Instagram - Billion Dollar phone app

[marcr1230]

What do we think about a company started 551 days ago , just acquired by facebook for $1 billion
What does it portend for the future of photography ?

 

[thegman]

I don't think it says much for the future of photography, it's a nice toy for a certain generation to enjoy. IMHO it will come and go like all other fashions. I don't mean to criticise it at all, it's a cool idea, like digital Lomography. I like Lomo, but I appreciate it's a fashion too, and that too will go away in time.

$1bn seems a tad excessive, but valuations of companies these days are nothing to do with size, revenue, profit, or even potential, just the ill-defined concept of "strategy".

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Instagram is great. I'm a little disappointed that Facebook bought them out, but it's at least an acknowledgment that a little startup handed their arses to them in the area of mobile, socially networked photography. Which is essentially what Facebook itself IS.

 

[Aristophanes]

Facebook took investor money from their IPO and plunked it down on a photo app with zero revenues for $1 billion.

Fools and their money...

 

[Leica All Day]

I like Instagram......I get to see so many of my friends photos that I'd never seen before......and to me, that is the most important thing about it.....I don't care who bought it and for how much.....I am just happy that I get to see some cool photos......

cheers, michael

 

[marcr1230]

One additional thought - I really like the square format

 

[Sparrow]

I think I'm just getting old and grumpy as I don't really care, I'm unsure what lomography is and digital lomography is likely simply to be the same but in a greater volume.

 

[nonot]

I really get a kick out of instagram as well, it's a fun app. I'm happy for that team because they really developed an awesome product that has got a lot of people excited about photography and artistic practice (sure there's a lot of junk in there, but that's the same with anything). The sheer numbers make me wary of what it means for internet businesses in general, but I guess that remains to be seen.

 

[Sparrow]

... however it looks to have an X-Pro II filter option so it must be up to the minute ... we're not finished arguing about the X-Pro I yet!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17667891

 

[uinku]

One additional thought - I really like the square format

lol




(ten characters..)

 

[dcsang]

As I don't have an iPhone and I rarely, if ever, use my cell phone for any form of photography - this is sort of in the "meh" category. I understand all the kids love it and use it and that's great - it can probably create some really cool "art" but when everything starts looking like my dad's kodachrome slides from 1972 but knowing that the image was taken 5 minutes ago - it leaves me sort of cold...

Cheers,
dave

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The quality of the photography is not the point of Instagram. Neither are the fake lomography filters. It's the fact that the photos you take are automatically uploaded and distributed to everyone you know, and are part of an ongoing converstation about the world. Or, about your cat.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'm assuming that purchase is primarily is $1 billion in facebook stock which doesn't mature for a little while? If so, its eventual value in real money... 😉

 

[furcafe]

I don't think Instagram handed FB's arse to them, because FB's never been about anything but leveraging their existing network, which goes beyond just photography, & they've always been happy to borrow/steal outside ideas to incorporate as features (e.g., geolocating/check-ins). Instagram outflickred flickr, which could have easily have taken advantage of phone photography but failed to do so. That said, I still mostly use flickr because I have little interest in iphonetography as a genre (just say no to fake cross-processing!).

Instagram is great. I'm a little disappointed that Facebook bought them out, but it's at least an acknowledgment that a little startup handed their arses to them in the area of mobile, socially networked photography. Which is essentially what Facebook itself IS.

 

[Jamie123]

Facebook took investor money from their IPO and plunked it down on a photo app with zero revenues for $1 billion.

Fools and their money...

Facebook's IPO is set for May. Also, I do not think that they're trying to generate revenue directly via Instagram. It's probably more about fortifying their position as the leading social network. Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible on Facebook. And let's remember that Facebook is currently valued at around $100bn which puts this purchase in perspective.

 

[Aristophanes]

Facebook's IPO is set for May. Also, I do not think that they're trying to generate revenue directly via Instagram. It's probably more about fortifying their position as the leading social network. Facebook wants people to spend as much time as possible on Facebook. And let's remember that Facebook is currently valued at around $100bn which puts this purchase in perspective.

Instagram is nowhere near worth $1 billion. It's marketing and doing something for the sake of doing it. there is no material value to Instagram, no revenues, no ROI. It's an internet bubble acquisition.

Even Facebook has paltry revenues compared to its installed user base most of whom react strongly when presented with data mining options. Use for "free" does not = revenues. Investors are paying $1 billion for an app!

 

[apples]

It's a great app for sharing pictures to your friends and followers. The filters don't bother me, and you don't have to use them if you feel that it feels fake artsy. What it portends? No idea, but at least it exposes people to photography and maybe some of them will be inspired by it.

 

[River Dog]

1. Broadens Facebook's target market.
2. Negates a competitor.
3. Stops someone else buying them.

Gartner - Ray Valdes, an analyst at Gartner, says: "You can view the $1bn as an insurance payment against a possible mortal threat if it fell into the hands of one of its competitors. If Facebook is valued at $100bn, 1pc of that figure seems like a reasonable payment."

$33 per user doesn't look to bad either.

FORBES - Instagram is getting bought for $33 per user. Facebook is supposedly trading with a market cap of close to $100 billion and has 850 million users, giving it a value of $117 per user. So it looks like a decent bit of funny-money arbitrage, using well-endowed Facebook shares to acquire users and solidify hold of a strategic asset at a lower valuation

 

[smasher]

I've been toying around with Instagram and Hipstamatic. I'll probably drop Instagram now that they've been swallowed up by Facebook; I'd imagine a lot of people feel the same way, and would love to play with a toy camera app that isn't married to Facebook.

Shame that the current release of Hipstamatic (v250) is so buggy. It's a huge missed opportunity for them!

 

[kdemas]

I've been toying around with Instagram and Hipstamatic. I'll probably drop Instagram now that they've been swallowed up by Facebook; I'd imagine a lot of people feel the same way, and would love to play with a toy camera app that isn't married to Facebook.

Shame that the current release of Hipstamatic (v250) is so buggy. It's a huge missed opportunity for them!

I haven't had any problems with the current Hipstamatic version. Are you on the latest IOS?