×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Instagram Loses Almost Half Its Daily Users In a Month

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the here-we-go-again dept.

Businesses 250

redletterdave writes "Instagram scared off a lot of users back in December when it decided to update its original Terms of Service for 2013. But even though the company reneged on its new terms after a week of solid backlash, Instagram users are still fleeing the photo-sharing app in droves. According to new app traffic data, Instagram has lost roughly half of all its active users in the month since proposing to change its original Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. In mid-December, Instagram boasted about 16.3 million daily active users; as of Jan. 14, Instagram only has about 7.6 million daily users." Towards the end of December data showing a 25% drop in Instagram's daily active users came out. While it caused quite a bit of discussion online, it was suggested that the decline was due to the Christmas holiday or an inaccuracy in the data.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

250 comments

And we care because why? (1, Flamebait)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#42586429)

Just wondering why I should care is all.

Re:And we care because why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586461)

I find it to be a decent example of how not to treat your users.

Maybe it's a better example of true worth (4, Insightful)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year ago | (#42586591)

I suppose. I was thinking it more accurately demonstrated the illusion of worth of any web-supplied service. Popularity != true value.

Re:Maybe it's a better example of true worth (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#42586833)

Anything that gets Facebook to get closer to ultimate FAILTARD is great by me.

They'll try this again, on another front, unless they cross the hot, burning, electrified wire of their user's tolerance.

Re:Maybe it's a better example of true worth (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587177)

Anything that gets Facebook to get closer to ultimate FAILTARD is great by me.

They'll try this again, on another front, unless they cross the hot, burning, electrified wire of their user's tolerance.

They are desperately looking for revenue streams and they are fucking things up at every other step. If they had created a mechanism by which companies could make customers purchase offers for publishing/usage rights to images and simply taken a commission they might actually have succeeded in creating a revenue stream. Simply grabbing a people's images and expecting them to be happy about it like some potato-head Israeli politician making a land-grab in the West Bank did not go down very well with their users. People don't like having their stuff confiscated... mass exodus follows... shocking result... whoddathunkit? What did they pay for Instagram, $1 billion wasn't it? Then they turn around and wreck the service with one ham-handed act of stupidity. It kind of speaks volumes about exactly what the kind of inept tossers it is that seem to be running things at Facebook.

Re:And we care because why? (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#42587539)

I find it to be a decent example of how not to treat your users.

In their defense, the 20th century is over. What company doesn't shit on their customers these days? From MS's W8 to Sony's XCP and otherOS, Apple's "you're holding it wrong" and its replacing Google Maps with a turd sandwich, Oracle's refusal to fix Java bugs until the government gets involved... fucking over your customer is the new normal.

It's one of many downsides to a global economy. With seven billion prospective customers you can afford to target only those who are stupid and lack self-respect. The rest of us are boned, all we can do is bitch, and refuse to go along with the stupidity.

Whenever I see users act like this, it gives me hope. I'd be more hopeful if Instagram died, maybe it would give other companies pause.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#42586471)

Dunno, could be the beginning of a new trend of websites not updating their TOS based on their CEO's mood of the day, but rather consulting with their user base first? Might take a couple more of these types of cases to pop up before new business practices are drawn.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42586677)

Might take a couple more of these types of cases to pop up before new business practices are drawn.

ahahahahaaa... (wheeze, gasp) aaaah ha ha ha haaaaah. Hundreds of sites are doing stuff like this. Privacy online has become a joke, and marketing firms are coming up with exciting new kinds of fraud to build comprehensive profiles on everyone, from a preference for two or one-ply to search terms that might flag you as a terrorist or ciminal. They're not going to reverse this trend... they're going to bury it in even smaller and more obtuse fine-print -- or just get a law passed giving corporations all that data with immunity from prosecution by coming up with some kind of "implied consent," etc.

Businesses adapt to bad press by burying things in deeper and deeper levels of bureauacracy to avoid it. They don't change their process; Just decrease its transparency.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#42586749)

That's the beauty of the internet, some poor shmuck decides to read the small book that is a typical TOS "contract" finds something alarming like instagram's new rules, or Sony's clause against class action lawsuits and then posts it to the internet for the rest of us who don't bother. As long as there's whistleblower's and given the current state of TOS... it can get worse, but let's hope cases like this make it better. The lesson learned with instagram and the internet is informedusers will avoid your business and switch to a competitor if they don't agree with your shady business practices.

Re:And we care because why? (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#42587199)

Or we'll see them lobby for legislation to make secret TOS's legally binding.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587527)

Or we'll see them lobby for legislation to make secret TOS's legally binding.

Wow! Thanks, that is brilliant!

Mark Z.

next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587401)

TOS with NDA! Whistleblowers get sued. Fucking corps.

Re:And we care because why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586777)

ahahahahaaa... (wheeze, gasp) aaaah ha ha ha haaaaah.

Wow. That looks even dumber and more forced when said online than it would have if you said it in person. Or in a cartoon from the 80s. Well-done, I didn't think you could look like more of an idiot.

Re:And we care because why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587391)

ahahahahaaa... (wheeze, gasp) aaaah ha ha ha haaaaah.

Well-done, I didn't think you could look like more of an idiot.

Don't worry, the night is young

Re:And we care because why? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#42586839)

and once caught, they have revealed themselves. its very unlikely that a core idea they had (that they thought was really great) was fully backed out and a 180 was turned.

just unlikely. once they show their hands, you know what kind of company they are. once rotton, always rotton; pretty much.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

Mandrel (765308) | about a year ago | (#42587299)

A switch is inevitable in companies that need to become profitable after the bait of building popularity with a service that seems like a gift to the world.

But you need to be slow and subtle to boil a frog.

Re:And we care because why? (5, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year ago | (#42586529)

Because if it's true it's good evidence, and a good warning for other companies, that you can't send up a trial ballon [wikipedia.org] and see if you can get away with something outrageous and just recant later if the users notice without suffering any negative long term effects.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#42586861)

trial balloons are sent up by lawmakers all the time, though. they test the waters (sopa, example) and then back off just enough and wait just enough so that they can try again.

Re:And we care because why? (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year ago | (#42587003)

...yes, and this demonstrates that a company can't necessarily get away with the same thing. That's kind of the point.

Lawmakers can get away with it because A: leaving the country is a bit more difficult than abandoning a company, and B: only people who are effectively single-issue voters are going to remember about the issue come the next election and care about it more than anything else the legislator has done in their term.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42587231)

you can get away with something outrageous and just recant later if the users notice without suffering any negative long term effects.

Well, if you read the linked article, and both the New and Reverted language, you will see this was all about nothing. The reverted (original) language was just as bad as the language the triggered the outcry.

So by recanting, they fell back to the original language which gives them FULL RIGHTS TO EVERYTHING you post on instagram:

you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service

Not sorry to see it meet its demise in any case.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about a year ago | (#42587327)

Why so subtle? History teaches trial-balloons are best punctured by leather straps and bamboo canes! Wonderfully refreshing! A dose of ROMAN JUSTICE dealt-out to a few such online **bizz-nazis** would certainly clear the air.

Re:And we care because why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586535)

You're a Slashdot subscriber, you obviously don't adhere to logic or reason so any explanation would simply be wasted on you.

Incidentally, you're a kiddie fucking loser. There, you just paid good money to be called a kiddie fucking loser on the internet, hope that was well spent!

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

Dzimas (547818) | about a year ago | (#42586547)

Because Instagram is a massive cloud service that tried to take ownership of content generated and curated by its users. It's about as reasonable as a hotel declaring that you, your luggage and your kids are their property simply because you're in one of their hotel rooms for the night. Perhaps there is a sliver of hope that the CEO of a future hot company will remember The Instagram Implosion and step away from similar behaviour. I won't hold my breath, though.

