Slashdot Mirror
Instagram Loses Almost Half Its Daily Users In a Month
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.
"In droves" not "in troves."
I find it to be a decent example of how not to treat your users.
My proximate annoyance was the Instagram/Twitter war. Much less convenient to post things there now.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Although probably hard to determine, I would venture to guess that Instagram blocking access of their images to Twitter had a bigger effect.
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.
http://xkcd.com/1150/
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 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.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
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.
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.
I suppose. I was thinking it more accurately demonstrated the illusion of worth of any web-supplied service. Popularity != true value.
Sent from my ENIAC
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.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Is it just me, or is "why should I care?" the new "first!!!" on slashdot posts?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you.
People need to ask themselves something on all "free" services. "How is this company making money off of this service?"
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.
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.
I think the following link to xkcd is instructive here: http://xkcd.com/1150/
as is the following regarding Facebook: http://www.ethannonsequitur.com/facebook-you-customer-product-pigs.html/facebook-and-you-pigs .
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.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
so, in a nutshell, it's doing to pictures what slashdot keeps doing to news stories?
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
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 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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
Free Martian Whores!
I find it to be a decent public warning to users that "free shit" isn't free.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
to be fair, the user bleed isn't about ToS.
It's because of the twitter disintegration.
They're using their grammar skills there.
They already had pretty lousy terms to start with. Nobody reads terms when they sign up. They only start getting enraged once somebody else tells them the terms suck, usually after they get changed and people influential enough to be listened to complain vocally. In fact, Instagram merely made the terms more specific and by doing so, allowed users more freedom in a lot of cases than with the previous terms. The only real difference was that they actively stated that they might print ads over users pictures when displaying them. They already had that right with the previous terms, so meh.
The true lesson here is that people should read terms before they sign up and if a company makes the terms illegible, they should vocally complain to the company about the terms being illegible. Since most people can't be bothered, they end being part of a human centipede. I guess people need to have that happening to them every once in a while to be reminded that there's no such thing as a free lunch and if you're not paying, you're the product.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
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.
Sadly, one thing the big tech success stories of recent years have proved beyond any doubt is that a lot of people will place convenience and cheapness above almost anything else, including quality, customer service, respect for privacy, etc.
This will continue unless and until enough people (a) make it clear that they would prefer to have a better product and better service from the business running it, and (b) are willing to pay enough actual money for it that it becomes commercially attractive.
What we seem to have today is a curious distribution of customers/commercial interest. There are mass-market, cheap and nasty products that make money on sheer volume (or even make money based on the mere expectation of making actual money from sheer volume one day). That includes the "you are the product" services where you don't pay any money at all to use them. To some extent it also includes creative industries with the ever-present IP and black market/piracy issues. Then there's a middle-ground, where the products and service are qualitatively better than the cheap junk and the price is higher accordingly, but there are enough people paying the higher price to keep these offers accessible below the die-hard specialist/enthusiast/elite market who will pay just about anything to have the best possible stuff. And finally, sometimes there are very high-end products that do a much better job and come with good service, but they have a much smaller potential market because of the price tag they come with, so it's mostly only that enthusiast crowd who buy.
Unfortunately, often that middle ground doesn't really exist in a given market because it's too hard for commercial organisations to identify and target it, and sometimes the high end of the market is barren or empty as well, leaving cheap junk the only option left. Economic theory might suggest that if enough people want better products and are willing to pay more for them then someone will come along and fill the gap, but so far that theory isn't standing up well to modern market dynamics where competition doesn't always work as well as it's "supposed to" for various reasons: literally global networking effects, artificial barriers to competition, and other such factors that can create a huge advantage for an incumbent with a mass market cheap and nasty product and a war chest.
I'm optimistic that this is just growing pains as we learn to cope with the implications of modern technologies and truly global markets with near-instant feedback, and that in time (perhaps after the global economy recovers from the current extended mess) new players really will enter the markets and start to compete on genuine quality and customer service again. If it becomes clear that this is still a viable option, then it's possible that businesses who treat their customers well could take advantage of the same modern efficiencies and word-of-mouth advertising to rise rapidly, and I think cultural change from apathy to acceptance or even positive support for such models is not only plausible but potentially something that could happen very quickly if momentum builds.
However, I fear the situation is going to continue deteriorating for a while longer before it starts to pick up, and I do worry that an entire generation may be growing up never knowing the alternatives or understanding the hidden prices they pay for what they use today. It's going to be hard for cultural change to happen if a significant chunk of the population have no concept of what the alternative might be.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
You're not correct here. Go read the ToS on their site. The old ToS (the one currently in use) doesn't include "sub-licensable". I don't know why people keep talking about them back-tracking and going back to their old ToS. Nothing has changed. They're still adding the "sub-licensable" term.
Here's their old ToS:
Instagram does NOT claim ANY ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Instagram Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
The new ToS does include "sub-licensible":
the new, updated ToS:
Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, 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, subject to the Service's Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 ("Sharing of Your Information"), 4 ("How We Store Your Information"), and 5 ("Your Choices About Your Information"). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Get some perspective! Windows 8 look like a stupid tablet, whine whine whine!
I'm 60, in my day corporations couldn't get away with this nonsense because they knew we wouldn't stand for it. I can't understand why you kids have no immunity to advertising and propaganda.
If the new iPhone had come out when we were your age it would have bombed badly, but your generation gives all sorts of excuses to sociopaths. I find it both sad and hilarious.
Free Martian Whores!