Combatmedic870: ....People....they didnt really pay 1 billion for the ONLY the app....Its for the app and USERS of the app. The first day the app was released on android it downloaded by a million users....
I've created my fair share, but that's a pointless comeback.
Politicians trumpet the value of wealthy entrepreneurs for their ability to create jobs. In proportion to the earnings and the value of the company, facebook has created very few jobs.
A larger percentage of the jobs in America are created by people and small companies you've never heard of. Many photographers like myself create jobs by hiring assistants, studio and office managers, accountants, Photoshop artists printers...just because were not billionaires does not mean we don't create jobs!
I'm just saying for the amount of investemtn facebook just made, it's not going to create many jobs. If thet billion was instead invested in a totlay new venture, housands of jobs could have been created.
mosman: After a quick flick through the comments, it appears there's an awful lot of people failing to see the writing on the wall.
Ignore the hype and vitriol for a moment and think of the impact this style of image taking and distribution is doing, and is going to do:- to professionals in the industry across all genres,- the company that makes your favorite PP program,- the manufacturers that rely on the margin from P&S and entry level DSLRs to fund the higher end models.
The cameras included in smart phones now are only a short time removed from 'traditionally' formed products that wowed people here on DPR. Throw in ongoing financial pressures and increasingly easy methods of distribution and you have a perfect storm for camera manufacturers.
Relevant to DPR and it's reader base? You bet it is.
You hit the nail on the head.
At somewhere around $35 per user, that one very expensive mailing list!
In comparison ;Elon Musk founder of Zip2corp.(sold to Compaq Computer Co.) co founder of PayPal(sold to E Bay) heads up Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp. has invested $100 million dollars to create "Space X" the first private company to launch a payload into space and return it safely to Earth. Space X has secured 4 billion in contracts to launch satellites and bring cargo to the space station. Eventually he want to launch astronauts for NASA!
WOW!...He's started a company to build space ships and go to space for one tenth of the investment that Facebook has made in a cell phone app!
For a billion dollars Zuck could have launched a new camera company building real cameras, not just an app and it's user base(a large percentage of are already facebook users!). I just don't see the value of it. That billion could have been put to better use.
How many jobs will that investment create?
XmanX: I'd like the ability to browse all apps on my phone and all websites on my computer without ever being hounded by the facebook or twitter logos.
I'm officially sick of the constant harassment by app/website designers to make me "Like" something or "Share" something. I'd like to once-and-for-all answer that with NO.
Apple should consider including these options in their Settings menu that a user can configure to never be bothered again to look at the logos of "f" and "t" in any app. I want to live a facebook-free and twitter-free online existence.
I reserve the right to revisit the issue if facebook and twitter started paying me.
for increments: Not only will people pay for content they do all the time. We pay for basic cable TV content then extra fee for special content. The full range of premium cable Tv is prety expensive, but people pay it. The fee we pay for internet or 4G does not pay for the content only the service.
When we buy a smart phone app what we are really paying for is a one time fee for access.
I use a number of fee based online services; photo and Photoshop tutorials, access to acedemic papers, investment newsletters. Many offer free basic services plus premium for a fee, like LinkdIn.
Everyone wants everything for free. (Its' really another form of greed. ) But advertising is near saturation. There is a limit to how much businesses can spend and the public can absorb. Ad supported content may soon hit a ceiling(bubble?)The economy is not growing fast enough to expand ad revenues enough.
Internet 3 will be here soon and there will be more fee based content.
Toddles: I haven't missed being on Facebook since I deleted it years ago. FB is such a site for mindless people with nothing to do. Wouldn't it be great if everyone or even a large chunk of FBers cancel FB?
They call it social networking but there isn't much socializing going on. Mostly promotional announcements, posting of religious andpolitical opnions, links to You tube videos and such. It certainly does not live up to the characterization of social networking.
So lets call it what it really is: a bullitan board. Nothing but a big bullitan board. Far better than the old text bullitan that the internt started out with. But still nothing more than just a bullitan board.
mdruziak: Funny that they didn't buy the Kodak Gallery! haha
That's their explaination of the ToS but it clearly states that they claim the right to relicense. My colleagues and I have gone over the FB ToS with an intellectual property attorney and yeah, they DO have the right to relicense because it's in the user agrement. It's just like that confusing agrement that you get with your credit cards that no one understands and everyone just goes along with it because they want the credit card...y'know that agreement that signs away your right to sue them if they screw you? No one takes them seriously.