Re:And we care because why? (0, Troll)

Dr Herbert West (1357769) | about a year ago | (#42586963)

What nitwit modded you insightful?

Look, I pay money for a hotel room-- that fee goes to an expected level of security. I pay nothing for Instagram's services-- no expectation of security, or of any service at all. Is instagram an online storage business? No. Therefore, the pictures you upload are not there for you to store-- they're for Instagram to use however they want... your pictures are free, as in beer.

Point of fact, since no one is paying you for your pictures, they are literally worth nothing.

Link to an XKCD [xkcd.com] in case you're still confused as to what storage, business, and free is.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587125)

Thank you.

People need to ask themselves something on all "free" services. "How is this company making money off of this service?"

Re:And we care because why? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587133)

Free or not, people still hate the bait-and-switch. And why shouldn't they? Before the TOS change, the free service left their content under their control (and copyright). Then, after the switch, the same service suddenly grabbed your copyright away from you and decided to do whatever they want with your stuff.

I recognize that they don't have any obligations to provide a good service, especially since it is free. I also recognize that "you can host your images here at no cost, and in return we get a license to use them" is a bargain that some might find reasonable. The problem here is not the deal itself, but that the deal was so suddenly and significantly changed.

I will add that this deal, however reasonable, is not one that many people want to take.

Re:And we care because why? (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42587259)

Before the TOS change, the free service left their content under their control (and copyright). Then, after the switch, the same service suddenly grabbed your copyright away from you and decided to do whatever they want with your stuff.

That is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE

The prior language (and the language they reverted to) said this:

you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service,

You have ZERO control once you accept that. Re-read the second link in the summary.

Re:And we care because why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587489)

Rather, they destroyed the illusion people had of control over their own material, so now they're leaving.

Re:And we care because why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587189)

I can't think of a better argument not to use Instagram's services than what you just made.

But what about using free samples as a way of building brand awarness and getting people to see value in your offerings so that they will sign up to the pay-for-service part? I thought that was the real reason for the samplers and free services, not so that the companies could take ownership of your assests or use your content without compensation.

Re:And we care because why? (5, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#42587357)

What nitwit modded you insightful?

Look, I pay money for a hotel room-- that fee goes to an expected level of security. I pay nothing for Instagram's services-- no expectation of security, or of any service at all. Is instagram an online storage business? No. Therefore, the pictures you upload are not there for you to store-- they're for Instagram to use however they want... your pictures are free, as in beer.

Point of fact, since no one is paying you for your pictures, they are literally worth nothing.

Link to an XKCD [xkcd.com] in case you're still confused as to what storage, business, and free is.

You can split hairs about his analogy all you want but he still has a point. Your pictures are only free (as in beer) for Instagram to flog to their corporate buddies as long as people are willing to put up with it. Shockingly, for whatever bunch of arrogant and inexperienced young Turks at Facebook who came up with the dumb idea of hijacking user's images, it seems that Instagram users are in fact not willing to put up with it and are fleeing the service in hoards.... well DUH! the joke's on Instagram/Facebook. Instagram is it's users, without the users and their images Instagram is worthless (as in used paper-towel that somebody has blown their nose with). Because somebody failed to realise this a $1 billion investment is circling the drain. It is always fascinating to watch as a real world example of truly epic ineptitude unfolds.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

Decameron81 (628548) | about a year ago | (#42587367)

What nitwit modded you insightful?

Look, I pay money for a hotel room-- that fee goes to an expected level of security. I pay nothing for Instagram's services-- no expectation of security, or of any service at all. Is instagram an online storage business? No. Therefore, the pictures you upload are not there for you to store-- they're for Instagram to use however they want... your pictures are free, as in beer.

Point of fact, since no one is paying you for your pictures, they are literally worth nothing.

Link to an XKCD [xkcd.com] in case you're still confused as to what storage, business, and free is.

It's all about leverage. And it looks to me like Instagram doesn't have much of it. :-)

Re:And we care because why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587061)

How much do you pay to have Instagram store your stuff?

