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

361–370 of 394 posts

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

#361

Post by tdj »

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.

After interacting with a post about yachting, the ad engine behind Instagram suddenty thought I am a multi-millionaire and I got a ton of ads on fancy watches, McLarens, Bentleys, and of course boats. Felt good for a while.

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

#362

Post by antpls »

protonimitate wrote: post #240
Splines wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads aren't win-win. They're taking up the space of the content I want to see. Accidentally clicking on them sends some of my personalized data to who-knows-where. They often run code not vetted by the site owner, making them a security risk. Getting a personalized ad is hardly a "win". It's like stepping on a piece of poop that is your favorite color. (I'm fine with ad-supported products, but I see it as a necessary…

I mean, I would much prefer an ad-free world full stop - but that isn't likely to happen in my life time considering the amount of money in advertising. You also have the option to fully block ads using extensions/plugins - nothing like that really exist for cable tv/radio/public spaces.

I used to block ads on websites. It is now impossible to block them with Instagram. We are back to the TV/radio system...

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

#363

Post by antpls »

jmartrican wrote: post #157
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.

I'll be honest, I like ads that are relevant to the things I am interested in. I am no FB fan boy, but their ads are pretty good... I actually click on them. What's wrong with that?

Ads displayed to me are never relevant. What is wrong is that you have no choice, they force you to watch ads even if you don't want to, or if you have disabilities, which literally sucks your life out of you.

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

#364

Post by antpls »

vthallam wrote: post #21

No wonder. Anecdotal of course, but I see my friends spending more time on instagram and people on the train or bus browsing instagram. I don't remember seeing FB on someone's mobile in the last 6 months. It will only grow bigger and at some point when it becomes too big, you see less friends posts and more advts and people move on to something else. But for next 2 years, Instagram's going to be Yuuuge.(Huge)

The amount of advertisement is already big. Constant interruption with sponsored stories, sponsored pictures, even "influencer" or anyone else who has more than 100k followers start using their images to advertise a product or a place.

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

#365

Post by antpls »

diminish wrote: post #219

To be contrarian - Facebook is transferring its own user base to Instagram at a quarterly rate which is convenient to shadow Snapchat. The people I see there aren't much different than the ones on FB every month. FB is notifying me that, every single friend on FB is now on Instagram. My likes on Instagram aren't shown to my followers - (I hope ) and that's the main difference which affects my behavior. Likes on insta…

With video chat, Instagram is also competiting with WhatsApp. Instagram could soon host the whole WhatsApp user base too.

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

#366

Post by antpls »

sharkweek wrote: post #152

I'm a 30something curmudgeon, but I have become addicted to their "explore" page or whatever it is. Their algorithms have masterfully created an infinite scroll of addictive content that generally applies to my tastes. I caught myself a few months ago scrolling through that page for almost 30 minutes before realizing what I had been doing. I now have to be very intentional about not going down that constantly-refresh…

I'm between 25 and 30 and I find myself in the same situation. I suspect the addiction comes from a cognitive or psychological trait related to sorting and filtering things together. If they show you 5 pictures you don't like much, with 1 picture you like, you want to make that picture "win" against the others. The only tool you are given are : likes, comments and report as spam.

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

#367

Post by antpls »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #167

I simply do not understand the attraction of Instagram. My brother posts photos on it, and the quality of the pictures is rubbish. They're small, with compression artifacts. The app itself doesn't even let you pinch to zoom without snapping back when you let go (fair enough given how low resolution the pictures are). Obviously I'm looking at this wrong - it's clearly not an app for posting photos, because it sucks at…

Instagram is more open than FB for example. As others said, you can also find people who post high quality pictures from camera on it, but that defeats the initial mission of Instagram (capturing the moment). Looking at images is somehow more easy when you are on the go than watching at a page full of text (ala Reddit). Mobility, messaging are some of the success factor of Instagram in my opinion.

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

#368

Post by petepete »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #121
petepete wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is every user really worth $100 though? How many adverts would I need to click or watch to make up that number?

Doesn't work like that. Return rates on assets average about 6% or so. i.e., if you invest $100, you expect a $6 annual income. In other words, a $100b investment would expect a $6b annual income. Take average PE ratios for example, about 15 (so 6.6% earnings as a percentage of market cap). That would require about $6 per user per year in profit. Facebook is at $6 average revenue per user (ARPU) right now, but >$25 f…

Thank you for the detailed answer, much appreciated.

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

#369

Post by nmeofthestate »

imjk wrote: post #247
nmeofthestate wrote: post #167

I simply do not understand the attraction of Instagram. My brother posts photos on it, and the quality of the pictures is rubbish. They're small, with compression artifacts. The app itself doesn't even let you pinch to zoom without snapping back when you let go (fair enough given how low resolution the pictures are). Obviously I'm looking at this wrong - it's clearly not an app for posting photos, because it sucks at…

I use instagram almost entirely to showcase my photography: https://www.instagram.com/imjustjk/ . It's certainly not a perfect platform but it's good enough (and better than most). It's a mobile first platform that's simple, intuitive, and has huge adoption. It also has great loading speed for the amount of content and even the quality of images. I'm not sure what you expect on a mobile app? Do you want to be able to…

Well the photos my brother takes are studio based - he's getting into product photography, so the shrunken, low quality pictures served by Instagram are just frustrating - I want to see something where I can zoom in to enjoy looking at the details, rather than something that's a quarter of my phone screen at native resolution.

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

#370

Post by [deleted] »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #322
jedberg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What nonsense. I don't think there are many musicians today who don't love art. The problem isn't just being unable to get rich, it's being unable to afford to be a musician at all , and that was certainly not the case before the 19th century (there were plenty of paid positions for musicians).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN