Why the Instagram founders really quit • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#51

Post by raverbashing » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

strict9 wrote: post #27

Instagram remains enormously popular because it's not exclusively 1:1 mutual relationships, has a minimal interface/feature set, and most importantly isn't easily susceptible to outrage and anger gawking like twitter/FB are. They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share any time soon.

Well, there's also Instagram Stories, which is Snapchat with better UX and not resorting to stupid technical workarounds like doing screenshots of camera apps

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#52

Post by pwinnski » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

fogetti wrote: post #48

"Zuckerberg was intent on making him miserable enough that he would quit" - I thought only the lowliest managers keep doing this bullshit and in bigger companies they are more grown up and they have a spine. Politics are the ugliest of all the crap that one has to take in the IT world. And no-one can avoid it. You can be in the lowest position they will still drag you into. I feel bad for Systrom. I really do.

I bet he cries himself to sleep at night on a pillowcase stuffed with cash.

I mean, yeah, it's a nasty feeling. But there were compensatory factors.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#53

Post by alexpetralia » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:42 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #47

Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently, somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.

This is an insightful perspective.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#54

Post by oflannabhra » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

morley wrote: post #28

ineedasername wrote: post #23

This article was based on another one written by Wired. [0] That much longer article is well worth the read for a more in-depth look at the politics and challenges that Facebook has gone through recently. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-15-mont...

The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at. > Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave. > With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities. Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sen…

Well, that is essentially Verge's modus operandi: strong opinions over original reporting. Even much of the original reporting they do is heavy on the "hot take" style.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#55

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#56

Post by rib3ye » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #11

chmod775 wrote: post #2

So they crippled a better performing product to protect a lesser product - or rather to protect some egos. I refuse to believe they are that stupid.

Never underestimate the importance of ego. :-) Companies frequently make bad acquisitions due to the ego of the founder. (This is not an example) Other times founders spike the pet projects of their rivals.

A similar situation happened at my company: it's not just egos. You have a legacy product that is still bringing in a majority of the revenue, and then you have the new thing that will _eventually_ be the key rev driver. It's not easy to convince employees that they should just shut up and accept their bonuses to be dependent on converting a loss leader to "the future of the company".

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#57

Post by isoskeles » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

strict9 wrote: post #27

Instagram remains enormously popular because it's not exclusively 1:1 mutual relationships, has a minimal interface/feature set, and most importantly isn't easily susceptible to outrage and anger gawking like twitter/FB are. They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share any time soon.

> FB thirst traps

What is this referring to?

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#58

Post by isoskeles » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

jackfrodo wrote: post #34

morley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at. > Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave. > With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities. Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sen…

The primary definition of delicate: fine in texture, quality, construction, etc.: a delicate lace collar. I read it as a compliment. If he had said "delicate ego" it'd be a different story.

Most people who read that phrase see "delicate" = fragile. Sensibilities are not like a lace collar.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#59

Post by CharlesColeman » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #47

Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently, somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.

> Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently, somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.

I believe Zuckerberg is still Facebook's controlling shareholder, so no one's getting rid of him until he wants himself out (or does something so egregious that the government removes him a la Hans Reiser or Musk with his SEC shenanigans).

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#60

Post by joering2 » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

fogetti wrote: post #48

"Zuckerberg was intent on making him miserable enough that he would quit" - I thought only the lowliest managers keep doing this bullshit and in bigger companies they are more grown up and they have a spine. Politics are the ugliest of all the crap that one has to take in the IT world. And no-one can avoid it. You can be in the lowest position they will still drag you into. I feel bad for Systrom. I really do.

No sorry, the bigger company the more nasty they get. I used to work for Oracle and IBM and it blew my mind how grownups with children would play childish games and jump at each other throats at every occasion.

I also work for less known company with revenue of $100MM and was the same stuff. My manager used to tell me: If you have family [to go home to after being at the office for 12 hours] don't work here.