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

311–320 of 394 posts

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

#311

Post by wkndbdvs »

jedberg wrote: post #298
ghaff wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.

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

#312

Post by hyperbovine »

xkjkls wrote: post #160
samsonradu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it might have played differently. If Facebook hadn't bought it then Facebook would have competed against it and that's not an easy fight. Look at Snapchat.

Is Snapchat the best example? Snapchat is getting killed. Also, as it was made that Instagram only had 7 employees when they were purchased, that's actually one of major reasons why the acquisition worked so well. 7 employees for an application of that scale is not "swift and agile", it's criminally understaffed. After the Facebook acquisition, Facebook was able to easily redirect some of their hires to work on Insta…

Isn't that exactly OP's point? FB might have counterfactually opted to bury Instagram rather than drop tres comas buying it. Conceivably this could have cost x < $1b. In that world, Zuck is a fool for wasting $1b - x dollars, rather than the one we live in where he's hailed as a visionary for making $99b off the deal.

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

#313

Post by chaostheory »

admn2 wrote: post #48

I've long had a theory (maybe it's not that revolutionary) that part of Instagram's success is it allowed people a free pass to be vain and show off-y. On Facebook, it was a bit stigmatized to post a picture of an expensive purchase, amazing house interior, fancy vacation, or workout picture of your physique. However, it's the entire point of Instagram. Couple that in with all the brands and other accounts of inspira…

For me instagram is facebook lite. I don't need the bloat of apps, rants, or links. I just want to see everyone's pictures. I got sick of FB long before the privacy scares.

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

#314

Post by themagician »

throwaway427 wrote: post #138
gojomo wrote: post #58

Fun to review how many HN commenters pooh-poohed the acquisition and price back in 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3817840

I don't really care for hilighting peoples past skepticism but this guy literally asked for it: --- [...] This is not going to be one of the best tech acquisitions of the next decade. YouTube helped to propel Google into content. It also helped to commoditise web video in a massive way: reminiscent of the way which Google commoditised search (YouTube is probably just short of being a byword for online video at this p…

He's not completely wrong though. Instagram was a photo service when it started. The focus was on photography. Interesting pictures of things happening in the moment. It was about taking the best picture you could in the moment and being forced to post it.

I'm not even sure I'd call Instagram as a photo service anymore. The original core functionality (using it as a digital polaroid and applying a filter) doesn't even seem to be something people use at all anymore. I'm not even sure the majority of the posts are even photos—what between the random images with text above them, screenshots, and the videos.

Instagram was a photo service in a sea of other photo services. Now it's a generic social network where you just post whatever.

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

#315

Post by k__ »

WJW wrote: post #259
VMG wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet we don't have an 8 hour work week

Speak for yourself.

Sadly 99% of the world have and even a good chunk of the first world.

Just last week I was belittled, because I didn't want to come to office two times a week at 9am.

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

#316

Post by drb91 »

gaurgo wrote: post #305
drb91 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instagram is just how you write messages these days, as if this was totally obvious and not a side feature of instagram. At times, I just give up on my ability to participate in society because of shit like this.

If you have a message to get across, that's where the eyeballs are

What if I just want to hang out with my friends? It’s easiest when everyone actually uses the same thing—people literally complain if I text them. The result is I lose touch with people because it’s exhausting keeping track of all the places my friends are.

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

#317

Post by jedberg »

wkndbdvs wrote: post #311
jedberg wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sadly, it’s worse for both parties in the long run when creative labour is devalued beyond recoupable investment.

Then we shall return to the times before the 19th century, when people created art because they loved art, not to get rich. I suspect it will lead to higher quality art, even if the quantity is lower.

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

#318

Post by mygo »

xkjkls wrote: post #248
fabricexpert wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not pushing revenue (i.e. you don't need a sales team, ads team), you probably aren't going to need that many engineers to run something like IG. The original feature set was pretty basic, and it only ran on iOS for quite some time.

Yeah, but 7 engineers at that growth rate means your entire team is just going to be devoted to beating all of the scaling fires. That leaves little time for other product improvements that might enable more growth. FB was pretty slow to monetize Instagram, and they still had hired 100s of people pretty quickly after the acquisition.

It’s quite possible to run a high-traffic app with a small staff if you have the right engineering talent and developed the infrastructure thinking about scale from the start.

Before facebook bought Whatsapp they only had 5 employees. But they had the best engineers for the task at hand. In fact they’re famous for handling 2 million TCP connections on a single server due to much of their engineering decisions (including choice of tech stack). And it’s not like they weren’t generating revenue. Before facebook acquired them, their $1 fee earned them $1billion the first 9 months.

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

#319

Post by phil248 »

lowq wrote: post #47
ggregoire wrote: post #13

I have some adult friends spending 1 or 2 hours a day on Instagram. I can’t even imagine how much time millenials spend on it.

Millennial here, deleted my account a few days ago. Unlike most platforms, Instagram cuts strait to the most depressing part: pictures. I've had enough with social media, and I envy those who never created a Facebook.

I like Instagram for the opposite reason. I only want pictures, and I definitely don't want anymore whiny rants, third-rate political screeds or fake news sharing.

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

#320

Post by pas »

xkjkls wrote: post #248
fabricexpert wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not pushing revenue (i.e. you don't need a sales team, ads team), you probably aren't going to need that many engineers to run something like IG. The original feature set was pretty basic, and it only ran on iOS for quite some time.

Yeah, but 7 engineers at that growth rate means your entire team is just going to be devoted to beating all of the scaling fires. That leaves little time for other product improvements that might enable more growth. FB was pretty slow to monetize Instagram, and they still had hired 100s of people pretty quickly after the acquisition.

I'm not familiar with IG's features except the filters. But to me it seems there is no new thing on it. So 7 engineers are probably all worked on scaling.
Post reply on HN