Re:And we care because why? (4, Interesting)

Loosifur (954968) | about a year ago | (#42587171)

I think the following link to xkcd is instructive here: http://xkcd.com/1150/ [xkcd.com]

as is the following regarding Facebook: http://www.ethannonsequitur.com/facebook-you-customer-product-pigs.html/facebook-and-you-pigs [ethannonsequitur.com] .

Instagram has no business model. It operates at a loss. The whole reason Instagram operates is to attract "customers" that provide it with free content. The whole reason Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram was to gain access to a ton of users who now depend on the site to host their content, and who may cede their rights to said content depending on how sneaky the ToS change can be. It's just got "sucker" written all over it.

A better analogy would be if I opened a parking garage in a city and let anyone store their car(s) there for free. Then, after a year or two, let people know that I reserve the right to auction their vehicles without additional notice.

mod this down -- every time it comes up. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586651)

Can we mod this question to oblivion please? It's as redundant as the first post meme, and should be modded accordingly.

Re:And we care because why? (2)

wile_e8 (958263) | about a year ago | (#42586695)

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Today's lesson: maybe you shouldn't pay a billion dollars dollars for a service that users can easily drop and replace with dozens of other similar services if they don't like how you try to monetize it.

Re:And we care because why? (-1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year ago | (#42586929)

Today's lesson: maybe you shouldn't pay a billion dollars dollars for a service that users can easily drop and replace with dozens of other similar services...

...(emphasis mine)...

Care to name just one of the dozens?

Or should I say you're trolling?

Re:And we care because why? (2)

sandysnowbeard (1297619) | about a year ago | (#42586981)

Today's lesson: maybe you shouldn't pay a billion dollars dollars for a service that users can easily drop and replace with dozens of other similar services...

...(emphasis mine)...

Care to name just one of the dozens?

Or should I say you're trolling?

I think the point is that the fundamental service offered by Instagram is not so complex or revolutionary as to be irreplaceable. Like Google could probably in-house it in no time. (I mean, they've already got Picasa.) Do I speak correctly on your behalf, wile_e8?

Also, there's a breed of trolling in which a troll accuses a non-troll of trolling.

Re:And we care because why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586999)

I don't even know what the fuck Instagram is, but a google search that took me all of three seconds turned up

Starmatic
Flickr
Blipfoto
23snaps
Snapseed (bought by Google)
Mobli
EyeEm
Tadaa
Cinemagram
TripColor
Snapchat
picplz
dailybooth
hipstamatic
step.ly
burstn.com
Blurtopia
lightbox

And now I'm bored, because I've already spent upwards of a minute copypasting company names.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587503)

I worked at a place which leapt onto the we'll-host-your-images-for-free bandwaggon about a decade ago. The idea was that people would want to buy prints of their images, or else have them on mugs, t-shirts, etc, and that's how we'd profit. The reality was that most people don't want anything other than seeing them on screen, and that company folded less than five years after starting, burning through millions.

Re:And we care because why? (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year ago | (#42587055)

You want him to name services that let you post pictures to the internet? Really?
And you think he is the one who is trolling...

Re:And we care because why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586811)

Just wondering why I should care is all.

We should care because we all can learn from the mistakes of others. In this case it could be from the company's side (they scared away their users because they took too much privacy too fast, instead of being patient and taking it piece by piece), or the user's side (a free service isn't "free", you're just the product, blah blah blah).

New name for the company? Instagone. And for the users? Already gone.

Re:And we care because why? (4, Insightful)

thoth (7907) | about a year ago | (#42586887)

Because this kind of beating is critical for corporations to experience. It shows that decisions have consequences, and you have to treat your customers/users with respect. Quite frankly, this should happen more often when corporations step over the line. Otherwise how will any of them learn?

Droves (4, Informative)

greg_barton (5551) | about a year ago | (#42586453)

"In droves" not "in troves."

Re:Droves (or troves) (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42586489)

"In droves" not "in troves."

