No One Gets Out of Here Alive

I'm mystified as to why Instagram is worth a billion dollars (of money), but then I guess I don't understand why Facebook has a billion dollars to pay for it, either. Old guy syndrome. Kids these days! Newfangled coddleypoo! I need to learn how to go "humph."

PetaPixel had sufficient fortitude to test what would happen if some iconic photos got Instagrammed. As Chad Thompson, who passed this link along to me, said, "Oh, the horror!"

I've been liking PetaPixel lately. It feels vaguely TMZ-ish, somehow, but then I find it entertaining too. I mean, how can you not like a slow-motion video of faces being blasted by air?

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Hugh Crawford: "A billion dollars only seems like a lot of money when you don't have 17 billion dollars.

"Software and web companies get bought for one of two reasons: 1) because it's the fastest way to acquire some technology and a bunch of engineers actively developing that technology and maybe some infrastructure; 2) because it's the fastest way to acquire a bunch of users who don't want to switch platforms (a.k.a. lock in), and simultaneously eliminate competition.

"Instagram is not worth a billion dollars for reason one. Some talented developers could clone it in a week, and Facebook has infrastructure up the wazoo, so I would have to say it's for reason two.

"I would say that the billion dollars valuation is because Facebook has a billion dollars it has nothing else to do with. Facebook rightly feared that Apple might buy Instagram and own a gateway to Facebook. Just because Apple is so busy trying to kill Google doesn't mean they don't have the time to eat Facebook's lunch too. I'm sure Instagram was playing Apple, Google, and Facebook against each other, and all three of them could come up with a billion on a moment's notice.

"Also, spending a billion on Instagram will probably (looks like it did already) bump Facebook's stock up a billion, effectively making it cost free to Facebook, or at least to Mark Zuckerberg who can pretty much do anything he wants with Facebook."

Comments

[Phil]

The word "crappyfier" spontaneously came to my mind when I finally had a look at Instagram...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"I'm mystified as to why Instagram is worth a billion dollars (of money), but then I guess I don't understand why Facebook has a billion dollars to pay for it, either. "

Amen, brother!

[jr cline]

I did enjoy seeing the slow-mo faces blown with air earlier today. lol

[Dave]

Petapixel Instagrammed those photos because the editors knew it would result in myriad links and tons of comments. (It worked!)

[Tim]

The trouble with that article is the superficiality of the comparison. Don't knock it until you've compared your Sutro with your Hudson filters, because therein lies *choice* and thus the potential for art.

One wouldn't believe a rant against black&white film that fails to name the differences between AgfaPan 25 and FP4+ and Tri-X now, would one?

[Steve Jacob]

Yep, count me in the old codgers club.

We had the internet bubble, now we have the drivel bubble. Eventually everyone will get bored and no-one will get any responses to their posts and we will settle back to a discerning normality and move on.

I have to say, Twitter is probably the most aptly named app ever. Unless they had called it Twaddler.

[Derek Lyons]

I found the PetaPixel post on Instgram to be both unenlightening and uninteresting - I mean, who exactly is surprised when a photograph from one style is (deliberately) badly reworked in another and comes out looking nothing like the original?

You don't like Instagram? There's no problem there, different strokes for different folks and all that. But if you have to resort to making stuff up to express your dislike... That speaks more about the writer than the tool. There's no tool out there, regardless of price, that can't be used to make a bad photograph (or make a good photograph worse). That doesn't mean the same tool can't be used for wonderful things as well.

[Earl Dunbar]

OK. Coddleypoo is now my favourite word. Totally new to me, but I am so glad I read TOP. Well worth the increase in vocabulary, plus more!

[NucularHolyWarrior]

You do not even know that you are a future millionaire yet ;-).

[Sven W]

People often focus on the photo-filters aspect of Instagram, but it's real strength (apparently - I don't use it) is to upload and share images.

One of the main uses of FB is to upload and share images (apparently - I don't use it ;). FB saw Instagram as a major competitor and therefore bought it.

[Peter Croft]

Yeah, I'm liking PetaPixel too. A lot of it just washes by, but there's always something interesting and they sure get a lot of stuff.

I sent them a Google Earth shot I'd found a few weeks ago that I felt was worthwhile. They didn't use it, but at least they emailed me back and said "Thanks for sharing", which made me feel I hadn't wasted my time.

[Ed]

I like the slow mo video (and I hope no girls where harmed during the taking but they looked shaken and stirred but allright in the after shots)....and thanks for pointing me to the site....

Greetings, Ed

[Dave P]

Me too!
I guess the 'insta (nt)' is the focus? I take the picture, ten seconds later it is on the web, warts and all? That's the only aspect that makes sense to me.
Photoshop? Correcting it? Too much like hard work

[Ben]

In response to Hugh's well-reasoned explanation, statistically, the vast majority of Instagram users will already be Facebook users, so it even rules out reason two, to an extent.

Essentially, Facebook were buying Instagram for the brand, the archive of published content and maybe the ability to shut it down, so they can just get people doing the same thing with the Facebook camera app.

[robert e]

"Software and web companies get bought for one of two reasons..."

A third reason (which has nothing to do with Instagram): To protect a buyer's business model. For example, Apple had to buy Lala in 2009 because it threatened to disrupt iTunes' revenues (Lala was about to release an iphone app that allowed users to stream and cache music at ten cents a track.) Apple spent millions to save billions. That it acquired thousands of users, as well as engineers with cloud storage and delivery experience, was a modest bonus. The music licenses were non-transferrable, and both app and service were quickly killed and buried. Lala was losing money and was cheap, and apparently Apple decided that buying and killing it was better than letting it fall into the "wrong" hands.

*Yes, I'm a disgruntled former Lala user.

[hugh crawford]

Ben :
"In response to Hugh's well-reasoned explanation, statistically, the vast majority of Instagram users will already be Facebook users, so it even rules out reason two, to an extent."

That's just the point. Apple or Google or that company that Bill gates used to run could buy the Instagram platform and redirect all those users to something other than Facebook.

The holy grail of social networking companies is to reach the tipping point where everybody you know is in the network, and the thing they fear most is that another company will reach that tipping point. This was a defensive move more than anything else.

The funny visual effects are irrelevant to the value of Instagram other than as a faddish lure (brilliantly executed) to the early users.

[David Vatovec]

Isn't Instagram free?

[Mike Johnston]

"Isn't Instagram free?"

Apparently not if you want the whole company.

Mike