Well the fb ToS is as nefarious as those credit card agreements. They offer the usage of the site for free under the conditions that you agree to the terms of service. The rights they claim they need are far and above what is necessary in order to display your content on fb. Why?
Just because they do not currently sell the images(as far as we know does not mean they won't at some future date. According to my legalman, they can if they want to.
Just a Photographer: 1 Billion, Isn't that a bit over the top to pay for a gadgetry app maker?Not to say that I don't like Instagram, but come on 1billion.
As nature film maker David Attenbourough always used to say, "Wherever there is something to eat, there will be something there to eat it."
Zuckerberg is like an uneducated rapper who suddenly has millions of dollars to spend so he's blowing it on sparkly shiney things..to the Zuk, Instagram is his Bling. It's his money, he can blow it anyway he likes.
@ increments...I wouldn't mind paying if I was regarded as a customer and not the product, for ad free content, if I was not required to provide completely irrelevent personal information in order to have access, if my online activites were not tracked, if no personal profile about me was being complied and shared with affilaites, if I was not expected to agree to grant the hosts unlimited usage right to my photos, if my privacy was protected...
FB does not provide ANY content, the users do.
Yes I would pay for content and in fact I actually AM paying for content elsewhere.
In one way or another we are all paying for the content we receive. In order to be heard above the cocophany of advertisments all around us, companies have to spend more money that ever for ads. Those costs get passed onto the consumer.
Offline I pay for content, I've been doing it for years..in the form of magazines and newspapers. Yes they have ads but the ads aren;t targeted specifically at me.
David Clark: Remember, if you do something online thats free, its you thats being sold....
Yep! We are not the customers, we are the product.Like cows to the slaughter, no one ever asks the cows how they would like to be cut up and eaten.
I've tried to log onto the website for major newspapers not associated with facebook, only to be asked to log in with facebook and asked for permssions to access to my profile.
Granted our concerns for our individual privacy is outside of the scop of DP reviews, but I have concerns about what these sorts of things mean to the future of intellectual property rights for photographers.
Dvlee: Wll this mean that ALL images transmitted via Instagram will now be subject to facebook's users terms of service/rights grab as the images that are posted on facebook are?
Facebook is becoming so ubiquitous that it may become impossible to share our images anywhere without being subject to facebooks terms of service! I don't use instagram, so I;m not totaly up to speed on how it works, but this whole deal sounds a bit hinky to me.
Well my question is this, will facebook terms of service apply to Instagram images that are sent by other means, including e mail?
I have not seen any reports regarding this particular issue, but if Instagram maintains a database of all the images that have been transmitted via instagram then facebook now owns it. So if it turns that FB-ToS do apply, then all the images that have already been sent via instagram and resides on it's servers might now be subject to FB-ToS
That would be a disaster!
The last thing we need is for facebook to set itself up as a stock photo business. It's already got the right to relicense billions of images that have been posted on facebook. If they should choose to exercise that right......
Wll this mean that ALL images transmitted via Instagram will now be subject to facebook's users terms of service/rights grab as the images that are posted on facebook are?
onlooker: Rubenski wrote:> Post processing this will always look fake because you miss the graduality of shooting wide open.
Wrong. These tools (that have been available in many forms for ages in Photoshop and other packages) require patience and a lot of work. Set up different distance masks (very carefully and patiently) and increase blur progressively. That way you will have graduality. Yes, it is possible, and no, it is not a "quick fix".
> these kind of tools are only made for the big crowd that will never make a really good picture anyway.
Such arrogance rarely indicates greatness, so I looked at your site. You should not be throwing stones at others.
To me doing something 'in camera' does not mean doing in camera digital processing of the raw images into stylized jpegs. To me its doing things like setting fstop, shutter speeds etc, selection of lens/zoom focal length, point of focus/hyperfocal point and depth of field,
The traditional meaning of 'in camera' also included lighting and external special fx. The point is the special effect is created at the time the exposure is taken.
I consider the built in special effects to be post processing even though they take place in the camera.
So instead of thinking of it as "in camera" perhaps it would be better to describe it as "RAW capture effects."
But Rubinski was spot on in one regard; I would rather be spending my time with camera in hand taking pictures than sitting in front of the computer doing post. I feel a greater sense of accomplishment when I get the effect I'm looking for at the moment of capture. I never use built in processing FX.
Dvlee: Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.
I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook until facebook clarifies its privacy and usage policies and removes any clauses that allow them to resell the images.
While many will say that there is no evidence that facebook is actually reselling images, through the user agreement we have all granted fb the right to do so if it should choose to expand it's business in that direction.
