Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#61

Post by hrktb »

aetherson wrote: post #58
victor106 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

They cannibalized their Mac Pro to the point it was going to disappear.

I genuinely think Apple cares more about competition and middle/long term revenue than artificially keeping alive high margin products.

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#62

Post by mhh__ »

revicon wrote: post #45
patorjk wrote: post #40

> 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…

> 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.

Exactly. Facebook just isn't "cool" anymore, no one posts to facebook like they do with snapchat or Instagram, so why not?

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#65

Post by mhh__ »

weavie wrote: post #21
leothekim wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But, admit it - we've all been there at some point.

If it comes to something like that, I try to abstract it as much as possible (1. For my own soul, 2. Practicality) so it can be fixed with a drop in.

Still end up writing a slightly nihilistc/suicidal commit message for the addition...

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#66

Post by aetherson »

hrktb wrote: post #61
aetherson wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

They cannibalized their Mac Pro to the point it was going to disappear. I genuinely think Apple cares more about competition and middle/long term revenue than artificially keeping alive high margin products.

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.

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#67

Post by seem_2211 »

ianhawes wrote: post #9

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!

Yes, because all that matters is an idea and execution doesn't matter one bit.

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#68

Post by hinkley »

louwrentius wrote: post #4

It's a lot easier to stand for your principles and say no to $850M if you already own billions...

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?

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#69

Post by Agathos »

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.

Dog Bites Man After Unusually Long Delay

Re: When Zuckerberg Asserted Control, Instagram’s Founders Chafed

#70

Post by barkingcat »

randycupertino wrote: post #50
da02 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds intriguing. What is she annoyed? What apps (social media, news, or entertainment) are popular with her and her friends? I'm surprised why something better hasn't come along than FB.

Probably the same reason people were annoyed when they found out the delicious new indie beer they liked called Blue Moon was actually owned by Coors.

Or that delicious small batch whiskey maker is actually owned by Diageo, a mega corp with annual earnings of 12 billion pounds
Post reply on HN