Previous news story    Next news story

Facebook buys photo sharing service Instagram for $1bn

By dpreview staff on Apr 9, 2012 at 17:51 GMT

Just as Instagram looked to expand its ambitions as a mobile photo sharing network, it has been bought by Facebook for $1bn. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says his company 'need[s] to be mindful about keeping and building on Instagram's strengths and features, rather than just trying to integrate everything into Facebook.' He stresses the importance of growing the service independently of Facebook and voices support for Instagram's recent expansion to easily share images from other Apps, such as Hipstamatic and Camera Awesome.

CNN's Money site provides the interesting reminder that the sale price is nearly 30 times the amount Yahoo paid for Flickr, back in 2004.


Facebook Press Release:

MENLO PARK, CALIF.—April 9, 2012—Facebook announced today that it has reached an agreement to acquire Instagram, a fun, popular photo-sharing app for mobile devices.

The total consideration for San Francisco-based Instagram is approximately $1 billion in a combination of cash and shares of Facebook. The transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions, is expected to close later this quarter.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, posted about the transaction on his Timeline:

I'm excited to share the news that we've agreed to acquire Instagram and that their talented team will be joining Facebook.

For years, we've focused on building the best experience for sharing photos with your friends and family. Now, we'll be able to work even more closely with the Instagram team to also offer the best experiences for sharing beautiful mobile photos with people based on your interests.

We believe these are different experiences that complement each other. But in order to do this well, we need to be mindful about keeping and building on Instagram's strengths and features rather than just trying to integrate everything into Facebook.

That's why we're committed to building and growing Instagram independently. Millions of people around the world love the Instagram app and the brand associated with it, and our goal is to help spread this app and brand to even more people.

We think the fact that Instagram is connected to other services beyond Facebook is an important part of the experience. We plan on keeping features like the ability to post to other social networks, the ability to not share your Instagrams on Facebook if you want, and the ability to have followers and follow people separately from your friends on Facebook.

These and many other features are important parts of the Instagram experience and we understand that. We will try to learn from Instagram's experience to build similar features into our other products. At the same time, we will try to help Instagram continue to grow by using Facebook's strong engineering team and infrastructure.

This is an important milestone for Facebook because it's the first time we've ever acquired a product and company with so many users. We don't plan on doing many more of these, if any at all. But providing the best photo sharing experience is one reason why so many people love Facebook and we knew it would be worth bringing these two companies together.

We're looking forward to working with the Instagram team and to all of the great new experiences we're going to be able to build together.

Comments

Total comments: 144
12
JLorf
By JLorf (Apr 14, 2012)

I don't care how much they paid for it as I will NEVER upload an image to the site anyhow! See the following to read what you all agreed to when you checked the little box agreeing to FB's end user agreement.

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). "

And now they bought a company to store all of your work to use as they please, royalty free!

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Apr 13, 2012)

I think this is a fake price. They just say that the deal was made for $1B, while it is max. $100m. From that lie win both FB and Instagram.
FB shows how rich and cool they are, how much $ they invest in development, new technologies, how deep they are into photography etc. Instagram owners/investors show what a good, big, important, successfull job they did.

It is something like fake selling paintings made of paint, sprayed on the canvas from the bowel, for $ millions inside a group of people, raising the price in each transaction, unless one off-site idiot buys this painting.

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Apr 16, 2012)

Yes of course. It's totally legal to lie about that. To the customers, the employees, the government, the media and future stockholders.

Of course.

0 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (Apr 11, 2012)

Can someone please tell me what it is that makes this company worth $1B to anyone?

0 upvotes
crisno1
By crisno1 (Apr 12, 2012)

When I was introduced to instagram, I said this app will grow fast and kill facebook. I guess Suckerman heard me, and decided to take charge.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mosman
By mosman (Apr 11, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 11, 2012)

You hit the nail on the head.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't know, Chef Boyardee hasn't run fine cuisine chefs out of business. Neither has fast food. From what I've seen typical Instagram pictures aren't even "fast food" quality even on a good day.

Also, please forgive me for being petty, I don't mean to pick on you personally and I mean that--but people, can we PLEASE stop mis-using it's? I know "grammar Nazis" are annoying, & I'm not trying to be one of those, but it's also annoying to keep seeing this mistake over & over and not say something about it because of concerns that people will think you're being a troll.

I were to type or say "Insta-graham" (like graham crackers instead of GRAM like telegram), I wouldn't get upset at someone correcting me on that. I see this misuse everywhere and it is, in fact, incorrect. It's not the end of the world, but it is incorrect.

Right: "The dog wagged its tail."
WRONG: "The dog wagged it's tail."
Right: "It's time to go home."
WRONG: "Its time to go home."

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
mosman
By mosman (Apr 11, 2012)

Thanks for the lecture in its and it's. Autofill on iPad at work. Sadly, I didn't notice the error until sometime after the posting appeared and I was unable to correct the mistake.

I will sit down and write it out longhand "I must double check iPad spelling before posting" 100 times.

As for your analogy, I'm not sure it's relevant. The linkage between fine dining and fast food to a highly integrated image distribution and production chain seems tenuous at best.

I'll go and beat myself now for not picking up the error.

Oh yes, I'm a grammar Nazi, too. Just ask the kids. 👿

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Apr 11, 2012)

Ha ha ha (mosman) I understand--believe me, I make mistakes too. Once when working for an employer I was typing up their contacts list, one of their contacts was named "Leunun Sofa Factory." I typed it as "Looney Sofa Factory," ha ha. They picked on me about that for the longest time.

I don't go around "ruler slapping on the hand" every slip-up I see, especially if it seems to in fact be merely a slip-up. The thing is the misuse of it's vs its is one I see a lot, very frequently, to where I think it's actually somewhat of a trend in that people are copying each other's mistakes not realizing it's been incorrect from the start, vs it being an "iPad autocorrect" scenario such as you encountered. Again, it's not the end of the world, it's not like we're debating abortion or the death penalty, but I do think it matters in its (see, its not it's, ha ha) own way just the same.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jez EMIN
By Jez EMIN (Apr 13, 2012)

Larry,

I hate to admit it but I only learned the its and it's correct way aged 48 !

So even though I have been a perpetrator for many, many years, I commend you. It is a very popular mistake but nothing for the original poster to take personally.

Now, off to see what this Instagram is all about (and why I actually came on here in the first place !).

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Apr 11, 2012)

I don't care, I use REAL cameras to take photos & host them on PBase. Camera phones are to photography what 3 minute noodles are to cooking. Why aspire to be a fine chef, or at least a good imitation of a real one on a good day, if you're just going to eat Chef Boyardee all the time?

3 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Apr 11, 2012)

I hear ya, man! When are people gonna understand you need a REAL camera to make REAL photos!? You wanna race, you show up to the track with a Viper or 'Vette not Hyundai! PeeBase rockz too!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Apr 11, 2012)

host 'em on PBase?

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
psn
By psn (Apr 11, 2012)

I was really hoping this is an April Fool's joke... Alas, April 1st was a week ago. I'll keep using it for now but will keep a close eye to what Facebook will do with this app.

1 upvote
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (Apr 11, 2012)

Me too! I'm going to watch this with an eagle eye and slow down the instagram postings...Im really concerned about this as no doubt Path, Hipstamatic and Pinterest will come under scrutiny now from the bigger firms and at the end of the day its only about DATA! Not the users...

1 upvote
LiSkynden
By LiSkynden (Apr 10, 2012)

Nice ... i'm glad i dont have a Facebook account, or Instagram... or a smartphone.

I always wondered where FB gets their money?!?! I mean using $1billion to buy a silly app like this, they have to have a few $1billions to throw away. I DONT GET IT!

0 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (Apr 11, 2012)

Me niether -- wnat value does this thing bring that is even close to $1B.

0 upvotes
Lu Heng
By Lu Heng (Apr 10, 2012)

I have just removed my IG account. Do not want to take part in that "fun".

0 upvotes
NikonScavenger
By NikonScavenger (Apr 10, 2012)

It's amazing how people just willingly GIVE away their personal information on the internets.

Between google, FB, instagram, smartphone software spying on where you go, who you call... there is literally NO privacy out there anymore.

And we've willingly ceded all of this away. Hell, we've paid through our noses for the shiny tech gadgets that pry into our private lives on a daily basis for marketing reasons and god knows what else...

4 upvotes
JojieRT
By JojieRT (Apr 11, 2012)

take a picture, print it, and put it in that photo album you have sitting on your coffee table. problem solved.