Perhaps that was a reference to the treasure troves of looted art the execs thought to steal from the artist creators?

Thus, troves would be correct.

Re:Droves (1)

P1h3r1e3d13 (1158845) | about a year ago | (#42586775)

Thank you.

To be clear:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trove [wiktionary.org]
1. A treasure trove; a collection of treasure.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drove [wiktionary.org]
2. (usually plural) A large number of people on the move (literally or figuratively).

Re:Droves (5, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about a year ago | (#42586863)

Thank you.

To be clear:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trove [wiktionary.org]
1. A treasure trove; a collection of treasure.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drove [wiktionary.org]
2. (usually plural) A large number of people on the move (literally or figuratively).

Of course, if you run a company that can monetize it's users, a drove IS a trove.

Re:Droves (1)

Yaotzin (827566) | about a year ago | (#42586951)

Can they though? Last I heard they still didn't seem to have any idea on how to make money. Well, apart from selling the company to Facebook.

Re:Droves (1)

JanneM (7445) | about a year ago | (#42587105)

Perhaps the users all escaped hidden in armoured money transport vans. It worked for Dan Brown.

Forget the Terms of Service war... (4, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about a year ago | (#42586463)

My proximate annoyance was the Instagram/Twitter war. Much less convenient to post things there now.

Maybe it was just a fad (4, Insightful)

mrheckman (939480) | about a year ago | (#42586533)

A change in usability could explain the drop in users, or maybe it was a fad and people have moved on to something else. Most of social media is faddish. It's like the night club business. It's very difficult to maintain popularity, even if you achieve success, because people are moving on to the next hot club.

Re:Maybe it was just a fad (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586885)

You wouldn't see a 50% daily drop in users if your app started farting in the users' face after each pic was posted. This is more than just a "fad" growing cold. This is herd mentality running away from something that they were told they should be scared of or offended by.

Re:Maybe it was just a fad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587153)

You wouldn't see a 50% daily drop in users if your app started farting in the users' face after each pic was posted....

You are right. There are people who would pay lots for an app like that. Rule 34.

Re:Forget the Terms of Service war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587343)

I think that's the main thing. Regular people don't give two shits about ToS. They are leaving because it's no longer the "hot new thing", they're bored, moving to new things and returning to the old standbys they have always used.

Slightly disingenuous (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586467)

Although probably hard to determine, I would venture to guess that Instagram blocking access of their images to Twitter had a bigger effect.

In other news (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586475)

Pentagrams are gaining popularity

So if it lost half its users... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586477)

Does that mean it's only worth $356 million dollars now? Zuckerberg is so fired. Oh wait...

Re:So if it lost half its users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587129)

To be quite honest, how is it worth anything? It's clearly a fad company, as shown by the fact that it lost half its users over something as insignificant* as the TOS. The only thing they have is a brand name that people know and a steadily decreasing supply of guaranteed hits to their web page. They probably have revenue from the sales of their mobile applications, but that will probably dry up soon. Then they'll be left with nothing but servers (and the associated cost), a codebase, and the legal ownership of a few petabytes of poorly taken images of girls pursing their lips in the mirror.

*To most people, the ones who don't mind using proprietary operating systems, buying licenses to their books, movies, games, and music, etc.

It was caused by an inaccuracy in the data (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year ago | (#42586479)

Obviously, it was caused by an inaccuracy in the data.

The data that the execs thought indicated they could steal other people's work of art.

Say bye bye!

Re:It was caused by an inaccuracy in the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586827)

Obviously, it was caused by an inaccuracy in the data.

The data that the execs thought indicated they could steal other people's work of art.

Say bye bye!

No, no, no. It's caused by an inaccuracy in the users. Specifically, they are inaccurately failing to use Instagram like they've been told to do.

Don't worry, though. Obviously, once the users correct this fault in themselves, all the data will fall back into place. So get to it, users. Chop chop.

Re:It was caused by an inaccuracy in the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586955)

Other people's works of art is it? From Instagram? Oh man that's a laugh.

Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (1)

faragon (789704) | about a year ago | (#42586495)

Key features of Instagram are image enhancement filters with pseudo HDR reconstruction, which is great, but it will be catched, the sooner or the later. So, unless they act in a *very* kind way, they'll die in favor of Twitter and Facebook. IMO, it makes no sense for some minor player to fool around with their temporary momentum: be nice, or die, you insensitive clods.

Re:Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (4, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#42586599)

Key features of Instagram are image enhancement filters with pseudo HDR reconstruction.

No, those are just the carrot on the stick. The key features of Instagram are that it's a mobile-only social network, its reason for existence is location-based photo sharing, and it's dominated by iPhone users. The fact that it's mobile-only has every incumbent desktop social network scared. The fact that it's based on photo sharing had Facebook scared, because photo sharing is what made Facebook what it is; and the fact that it's dominated by iPhone users has advertisers salivating, because iPhone users are, demographically, more wealthy and more likely to spend money on products and services.

Re:Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586733)

Tell me why I need Instagram when I can do photo manipulation including simulated HDR with Corel Paint Shop Photo.

Hint: I don't need their online service.

Re:Dear Instagram: be cool, or die. (2)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year ago | (#42586891)

Tell me why I need Instagram when I can do photo manipulation including simulated HDR with Corel Paint Shop Photo.

Hint: I don't need their online service.

You seem to be replying to a post other than the one I made.

oblig xkcd (4, Interesting)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year ago | (#42586527)

Re:oblig xkcd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586931)

Was this the point of this xkcd? The timing seems right...

I feel kind of dumb having it pointed out to me :(

Uhh no not really (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#42587131)

Services like instagram absolutely require user submissions to survive. They make their money on advertising and that only works if they have stuff that people want to come and see. Since they have no content creation arm, they rely on user submissions. Piss off the users, and they've got nothing and they are boned.

It would be more like if the guy in the comic was leaving all sorts of cool antique items in Chad's garage and Chad was charging others to come and look at them, but was still saying he was going to take and sell them.

The only appropriate photo to post on Instagram (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586541)

Is a candid family photo of Randi Suckerberg

Re:The only appropriate photo to post on Instagram (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586825)

Maybe a photo of Daryl McBride using his Android device

What is this Instagram? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586545)

Really, I'm truly ignorant to what Instagram is, aside from being able to take a pic and share it to social sights. Is that is all there is to it?

Re:What is this Instagram? (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year ago | (#42586715)

That, and apply a filter so you can make a perfectly good digital photograph look like an old Polaroid from the 60's after someone's cat peed on it.

Re:What is this Instagram? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587227)

so, in a nutshell, it's doing to pictures what slashdot keeps doing to news stories?

Maybe it's unrelated to TOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586639)

The internet is increasingly mocking square blurry pictures... maybe those that jumped aboard this fad, are now jumping aboard the fad of mocking it?

Re:Maybe it's unrelated to TOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586747)

Or people are less likely upload pictures now than they were over the holidays.

I Love the Thought Process Here (3, Funny)

seepho (1959226) | about a year ago | (#42586721)

"Ohh no, the startup I've been storing my pictures with has been bought out by a company that changed its ToS to include terms someone on the internet told me not to agree with. The best way to solve this problem is by storing my pictures with another startup that doesn't have such a disagreeable ToS. Problem solved forever."

Strawmanning is fun sometimes.

Re:I Love the Thought Process Here (2)

Cerium (948827) | about a year ago | (#42587005)

Umm... I'm pretty sure that if I were using a service and the TOS changed, switching to another that has better terms is the most logical thing to do. How they learn about the change doesn't really matter.

That seems to make more sense than posting a passive-aggressive pseudo-rant on some nerd news site. :/

Re:I Love the Thought Process Here (1)

seepho (1959226) | about a year ago | (#42587101)

Agreed. And eating a banana makes more sense than riding a roller coaster. @:3

Because of rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586751)

They went to Snapchat.

