Why the Instagram founders really quit • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#71

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #69

blunte wrote: post #26

I predict that Zuckerburg, when he's old and seeking new prestige, will abandon his (dirty) capitalistic activities and take on the philanthropist persona that many other tech giants (who we often forget the dirty methods they used to reach their heights) have. The EU, with its often absurd laws (re: link tax, cookie rules) may be the only threat to the juggernaut that Facebook is (and by extension, the power that a…

Back when his reputation wasn’t so low: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-zu...

[deleted]

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#72

Post by kerng » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #23

This article was based on another one written by Wired. [0] That much longer article is well worth the read for a more in-depth look at the politics and challenges that Facebook has gone through recently. [0] https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-15-mont...

Thanks for sharing the Wired article - it's really good and I have read the entire thing.

What stood out was the conclusion to me, when Zuckerberg was asked how FB would be in 10 years, and his replies show that he does not understand the implications technologies will have on society and the dangers they enable - it sounds like that's his main repeating pattern. From comments like dumb fucks, to impossible FB had any influence on the presidential elections, to being excited about future mind reading devices FB should build - Facebook (Zuckerberg) doesnt seem to learn to enable technology with safeguards.

That's what continues to stand out to me, and why I would not trust FB any time soon again.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#73

Post by draw_down » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

docker_up wrote: post #46

It sounds like despite the criticisms in the article, Instagram has done it right. Everyone still uses the app, with no backlash the way Snap did. My wife and all her friends are using it like crazy still, it's sometimes the only way I can get in contact with her. So Facebook deserves a lot of credit for that, despite the tone of the article.

Which is what makes the FB internal position on Instagram's growth so silly. If users are moving off of your old thing onto something else, you WANT to own that new thing! Otherwise someone else does, and your business slowly dies.

The only alternative to this is for people to keep using FB forever and ever, but that ship sailed a very long time ago due to many decisions they made over the years.

Basically, they made one of the best acquisitions in tech history and then got upset that it worked so well. Madness.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#74

Post by pixl97 » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:34 PM UTC

rib3ye wrote: post #56

mathattack wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never underestimate the importance of ego. :-) Companies frequently make bad acquisitions due to the ego of the founder. (This is not an example) Other times founders spike the pet projects of their rivals.

A similar situation happened at my company: it's not just egos. You have a legacy product that is still bringing in a majority of the revenue, and then you have the new thing that will _eventually_ be the key rev driver. It's not easy to convince employees that they should just shut up and accept their bonuses to be dependent on converting a loss leader to "the future of the company".

> You have a legacy product that is still bringing in a majority of the revenue

Ah the old Kodak Kompany Killer, by the time the company decides to pivot to new technology it is already too late, the entrenched highly paid people can't or won't change.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#75

Post by scarface74 » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #2

So they crippled a better performing product to protect a lesser product - or rather to protect some egos. I refuse to believe they are that stupid.

Instagram may have been better performing when it came to users, but likely FB is more profitable per user.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#76

Post by gowld » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

isoskeles wrote: post #57

strict9 wrote: post #27

Instagram remains enormously popular because it's not exclusively 1:1 mutual relationships, has a minimal interface/feature set, and most importantly isn't easily susceptible to outrage and anger gawking like twitter/FB are. They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share any time soon.

> FB thirst traps What is this referring to?

https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/thirst-trap/

"A thirst trap is a sexy photo posted on social media to attract attention."

"thirsty" is a slang term that refers to someone who is desperately sexually frustrated to the point of engaging in activities (like browsing and commenting on Instagram, posting lewd comments in forums, paying erotic personalities on Twitch to acknowledge you) whose motivation is sexual gratification yet have an infinitesimal likelihood of success.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#77

Post by tachyonbeam » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

javagram wrote: post #7

bastawhiz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know which Instagram you're using, but every two or three posts for me is an ad. The "second person's story" when watching stories is an ad. Instagram has, by far, more ads than any other app that I use.

Perhaps it depends on your average engagement with the app (the official iOS one, to be clear). I only open it once a month or so, and follow only a few dozen accounts. Perhaps it doesn’t know enough about me to target ads or there is some algorithm that avoids showing ads when you come back after a long break.

Don't-scare-new-users-away mode. Ease you back in with a gradual increase in ads the more engagement they see from you?

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#78

Post by FlyingBears » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

How much did FB save on due options by forcing founders of their big acquisitions out? I think for WhatsApp it was like 800 million that was conditional on the monetization.

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#79

Post by erikpukinskis » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

QuercusMax wrote: post #70

morley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at. > Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave. > With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities. Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sen…

"Offending one's delicate sensibilities" is a stock phrase. It's generally used in a tongue-in-cheek/mocking manner, referring to someone who is being overly dramatic; often used together with phrases like "clutching one's pearls". I think they're mocking both Facebook and Systrom at the same time.

To what end? They think people care too much about UI design?

Re: Why the Instagram founders really quit

#80

Post by kerng » Wed, Apr 17, 2019, 4:49 PM UTC

the_watcher wrote: post #42

weaklearner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a citation here but I think facebook tried to create a slow vesting schedule for these aquihires so they would have golden shackles

Is this just your assumption? The WhatsApp acquisition was pretty famously on a 4 year vest [0], not sure why IG would have been different. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-re...

It's also not uncommon for companies to drop that and have majority vest quicker to get rid of founders faster (provide a good encouraging deal) - especially if they dont play ball.