0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Apr 10, 2012)

And by coincidence I bought a Yashica Mat and some film a while back - didn't cost $1bn though. But it gives me square pictures and that's what matters.

2 upvotes
Toddles
By Toddles (Apr 10, 2012)

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?

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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.

7 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Apr 10, 2012)

....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....

2 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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?

2 upvotes
KassB
By KassB (Apr 10, 2012)

How many jobs have you created?

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 11, 2012)

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.

4 upvotes
Sabin
By Sabin (Apr 10, 2012)

imagine how much toilet paper you can buy with 1 bn$

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 10, 2012)

But the difference is that 1 billion dollars worth of toilet paper is actually worth 1 billion dollars.

6 upvotes
WalterPaisley
By WalterPaisley (Apr 10, 2012)

Interesting what some people think of to buy with their riches.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Apr 10, 2012)

The trick would be to buy $500m worth of toilet paper, $499m worth of norovirus, and a crop-dusting plane. Profit.

0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx
By RoelHendrickx (Apr 10, 2012)

As a reply to Ashley Pomeroy:
Get our economics straight!
The $499m of Norovirus is not going to make you any profit. It's an expense, not a product.
I think $2m worth of Norovirus, the plane for $1m and $997m worth of toilet paper would be more profitable.
;-)
Roel

1 upvote
costinul_ala
By costinul_ala (Apr 10, 2012)

I refuse facebook so ....

2 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Apr 10, 2012)

People please stop having kids...And if you do, please don't give them so much pocket money.

Don't buy them so many phones and ipads with the hope that they will not reject you when they grow up.

Soon all we are going to be left with is big business chasing each other down the idiot trail for the last penny middle class parents have shoved into their kids' pockets.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
snackwells
By snackwells (Apr 10, 2012)

Please. Take your mindless blathering somewhere else, thank you.

9 upvotes
TORN
By TORN (Apr 10, 2012)

I refuse facebook so I now have to leave IG as well. Thank you facebook.

4 upvotes
CodeMonkey1012
By CodeMonkey1012 (Apr 12, 2012)

Same here. I can't stand Facebook and refuse it. I just deleted my IG account and removed the app from my iPhone.

0 upvotes
mylifeasdog
By mylifeasdog (Apr 10, 2012)

Why did Zuckerberg buy Instagram?

He could download it for free on the Apple App Store and Google Play store.

#facepalm

5 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Apr 10, 2012)

but why do we have to read this on this website..

we all heard about this on google news..yahoo..or Foxnews..

Please keep this site about photography..i mean about cameras and how to take photos..

not how to share it on social networks

4 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Apr 10, 2012)

Because interesting discussions in the comments section can.... oh wait, nevermind

0 upvotes
Dafffid
By Dafffid (Apr 10, 2012)

'No camera reviews were hurt in the posting of this story'

2 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Apr 10, 2012)

Devil's advocate view is that a lot of professional photographers have talked about how phone and Instagram photography have given them ideas and inspiration for their DSLR work.

This is coming from a person who doesn't even use Instagram (me).

Also, many photographers in certain industries are finding social networks to be absolutely integral to how they find new clients.

DPReview doesn't just have to be the domain of the pixel peeping tech geeks.

1 upvote
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Apr 11, 2012)

I agree with (Stollen1234) somewhat. I wouldn't be caught DEAD using a camera phone & posting it to Instagram. My goodness, if you have stepped up to where you have some photography skills (even if you aren't a full-blown professional) and can work a d-SLR or a mirrorless, what in the heck would you use Instagram & camera phones for? That's like a fine cuisine chef using Chef Boyardee.

2 upvotes
pabloban
By pabloban (Apr 10, 2012)

Come on, people. Get over the sum paid.

Suckerbird is FBI's and NSA's best investment.

It means nothing for them paying even 10 bilions.

They work for the elite. They print that money out of nothing. They don't care.

They just got another great source of people's private photos under their jurisdiction. And can now add them to their giant database they have on us all.

Orwell wouldn't believe, how fast his predicaments fulfilled...

11 upvotes
jannefoo
By jannefoo (Apr 10, 2012)

Yeah, Suckerberg (see what I did there lmao) is one of them lizard people. Wake up sheeple.

