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

Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 394 posts

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#291

Post by dymk »

icebraining wrote: post #234
protonimitate wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. It's a win-win. Consumers get personalized, tailored ads. Businesses reach audiences that actually want their products. What annoys me are ads for products I've already purchased (amazon is terrible about this), or the same ad plastered 20 times across multiple sites. Instagram handles ads pretty well IMO. They are non-intrusive, easy to digest, and highly relevant. Facebook OTOH, has become one giant scroll…

I find it way less intrusive than other forms of ad placements (TV, radio, billboards). Talk about damming with faint praise. Ads are the top reason why I no longer listen to radio, and the TV is only bearable because I have a DVR. That said, those are just annoying. Online ads are much more dangerous.

Why are they much more dangerous?

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#292

Post by Findeton »

vowelless wrote: post #134

I am quite privacy conscious. I have deleted my FB account. On principle, I dislike targeted ads, user tracking, etc. BUT, I hate to admit this, the ads I get in Instagram are the most relevant I have ever gotten. I actually look forward to them, to discover new products. They are perfectly tailored to me. Dammit.

Maybe spammy but if you're privacy conscious I recommend you https://lyfepedia.com

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#293

Post by CodeCube »

xkjkls wrote: post #232
CodeCube wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing (anecdotally, of course), that people are starting to prefer Instagram because long form discussions are more difficult there. They seem to be seeking an escape from the news. Fair point about the event planning ... if FB were to cross-launch the sane event planning DB on instagram and whatsapp, I suspect that would be pretty much a killer app.

> They seem to be seeking an escape from the news. I mean that's about as 2018 as it gets. I'm not entirely sure if that's a permanent trend though.

Honestly, I see this as part of an _accelerating_ trend. I don't think it's going to change, and is only going to become more pronounced.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#294

Post by matte_black »

yayadarsh wrote: post #254
matte_black wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to know what’s depressing? A follower with a terminal illness wrote a heartfelt letter to a popular Instagram influencer that they followed and whose photos they enjoyed. When they passed away, the letter was sent on their behalf to the influencer. When the influencer received the letter, they quickly skimmed through it, said “Cool” and tossed it in the trash with some other junk mail.

This is a strange comment, to me. What should they have done? Reached out to the family of the anonymous follower? What does the "popular Instagram influencer" owe to someone who enjoys his/her photos?

Maybe no one sees anything wrong with it, and perhaps there is nothing wrong with it, hence the downvotes.

What's depressing though is not that people post pictures of a life you wish you had, they do it while not giving a shit about you, no matter how much you might admire them. If you have millions of followers, or maybe even a couple hundred thousand, then statistically a few die everyday, without even so much as a passing thought.

And yet we waste so much time looking at these people's content and letting it depress us, and not enough at those around us who matter more.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#295

Post by thanatropism »

xkjkls wrote: post #226
thanatropism wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the whole thing could still prove to be the mother of all bubbles. For one: we still don't really really understand network effects. There's huge value to being Facebook (you're forced to be there because all your friends are there and most nowhere else), but people also switch platforms for reasons that are not excellently understood. And when I say bubble I don't mean this or that company -- Silly Valle…

It also depends on your investment timeline here. Facebook and other social media properties have historically traded at super low multiples compared to other companies with similar growth/profits. Facebook is trading at 15x it's projected 2020 earnings. That's extraordinarily low compared to any other tech giant. I'd say the risks of one-day being usurped are already substantially factored in.

This is actually an excellent point, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#296

Post by jedberg »

dperfect wrote: post #281
jedberg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each…

> Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, which is not the same as how many people listened to it. If I only listen to an unpopular artist, but I don't listen as often as other people listen to popular artists (lower play count, even though it's still my favorite artist), nearly all of my subscri…

> From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played,

Yes, I should have been more precise. Just like with a radio play, the second play in theory goes to the same mass of people, but is counted again. So I should have said "they know exactly how many people and how many times it was played, and pay accordingly". I believe they discount multiple plays from the same person, to prevent abuse.

