I deleted my Instagram account and won't be going back. Flickr's new mobile apps and their much more user-friendly TOS is where was before Instagram and where I want to be in the future.
Instagram's official response
151–160 of 258 posts
Re: Instagram's official response
#152It's time to say goodbye to both Instagram and facebook and say hello to iphoto!
Re: Instagram's official response
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sentiment reads 'Yeah yeah, we hear you, here's some token feel goods but we're going to continue to forge ahead and hope the idiots among you generate enough positive noise for us to drown out the dissenting signals'. I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. People have genuine concerns and they should be addressed clearl…
> I understand they need to monetize (god, it's taken HOW LONG!?!? Jesus!), but that doesn't excuse them from intellectual dishonesty. I thought, "We run a business," was a blanket excuse for intellectual dishonesty in general.
We run a business so we are trying to take your data politely!
Re: Instagram's official response
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most likely it wouldn't make the user experince worse. If anything, it would allow them to avoid banner ads and make the experience better. That said, sounds like people aren't willing to "agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any…
If someone's directly using my content and getting paid for it, I want a cut. It's really that simple.
If they're using your content to make money, you're being paid for it: you're getting access to the service.
Re: Instagram's official response
#155I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to) that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous things it seemed like they were in…
>This whole event shows me (or at least, reminds me) that there are limits to what words can fix.
I think it should show you that there are limits to what people will understand.
This is an APOLOGY from Instagram. It cannot be construed as anything more than a PR Document.
However: their TERMS OF SERVICE are a REAL CONTRACT. Whatever they say about the contract is one thing - once you agree to that contract in a legally binding way, however: thats another thing entirely.
What this should be showing you in all your fascination is how easily people can be duped into thinking that "their company" is 'friendly' after a few pages of words are dumped out into the mob-o-sphere .. and beyond that, it should show you that PR often trumps LEGAL in the public mind -but never in the civic one.
Re: Instagram's official response
#156I don't think Instagram/Systrom had any intention to sell user photos or do anything as drastic as the blogosphere made its TOS changes sound. It did the right thing responding so quickly to user feedback. Hopefully it'll result in a TOS that lets Instagram monetize without infringing on the privacy of its users.
Hopefully it'll result in a TOS that lets Instagram monetize without infringing on the privacy of its users.
What I don't get is why Instagram doesn't just let users pay for the value they are obviously receiving from the service.
http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/your-cloud-data-not-your...
Re: Instagram's official response
#157Seems to me this is a test. Push the updated terms of service out, if no-one complains, or if there is only minimal response then cool, it's acceptable by the users. If complainst come around, mitigate that risk by issuing an apology afterwards. As the phrase goes - " Do What You Think Is Right & Apologize Later "
Re: Instagram's official response
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think users feel that way. What they want is to be acknowledged and respected for helping build the server to what it is today. No users = no service. Don't sell us out just because you chose to take money and sell for a cool bil.
The users didn't help build anything. Instagram built a cool service, and the users used it. They didn't build anything. Now obviously network effects help something like this grow, but don't kid yourself. They aren't running a charity. They are running a business. At some point you have to start making money or the service just goes away. Then all that those amazing users "built" will be gone in a second when they f…
They aren't running a charity, you're right about that. But I think they misrepresented their business by giving it away for free, knowing full-well that it won't be sustainable in the long run under that model. Their response? "Oh ok, no problem, we'll just switch the terms of use while nobody is looking."
Re: Instagram's official response
#159I find this thread really fascinating. I have a hard time imagining a more better apology from Instagram. They accept responsibility, there isn't a trace of hostility towards any of the people who 'misinterpreted' their terms, they are upfront about needing to make money, and they communicate (or attempt to) that they were never in favor of any of those kind of downright villainous things it seemed like they were in…
Raul, the terms and conditions are pretty clear, they do have the right to sell your photos to someone else. This is simply unacceptable.
Re: Instagram's official response
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a verbal offer with specific dollar amounts ($525 million, in fact), an offer specific enough that Instagram had to back out of it before it was signed. I'm not talking about filling out an SEC-mandated press release, I'm talking about a direct question from state lawyers about whether there were any offers from other companies besides Facebook, and Systrom lied and then tried to employ weasel words about "…
What the hell? Responding carefully and specifically to a lawyer's question is not suspicious, it's standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved. Systrom has no obligation to spill the beans about anything that some guy on the Internet thinks might be called an offer, and courtrooms have rules against assigning malicious interpretations thereunto.
"carefully and specifically ... standard operating practice whenever lawyers are involved."
You know - just like the terms and conditions.