0 upvotes
Erik Neu
By Erik Neu (Apr 10, 2012)

In the morning

1 upvote
dodgebaena
By dodgebaena (Apr 11, 2012)

facebook, rightly or wrongly, has become the most effective tool for the West to help "oppressed" people obtain "mass" or "crowd" power to rise up against certain regimes. It's gives the mainland chinese authorities a headache, same with Putin. I billion won't buy too many fighter planes, won't cost any American lives, etc. 1B ispocket change in this scenario and it's in the best interest of Western governments to "grow" facebook. So maybe Zuckerberg got some "in kind" help (not that he needs any).

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Apr 10, 2012)

Quite amazing really $1 Billion for a mobile phone photo sharing app.

$1 billion dollars so that a friend of mine on Facebook can share to the world a picture of a dog turd that looks like the leaning tower of Pisa. It really is a crazy world and how times are changing.

5 upvotes
WalterPaisley
By WalterPaisley (Apr 10, 2012)

You mean someone else's dog shares that talent with my pooochy? Now I'll have to join FB.

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Apr 10, 2012)

They bought an app, a user base, a filter engine, and a massive database of geotagged, demographically indexed photos that reveal much about user behavior related to images. I'm not saying that's worth a billion, but it's worth a lot more than zero.

0 upvotes
SimSalaBim
By SimSalaBim (Apr 10, 2012)

I want 1 billion dollars mmwwooaaaaahhhhhh sounds familiar?? think they saw austin powers before the named their price LOL

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Apr 10, 2012)

MySpace buys Hipstamatic for $100.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 10, 2012)

$37.03 per user bought out.

.

4 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Apr 10, 2012)

lol.. imagine them sitting in a conference room.

facebook: okay.. how much money do you want
instagram: We want 1.000.000.000$,...

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
meltdown117
By meltdown117 (Apr 10, 2012)

I don't care about the Instagram... Just get rid of that stupid Timeline!!!

13 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Apr 10, 2012)

x2

0 upvotes
mbrobich
By mbrobich (Apr 10, 2012)

It's easy to spend other people's money Mr. Suckerbird !!

2 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Apr 10, 2012)

Instagram staff: 9 people
Status: $1 Billion

Eastman Kodak employees: 17,000
Status: Bankrupt

Somewhere in between is sanity.

.

28 upvotes
Toddles
By Toddles (Apr 10, 2012)

Awesome comparison in a sad economy.

0 upvotes
duartix
By duartix (Apr 11, 2012)

double LIKE!

0 upvotes
Phoque
By Phoque (Apr 10, 2012)

1 billion of market psychiatrical money.

0 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Apr 10, 2012)

Idiots. They could have downloaded it for free.

30 upvotes
suprjeff
By suprjeff (Apr 9, 2012)

there are other apps that do the same thing, but they don't have the hipster name, just use a different app.

0 upvotes
aeolos
By aeolos (Apr 10, 2012)

no there actually are no other apps that do the same thing.. there is a fine differents in their filter, they really put a lot more work in a more film like feeling and it is really instant. thats what people wanted a really really easy way to use filters and share photos.

but there could be a new instagram clone coming out. i think facebook is a huge bubble the general public who invests in the stock will lose a lot of money.
it is a bubble just like the whole us economy which is build on extreme dept.

4 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Apr 10, 2012)

It's not the app or filters (both rather ordinary), it's about Instagram's photo sharing network and its millions of devoted users. A big chunk of photos aren't even taken with their app or in fact with smartphone.

It's like photo Twitter which makes it very addictive and, IMO, much more interesting than the Twitter especially for people like me who prefer non verbal net socializing.

3 upvotes
Riprap
By Riprap (Apr 9, 2012)

I can hear a taught bubble being inflated!

1 upvote
David Clark
By David Clark (Apr 9, 2012)

Remember, if you do something online thats free, its you thats being sold....

4 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
Magnus3D
By Magnus3D (Apr 9, 2012)

A totally ridicilous amount paid for what's only a temporary hype with washed out bad looking photos of uninteresting things. Facebook made a facepalm once again..

12 upvotes
jj74e
By jj74e (Apr 10, 2012)

Actually, it's a smart move. To real photo enthusiasts/pros, it might be "washed out," and technically bad, but hey, wake up- most of the world doesn't need the best photos. It's about having fun, recording some memories, and sharing it all with friends, and if an app is getting popular with such people (who also happen to use Facebook), it makes sense to combine the two services. Even pros/enthusiasts like to have some fun sometimes- besides, many of such pictures are taken with a phone, and who's doing serious work iwth a fun? again, it's about fun, and just living the life.

