Facebook buy's Instagram for $1 Billion

nwoods

Expedition Leader
So Facebook now owns (or soon will own) Instagram....
http://9to5google.com/2012/04/09/facebook-acquires-photo-sharing-app-instagram-for-1-billion/

Like political campaign promises, I look forward to watching this particular promise be broken (in bold below):
We think the fact that Instagram is connected to other services beyond Facebook is an important part of the experience. We plan on keeping features like the ability to post to other social networks, the ability to not share your Instagrams on Facebook if you want, and the ability to have followers and follow people separately from your friends on Facebook.

Facebook only lets you have one account, and they clearly think you should be the same person in business as you are in private. I can't imagine them allowing separate identities within Instagram and Facebook after they formally merge. It would be unlike all previous Facebook policy and activity.
 

cshontz

Supporting Sponsor
Not entirely on-topic, but Facebook allows pages, which often represent businesses, and allows individual users to participate on Facebook as that business identity. Although I'll agree there are probably circumstances where this user-model probably doesn't fit the bill.

It'll be interesting to see which way things go with Instagram now. I'm not a very active user of the app, but this will likely affect how how Instagram is perceived, and cause its user-base to shift somewhat. Unless Facebook adheres to their promise... which would be surprising, as you suggest.

Watching successful start-ups getting scooped up is like tabloid-TV to me. :lurk:
 

HumphreyBear

Adventurer
Facebook only lets you have one account, and they clearly think you should be the same person in business as you are in private.

I 100% agree with you, Nathan. All major social media companies are trying to break down the barrier between corporate and consumer markets. Quite a few are trying to position themselves to be default identity providers - use their ID within a company as well as for 'cloud based' consumer services (think Microsoft with Live, for example). Personally I think it is crazy to run any significant business through any of these social media services incl. Google Docs/Gmail/Drive/Google+, iCloud, Windows Live/Hotmail/SkyDrive etc. but I know (OK, have heard of) people who do.

It works both ways. When I am working on end user-facing corporate projects there would not be a week go by where I am not asked, often multiple times, why the company can't just use Google, or Facebook, or Windows Live etc. as the user account manager. Normally it is by end users but scarily I do get asked by business managers periodically.
 

nwoods

Expedition Leader
Yes, it's frightening when I think about just how many sites I visit prompt me to log in with a Facebook account... including here on ExPo (at least the home page article comment section anyway).

It reminds me of how AOL tried to keep their own private Internet, and you had to make a deliberate, conscious choice to go "outside" of AOL's safely neutered content to the www. Only the difference this time around, is that it's the www trying to sequester themselves into the Facebook world.
 

cshontz

Supporting Sponsor
To play devil's advocate, "everyone" is already on Facebook, with the exception of many folks here on Expedition Portal. While I agree, no one wants a service forced down their throat, such as Windows Live, to serve as their identity across the web, Facebook is already established as a user hub on the Internet. I think this is more of a natural and necessary evolution of the Internet rather than some idealistic, half-cocked corporate play at changing the web.

As a developer, it's a snap to allow Facebook to handle user authentication and social controls. Why create another complex authentication process and database structure when 95% (99% of my statistics are made up on the spot) of the Internet is perpetually logged-in to Facebook by their own volition?

Furthermore, a Facebook user is much less likely to be anonymous. When folks can't hide behind anonymity, the quality of interactions greatly improve. People tend to be more considerate, more objective, and it has a positive effect on online communities as a whole. On Facebook there are consequences for being rude and inconsiderate... most likely because your mom is watching.

I fail to see any disadvantage. One could really create a Facebook account, use it solely to connect to services, and never partake on Facebook in any other manner. I do agree that it isn't wise for a business to be dependent on these services, but the services can certainly be utilized without being depended upon.
 

jaxs1984

Adventurer
To play the devil's red headed step child ...we are all suckers for generating "content" and handing it over to them in which they sell to another company for 1 BILLION dollars.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,527
Messages
2,875,534
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top