Given the number of images that are posted on fb, such a move would be devestating to stock photographers , and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use.
The internet and companies like facebook and Google are always changing. Even though they are not actively engaged in reselling, the potential to do so exists.
DaytonR- Stock isn't what it used to be. Everybody wants content but nobody wants to pay for it. But nobody's making millions selling books either. That market's the same as photography..everyone wants books for cheap and Amazon sells them for cheap. It's not about quality anymore, it's all about quantity. If any of my images end up in books there in the $7.99 specials a Barnes and Noble LOL!!
I have a rule...don't go to great lengths and expense for cheap stock...save that for the clients who appreciate what goes into good photography. I can knock out decent sallable stock images without breaking a sweat! If I put my all into the work I expect fair compensation. Stock is a good way to keep busy when I'm not doing something for a real paying client.
My concerns about facebook is small compared to the threat that Pinterest poses to my usage/resale earnings.
@ Martyvis...I understand what you are saying. There has always been a pro/non pro market dynamic and they were able to exist side by side. It's not the non pros that are the problem, it's facebook.
I used to make 25% of my income from stock and it provided a steady cash flow in between assignments. Now I would have to spend 100% of my time shooting stock to earn less than half what I used to.
Even if most of the content comes from non professionals, the idea of selling other peoples work and not sharing the earnings is just plain wrong. Even an amateur would be upset to learn that someone was profiting from their work without their consent and a share of the profit. I know because this happened to me before I became professional. I was not too happy seeing my photo in a magazine ad without my permission. I had originally submitted the image for magazine photo contest.
Then I learned to read the fine print before submitting or posting anything.
psilore..You are quite correct. It's out choice and as I already stated above "I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook."
But even if those of us who don't upload to facebook could potentially be impacted by the content that is uploaded by the many hundreds of thousands of talented non professional photographers who just want to share their images. THAT content could potentially undermine the value of all stock content, even that produced by professional stock photographers who do not upload to facebook.
It's not a matter of any one photographer's work being stolen. It's more a matter of the whole market for stock photography being flooded with cheap content. The stock market, which used to be lucrative, has already been undermined by royalty free and cheap content.
Svenson: Ok - I start to understand why Canon stopped at 22MP with their new 5DMKIII.In perfect conditions (studio?) you ou have an advantage of the 36MP - but on the street. Vibrance is missing, AF accuracy seems to be crucial with this amount of pixel...
@Svenson...because canon shot itself in the foot when it released the very pricey 1Ds 22mpx then shortly thereafter they gave us the 22mpx 5D for less than half the cost of the 1Ds. It turned out that many people considered the 5D superior to the 1Ds. The 5D became a big success for Canon. I don't know anyne who thought the 1Ds was worth the extra cost.
I suspect that Canon does not want to shoot itself in the foot again, so they just upgraded the 5D at the same mpx and is saving their monster mpx camera for later. I think we'll see that T4i, 7D, 60D(70D??) upgrades at the same mpx before we see somethng along the line of the D800.
I'm sure that Canon anticipated the D800 but I wonder if the price point caught them by surprise. With the 22mpx 5DIII selling for a higher price than Nikon new 36mpx D800, how will a 36+mpx Canon be priced? What will it have that will make it so special that will allow it to be priced higher than the 5DIII and be competitive against the D800?? Stay tuned
shakabra: One thing that I never ever understand in these camera reviews.....is that no one ever talks about PRINTING. I mean, you don't even need more than a 1 megapixel camera if all you do is post photos on the internet. All this tech talk and stupid arguing... and not one mention of the final output: THE PHOTOGRAPH!!! 10 years ago, no one ever argued about which film or chemicals were superior. Now look at you. You are all tech geeks yet you have all lost sight of what photography is all about. the D800 has 36 megapixels and not one mention of what the prints look like.
No one argued about which film or chemicals were superior? Then I guess you weren't really there.
The quality of images were more dependent upon the differences between film, chemical and papers than it was the cameras and lenses themselves. And anyone who wants to dispute me hasn't seen the images I shot on Technical Pan film processed in my own formulation of POTA (phenidone based) developer. The fine grain, sharpness and tonal range of images shot on a lowly Olympus OM1 produced prints of superior quality to images shot on conventional film on more expensive Nikons and Leicas.. The superior qualities of the film/chemical combination far outweighed the quality of the camera.
I was online arguing about film and chemicals before digital photography took hold. We argued alot.
gsum: I see Jessops have put the price of the D800 (not D800E) to £2599. Are they trying to commit retail suicide?
Isn't that in violation of Nikons Pro Pricing policy?