However, I don't know what Facebook is trying to gain by purchasing the company- it's not like they're going to attract more users just because of it

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Apr 10, 2012)

There's a lot of excellent and unique photos on IG including many top pro photographers. Like on Twitter it depends whom you follow.

2 upvotes
PhotoTechBlog
By PhotoTechBlog (Apr 10, 2012)

When you create a multi-billion company you can make these decisions yourself. Obviously facebook has done well, and I don't see this move being a 'facepalm'.

1 upvote
Royal PITA
By Royal PITA (Apr 10, 2012)

Could be that it not what they're getting, but what they're stopping someone else getting.

2 upvotes
wcy
By wcy (Apr 11, 2012)

Agree with you Royal. IG itself is a very strong potential threat to FB or any competitor who would try to acquire it.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Apr 11, 2012)

"Could be that it not what they're getting, but what they're stopping someone else getting."

Fear is a bad adviser, because blocking a competitor (see Apple) doesn't build better products

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Apr 9, 2012)

Last I heard, company was only worth about $100K book value. Clueless Facebook therefore had seriously overpaid for it, as usual.

0 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Apr 10, 2012)

According to Tech Crunch, they only just last week successfully concluded a second round of venture-capital raising of $50 million from investors, valuing the company at $500 million on paper. This money would have gone into more infrastructure and improved network and product features etc whch would have continued their astronomical growth of 30 million users in just their first 12 months.

I'd say this forced Facebook's hand to make a move and pay twice the book value for a full acquisition of a potential serious social network competitor and absorb them. As others have said, FB could have developed their own instagram for much less, but that would leave the existing Instagram out there with a head start and growing fast with financial backing to take FB on. This move also prevents other future competitors as FB now has the Instagram head start and user base over any potential new startups and so make it much harder flor any newcomer.

2 upvotes
BobHowland75
By BobHowland75 (Apr 9, 2012)

The only two questions from a user point of view:

What are "Face-a-gram's" new terms and conditions going to be like?
(My guess: "YOU upload a photo, WE reserve the right to do whatever we want with it. Whenever. Wherever. And without paying YOU a cent.")

Is Face-a-gram going to try and sneak through your mobile phone address book and use it for marketing?
(My guess: Hell yeah!)

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 9, 2012)

What is kind of cool is that according to Wired, the employees scored big on this one, too. There are 13 regular full-time employees at instagram and they get to split $100 million based on time with the company. The CEO got $400 million and the co-founder got $100m. Investment bankers got the rest.

0 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 9, 2012)

How about buying a country, proclaiming Kingdom Of Facebookia?
In several years they could invade Twitterland... and "Like" it! :)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (Apr 9, 2012)

Humorous alternate headlines in my head:

"Facebook buys Instagram, hopes to implement new social networking interface with less color hue and more vignetting soon."

"Facebook acquires another potential mobile security weakness, pays dearly before user info is even hacked."

"Facebook buys Instagram, hopes you'll use it to post embarrassing photos yourself in sepia tones instead of boring old color."

"Facebook purchases Instagram, Zuckerberg insists 'LOL cat meme's will never be the same.'"

And so on.

Consider me not involved.

11 upvotes
XmanX
By XmanX (Apr 9, 2012)

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.

15 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 9, 2012)

You can use AdBlock and specifically block out the icons and the URLs.. works for me.

9 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 9, 2012)

Here, here!

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.

1 upvote
increments
By increments (Apr 9, 2012)

Would you rather pay to access content?

0 upvotes
Hugo600si
By Hugo600si (Apr 9, 2012)

Pay with privacy or pay with money?

I'd rather use money and have rights.

2 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Apr 9, 2012)

Jogger's right. AdBlock rules. It would be unbearable without it.

1 upvote
idbar
By idbar (Apr 9, 2012)

You can also use NoScript for the same purpose. I have both AdBlock and NoScript. NoScript is a bit more of a hassle but worth the try (no that AdBlock is allowing some pages through their "good ads" program).

