31–40 of 50 posts
It is innovative in the "gee nice idea" sense but it not at all innovative in the sense that our collective knowledge or capabilities have expanded as a result of its creation.
Projecting my own biases onto google: Maybe it's just because Instagram is the very definition of all sizzle, no steak? It is innovative in the "gee nice idea" sense but it not at all innovative in the sense that our collective knowledge or capabilities have expanded as a result of its creation.
I am relatively new here, not based in US, and a bit confused: why is Instagram considered somewhat a huge success in the tone of the article, that Google HAS to learn from it? There has been free iPhone Apps with similar growth before. There's no clear monetization method. There's nothing that competitors can't copy in a week. So what am I missing? Is there something I fail to see here, in the context of what makes…
I am relatively new here, not based in US, and a bit confused: why is Instagram considered somewhat a huge success in the tone of the article, that Google HAS to learn from it? There has been free iPhone Apps with similar growth before. There's no clear monetization method. There's nothing that competitors can't copy in a week. So what am I missing? Is there something I fail to see here, in the context of what makes…
They built the world's fastest, most reliable, most relevant search engine on the planet, the most usable webmail and map apps... and then a dinky photo-sharing smartphone app with three features?
That phenomenon is Brooks's Law, and first appeared in The Mythical Man-Month:
> Tonight I was talking with an exec at Google and I brought up the success of Instagr.am (they’ve gotten more than 500,000 downloads in just a few weeks) and asked him “why can’t Google do that?” First of all the number of downloads, especially during the period of initial hype, is not a very useful metric. But even assuming that Instagram is an amazingly successful product, it's still a little fish comparing to Goo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
instagram applies vintage filters, so digital modern photos look like the ones from a cheap used old camera
that is a problem for instagram - it isn't defensible atm. I imagine the Android team will look at it and think 'really, so people want to do that - ok, lets add filters in the next release' and done.
But there are plenty of camera apps on the iphone that have filters (often exactly the same ones) and can post to facebook/flickr/picasa -- and they haven't generated the interest Instagram has.
There's more to it, and it really does seem to be the social-network-seeing-what-your-friends-doing part.
Instagram's success stems from the viral nature of wanting to try out these filter's that you've seen others using. Dont get me wrong, Instagram is a nice little service. But not the right example when compared to Google's recent failures in Wave and Buzz.
Besides, Google houses plenty of innovative products that match the success of Instagram.
Google's problem with its lack off 'innovation' within its recent failures stems from its products not being user led. Wave and Buzz solved no immediate problem for your average user. And I'm not so certain Instagram does.
Google could never create Instagram simply because creating a frivolous app based around styling your photos just doesn't align with their brand values. I can imagine the Google Engineers now, "So why are we using a sepia filter exactly?"