Great! (5, Insightful)

blahbooboo (839709) | about a year ago | (#42586767)

The sooner instagram dies the better. There are great cameras in smartphones now, it's crazy people want to make their photos look like crap with filters.

Re:Great! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42586789)

But how can I be artistic without those filters!? No one has ever created art with just a camera before.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587371)

There was a time when every website seemingly had "sparkles" added to logos in animated gifs. It's the same sort of deal.

Christmas? (1)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | about a year ago | (#42586821)

You're really gonna blame this on Christmas? You're really trying to tell me that Instagram users WOULDN'T have otherwise taken a billion anachronistic photos of their Wii U/cheap tablet/etc. that look like they were taken in the eighties? I call boolshit.

Why? it's a fad that's why (2)

gelfling (6534) | about a year ago | (#42586851)

It was bound to crash. How long does making your picture look like it was taken on a 1969 Instamatic keep being interesting? Especially when everyone is doing it. I mean does anyone think taking picture of yourself in a mirror in your underwear is a business model? Because Instagram is like that.

Could it another cause? (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#42586905)

Like perhaps the holidays are over? I'm sure a bump in the number of users could be due to the holidays and snapping lots of photos of family and their holiday preparations and such.

And now, a month later, the holidays are over and the drab January days are here. Which likely means well, there's less stuff to post about?

That's like saying Apple is failing because their iPhone sales are falling in January after spiking in November-December. January is a very slow month to begin with for most businesses (especially after the holiday bills come due), and likely, is very slow because it's a drab month to begin with.

Not surprised (1)

macwhizkid (864124) | about a year ago | (#42586949)

Why would anyone be surprised that a low-tier service for lazy people to do little more than crop photos and apply crappy-looking digital filters loses market share when said service announces that they're effectively going to steal all their user's photos?

Um, seasonality, anyone? (1)

Hnice (60994) | about a year ago | (#42586979)

I hate instagram and FB and all my friends and i'm old and stupid, but, i'm also in web analytics, and comparing mid-January to mid-December doesn't make any sense. I mean, I can't think of one, maybe there's some reason that in mid-december, people might be taking a lot more pictures than at other times of the year. Oh wait, I can think of one. A giant one. The biggest one all year.

Or maybe there were more devices going into new owners' hands in mid-december and THAT drove up usage like crazy. Or maybe people take more pictures when they're not at work, and lots of people have lots of days off in Dec and not in Jan. Or maybe oh forget it you get the point.

Compare this week this year to this week last year in December, then do the same in January, and THEN we can talk. Was the week-to-week change different last year? Otherwise you end up with dumb crap like this. Oh, hey, did you hear that Amazon's revenues are down 48% vs. four weeks ago? THEY"RE DOOOOOMED because I'm an idiot.

NEXT.

Re:Um, seasonality, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587221)

The problem is that Instagram's period of relevance is shorter than a year.

Breaking Twitter Integation Didn't Help (4, Interesting)

adisakp (705706) | about a year ago | (#42587027)

I know a lot of people who are twitter users and were pissed off at Instagram when they broke Twitter integration. The unfavorable TOS just was the last straw to get Tweeters to leave in droves.

Re:Breaking Twitter Integation Didn't Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42587263)

Yeah, imagine the disappointment amongst their followers not seeing those pictures anymore, that were artificially made to look crappy... crappier than the original anyways

Breaks down to two words (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#42587033)

Got Greedy

Re:Breaks down to two words (2)

tatman (1076111) | about a year ago | (#42587167)

Exactly. Then again, anyone using a free service, with no ads, should expect something will change, at some point. I certainly wasn't surprised by the change, just disappointed.

Like Netflix: Munsoned! (0)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#42587421)

munsoned (v.) - To have the whole world in the palm of your hand and blow it. The ones responsible, through actions of their own, of "Being on 'a Gravy train with Biscuit Wheels' and falling off."

It's hubris, pure and simple -- well deserved, imho.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...