Still looking for a good way to do this on my phone that doesn't require rooting and manually modifying the "hosts" file.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

@ 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.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Apr 10, 2012)

I think you guys are somewhat missing my point.

Firstly: The icons XmanX referred to i his post were actually just options to tell people about something you might like. They're optional to use and generally discreet. (Large floating social share boxes are extremely annoying.)

I hear people saying that they'd pay to go to websites if it protected their privacy, but real life doesn't seem to back that up. Sites where you have to pay for content don't tend to succeed. I suspect if you had to pay to access EVERY website you visited, you'd pretty quickly find yourself feeling restricted.

FB's model is providing a platform, rather than writing content, but the choice is the same. Nobody forces you to use it. I only commented on the post because he objected to even being given the option of pressing a button.

Is it not reasonable, that a business might ask you to recommend it if you liked it? Word of mouth is the single biggest sales driver for most businesses.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Apr 10, 2012)

use not only adblock, but also ghostery, it's simplier that noscript, and can block scripts like facebook connect, twitter button, pinterest and so on. Very handy, if only i have those on my phone.
with adblock, you block the picture, with ghostery, the script behind the button :)

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm not disputing people will pay money for content in some media. They manifestly won't on the internet though. Internet start-ups that rely on paying to access content fail as someone is prepared to offer it free.

Anyway this is all off the point of the original post of this sub-thread. That was that somehow a small facebook like button (which isn't tracking you unless you click it) was an affront on the OP's senses.

If you don't like sites with those buttons, don't use them. Don't like sites with advertising, don't use them. Yet you continue to visit DPR and I'm betting a whole heap of other sites.

If people knew that their privacy was going to be compromised this much by the internet, I doubt it would have taken off the way it did. But that ship has sailed, you either need to accept it grudgingly or not use it.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 11, 2012)

In that vein I am disturbed to see that DP Reviews has inserted a "Pin It" icon on it's pages.

If there's any site that against the interest of professional photographers, its Pinterest. DPR points out that the samples they post for our examination are not supposed to be reproduced, yet they invite everyone to pin DP Reviews to Pinterest. Once on Pinterest those images will be widely reproduced and used by others without payment or even acknowledgment of the source.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 11, 2012)

There are many web services for which people pay. At first people were reluctant to pay, but as time goes by more people will get used to paying for special content. There will always be the free aspect; the internet could not exist without it. But there is also a place for paid content. If there were a popular subscription service like facebook that didn’t come with the issues that facebook has, I would subscribe to that service. I do in fact subscribe to a similar service but they are not as large as facebook.

The premium content I pay for on the web is exactly that: "premium!" It's worth the fee, otherwise I wouldn't pay it. It's not just content, it's services too.

You say that people won't pay but what about Linkedin? For all the free porn online, people will pay for the content they want.

I think in the grander scheme of things, the amount I pay for online content is small. My monthly expenses for printed material is actually higher, but I can afford it.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Apr 11, 2012)

Yes, linkedin has a premium section. It's not used by many people at all in comparison to the free section. Without the free section it wouldn't exist.

What do you do when you join Linkedin? You give them a whole raft of personal info. Shock, horror!

You continue to ignore the points I make

1) You use plenty of sites that use your details.
2) You're not forced to visit any sites you don't want to.
3) If you're really concerned about privacy, you shouldn't use the internet at all.
4) And I can't stress this enough, A button linking to social media is not tracking you unless you have an account with the service and choose to share it.

DPR has thousands of links I've never clicked. Do I get upset that they exist, no.

They also have purchase via Amazon links, again no objection. How are they less targeted than ads on Facebook?

Finally, what does DPR choosing to use pinterest have anything to do with you? It's their decision to use it and their copyright look out.

0 upvotes
increments
By increments (Apr 11, 2012)

By the way, I believe you can add code to your pages to block pinterest posting of your photos.

Something I omitted from the previous post: I've never said there isn't a place for paid-for content, but the nature of the internet means that the vast majority (and I mean vast) will be free and will contain advertising.

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (Apr 9, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 29 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Amin Sabet
By Amin Sabet (Apr 9, 2012)

There seems to be lots of billions to go around these days for social network companies...

1 upvote
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
migus
By migus (Apr 11, 2012)

"It's his money, he can blow it anyway he likes."