> In the old days of purchasing music, it didn't matter how many times a person played the disc/track - it cost the same. You might argue that each play represents the marginal utility to the listener (and should thus be the basis for compensation), but I'm not sure that's entirely true.

You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two. So again, for a consumer, Spotify is more fair, because you only pay for what you consume, and artists liked the old model where you paid for 15 tracks even if you only wanted two.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#297

Post by varrock »

xkjkls wrote: post #147
ceejayoz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, it's loading up Instagram and seeing just a bunch of interesting photos. Minimal memes, no link shares, and it's rare a comments thread that devolves into insanity.

I honestly feel stories are probably one of the biggest drivers of current growth. It's kind of cool to have a easy way to scroll through my friends and get an update of "oh, I guess Jeremy went on a hike; Monica is harvesting blackberries; etc"

I can't emphasize how important it is that companies like Snapchat and Instagram have made this such a big business. Remember when people would Tweet out with text that they were doing this? For example, your friend Tweets: "Wow, what a nice hike today!" The reason I give so much credit to Snapchat is they changed the way we do this. Why would I give you this kind of update in my life with simple text, when instead, I could actually take a picture? Snapchat got so popular because they took the boring Tweets people weren't getting much attention for and made people's trivial daily tasks that much more interesting for your followers.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#298

Post by jedberg »

ghaff wrote: post #272
jedberg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify allows consumers to binge on music for a flat fee, however it is crucial to note that the musicians in this case significantly lose out on revenue. As a side note, it amuses me to see this repeated so often, given that it's not true. If you do the math, Spotify pays about the same as a radio play. You just have to remember that each radio play goes out to a few hundred thousand to a few million people each…

One important difference is that, at least historically, radio play could actually stimulate the purchase of music so that you could listen to it at a time of your choosing (and without ads). Whereas, streaming on-demand music is increasingly a substitute for owning the tracks for a lot of people.

Again, this is something that is more fair to the consumer at the expense of the artist. The only reason you owned an album was because you couldn't listen when you wanted to, and were forced to buy it. Now it's better for the consumer, but not the artist.

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#299

Post by dperfect »

jedberg wrote: post #296
dperfect wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify knows exactly how many people listened to a song, and pay accordingly. From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, which is not the same as how many people listened to it. If I only listen to an unpopular artist, but I don't listen as often as other people listen to popular artists (lower play count, even though it's still my favorite artist), nearly all of my subscri…

> From what I understand, they actually pay based on how many times a song is played, Yes, I should have been more precise. Just like with a radio play, the second play in theory goes to the same mass of people, but is counted again. So I should have said "they know exactly how many people and how many times it was played, and pay accordingly". I believe they discount multiple plays from the same person, to prevent a…

> You might argue that, but you might also argue that when you bought a CD, you bought 10-15 tracks, even if you only wanted one or two.

My same argument applies to a single track purchased via iTunes - it doesn't matter how many times you play it; it costs the same. The bundling of tracks on an album is something all artists did/do, so it doesn't affect the fairness question in my opinion (at least, not fairness between artists).

Re: Instagram Is Estimated to Be Worth More Than $100B

#300

Post by urda »

pc86 wrote: post #267
vowelless wrote: post #134

I am quite privacy conscious. I have deleted my FB account. On principle, I dislike targeted ads, user tracking, etc. BUT, I hate to admit this, the ads I get in Instagram are the most relevant I have ever gotten. I actually look forward to them, to discover new products. They are perfectly tailored to me. Dammit.

You're going to get ads. To try to fight against the very existence of advertising is quixotic to the point of being sad. Why would you not want them to be relevant to you? As a consumer, I would much prefer ads that are carefully tailed to my interests - software, fitness, general aviation - than see wildly different ads on the same platform, or the same 2-3 high paying ads for the latest garbage CBS sitcom. As a bu…

> To try to fight against the very existence of advertising is quixotic to the point of being sad.

Yeah if this doesn't scream "astroturfing for an ad company" I don't know what is anymore.

Sorry, I'd rather keep up the good fight of being the owners of my attention. Pushing back against ads isn't "sad" or "quixotic" at all, and in fact should be celebrated.

Post reply on HN