagram would mean to acknowledge that Facebook has failed. Their stock ticker says FB. The hordes of employees working 100 hour weeks with million dollar RSUs would feel like the Facebook isn’t king anymore. They can’t be drunk on the kool-aid anymore?
Agreed. That's something they'll have to learn. Media empires have no problem presenting a different face and pushing different political views via different outlets. Full assimilation of the Instagram brand has negligible benefits and severe risks.
That's an interesting question! For $2500, I would be happy to curate a post for my 17,000 Instagram followers featuring your question in the text of a post of myself near a slightly off-trail vista at a remote yet recognizable exotic location.
More ads, more "influencers" doing it professionally, more people sharing text-based images and motivational quotes and memes, older crowd base of users, timeline now filtered by algorithm and not sequentially.
> timeline now filtered by algorithm and not sequentially
Yep. It annoyed me to no end to learn that I had missed a bunch of images posted by a friend because they were never surfaced to me. It turns out my rampant liking (it's super easy with the double-tapping) of someone who burst-post(s) suddenly made me seem like I was a "fan" of theirs. In reality, I just double-tap everything.
> As Instagram kept on growing, Mr. Zuckerberg believed there were ways it should help Facebook grow and improve Facebook’s “user engagement.” That included small tweaks, like automatically sharing Instagram “Stories” videos to Facebook without clear signs indicating the videos were taken on Instagram.
That's a little sneaky. I had started to notice more stories when I opened FB, and it was always the people I'm also friends with on Instagram. I hadn't realized that they may be coming from Instagram.
> Earlier this year, Facebook also removed a shortcut link to Instagram from its “bookmarks” menu inside the Facebook app, a small but significant source of traffic that flowed from Facebook to Instagram.
What would the point of this be? Why would FB want to shut off traffic to another one of their properties?
> What would the point of this be? Why would FB want to shut off traffic to another one of their properties?
They make waay more money off of facebook ads than they do from instagram ads. And they're seeing people dumping Facebook in favor of just using Instagram. They're trying to staunch the bleed.
Second-to-last paragraph really makes the article:
> And their departure, despite its suddenness, does require some perspective. Both Instagram founders stayed on for six years after being acquired — much longer than entrepreneurs usually do after selling their company and long after they had received their full payout in stock.
Good for Zuckerberg. He bought it, he owns it, and he can do whatever he wants with it. I don’t get the sympathy for the Instagram founders. They sold it and made a quick fortune. Detach, drop out, and have some fun.
reply