Nope: None of that $ is arguably his, but rather shareholders'... Who thought that FB is like Google and Apple (real products, clear services - whether i like them or not), hence they invested :-(

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 11, 2012)

OK. Thats true. Well acvtually no. He's making this investment ahead of the IPO, he's still in control of the most of facebooks assetts. That the thing about holding shares...as long as there's someone who has the majority, or a controling percentage of the shares, that person is in control of how money is spent, investments the company makes, etc.

AFter the IPO, then he'll be accountable to the investors.
It seems reckless and irresponsible.

I agree on one thing: investors in facebook are really investing in thin air.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 9, 2012)

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.

4 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 9, 2012)

good old email works for me

3 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 9, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
Markintosh
By Markintosh (Apr 9, 2012)

Goodbye, Instagram:(

2 upvotes
mdruziak
By mdruziak (Apr 9, 2012)

Funny that they didn't buy the Kodak Gallery! haha

1 upvote
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 9, 2012)

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......

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 9, 2012)

They don't have the right to resell or relicense your own photos. They have the right to store and display them. Flickr, Smugmug and any other site that you want to display your photos must ask for the same rights. You are telling them they can display your photos until you delete them from your account.

1 upvote
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Apr 10, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Apr 9, 2012)

Shoot.... I need to come up with some idea that someone else has already done, so I can sell it to facebook. I'll take 100 mil, don't even need a billion.

0 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (Apr 10, 2012)

No one will take you seriously if you price something at $100 million. Not Facebook, not even government.

2 upvotes
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (Apr 9, 2012)

Second bubble ready to explode again....

Onemillion for this thing

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (Apr 9, 2012)

Is that a Dr Evil one million? One billion, with a b.

2 upvotes
Prognathous
By Prognathous (Apr 9, 2012)

Why would anyone want to waste time sharing pictures using a service which can't be accessed from a PC?

And what Instagram feature exactly can't Facebook implement themselves for 1/1000 of the cost? They may be paying for the Instagram user-base, but it's not like their own user-base is so small that they can't become Instagram-killers as soon as they have comparable features.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
9 upvotes
maurormatos
By maurormatos (Apr 9, 2012)

They payed for the user-base, that's for sure.
But they also payed for que potential growth of users this service can afford to the facebook own base.

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Apr 9, 2012)

You just show that you don't understand social media. Zuckerberg and his team are some of the smartest people. You can be sure they do not throw money at something that isn't worth the investment.

0 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (Apr 9, 2012)

really? A frikkin Billion!!

0 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (Apr 9, 2012)

1 billion?!?! the world has gone mad

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Apr 9, 2012)

If you have many billions then you spend billions on things other people wouldn't normally spend a lot of money on. A company is worth what someone is willing to pay. I guess that means instagram is now worth a billion dollars.

2 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Apr 9, 2012)

Can someone explain to me how this company is worth $1 billion?

1 upvote
Photato
By Photato (Apr 9, 2012)

User base.

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Apr 9, 2012)

How is facebook worth tens or even hundreds of billions? These are all very popular brands right now. Will they still be popular in 5 years? Maybe? Maybe not.

3 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (Apr 9, 2012)

'User Base' is such a freakin marketing term....

They forget that in all those user bases people pop-up there are many, many doubles. FB thinks they can milk all of those users for full?

I don't think so..... They pay way too much for what they think somebody's personal information is worth.

0 upvotes
migus
By migus (Apr 11, 2012)

remember 2nd Life and all its ooopsla... the Future of Internet... user base etc...? No...? I thought so.

Monetizing eyeballs and userbases is much harder than the pundits and analysts think

0 upvotes
Peanut88
By Peanut88 (Apr 9, 2012)

Of course FB can pay such OUTRAGEOUS price for the buyout !

After the IPO, FB can even provide $100 notes as toilet paper for her employees to use in the toilets.

But woes betide those who bought the shares as it WILL drop steeply at sometime in the future.

That is a promise !

2 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (Apr 9, 2012)

You know that FB is Internet Bubble 2.0 don't you?

I see many things happening now that I also saw happening around 1999/2000... and again its all build on quicksand.

3 upvotes
migus
By migus (Apr 11, 2012)

this 1B$ price for an arguably obscure app creates a dangerous precedent across the hi-tech markets... rising expectations and prices like the tide all the boats!

stuff bubbles are made of...

0 upvotes
Total comments: 144
12