8 ms·

Ask HN: Why are there so few features on Instagram's website?

• uptown 11y ago
  Sure - they could certainly make their website more feature-packed, but I think they're wisely focused where their audience is going. http://cdn1.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/05/Share-of-time-spent-consuming-media-Mobile-Desktop_chartbuilder-1.png http://cdn1.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/05/... The vast majority of people's photos originate on mobile devices, and consumption of those photos is also trending dramatically upward while desktop consumption is trending down. I believe Facebook sees a future where all interaction is mobile, be that phones or tablets, and they don't want to waste resources building out something they know is destined to continue its decline in relevance.
  • wuliwong 11y ago
    If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying it's not that they want you to users to use their mobile app but the trend is towards mobile consumption so they don't want to spend as much of their resources on the web?
    • uptown 11y ago
      They want you to use the app ... for both publishing and consumption.
• jeffmould 11y ago
  I have no affiliation with Instagram other than a user, but I believe the answer really is that simple, they want you to use their app. The purpose of Instagram is to capture moments in time via photos on your mobile device and share those photos with your friends and others. The app serves that function eloquently so what advantage does the website give them? Users aren't discouraged from using their site, but what Instagram does not want is users to upload hundreds of images at once from the albums stored on their home computer. Not having the ability via the website helps to prevent that user. In addition, outside of uploading and altering images the website really is not missing any other functionality compared to the app. Why have a website at all you ask? My response would be why not have a website? It's a place for their business as a whole to have a web presence. Just because a product is mobile-centric, does not mean they can't have a website. I think their website is perfect for the product. It is minimal, you can search for users, see what others are posting, participate in the comments, and like photos. The only piece I do wish they would allow you to do is see who is following you and who you are following. But to be honest, I rarely use the site at all. In fact the only time I will find myself using the site is if I am on Facebook on my laptop and want to share a photo from Instagram to my FB friends. Other than that it is the app all the way.
  • wuliwong 11y ago
    >The app serves that function eloquently so what advantage does the website give them? The advantage a website gives them is more users using their product more often which means more money from their advertisements. >Users aren't discouraged from using their site My personal experience is that I am discouraged from using their site. When I want to tag a user in a comment, or see who has liked a photo or look through my list of followers I feel discouraged and I close the browser tab. >what Instagram does not want is users to upload hundreds of images at once from the albums stored on their home computer. This is easily avoidable by just using their current UX of uploading pictures in their mobile app. Namely, one at a time. Putting this into their website wouldn't allow users an easy way of uploading 100's of images at once. >outside of uploading and altering images the website really is not missing any other functionality compared to the app. There is a lot of missing functionality; tagging in comments, viewing the list of people that liked a photo, viewing the list of a user's followers or who they follow, messaging, sharing-editing-deleting photos you've posted, your notifications and your activity stream. You say this: >I think their website is perfect for the product and also this: >But to be honest, I rarely use the site at all. My interpretation of this is that your opinion is the perfect web product for Instagram is one that people don't use. Which I guess brings us back to the beginning question. :)
    • jeffmould 11y ago
      > The advantage a website gives them is more users using their product more often which means more money from their advertisements. Not really. For example, Facebook has proven that more people are drawn to mobile. While they may gain some new users, it is going to be negligible to their current base. In addition, I would bet that those users find them and signup via the web will be users who do not use the app. > My personal experience is that I am discouraged from using their site. When I want to tag a user in a comment, or see who has liked a photo or look through my list of followers I feel discouraged and I close the browser tab. This may be your experience, but I would bet that you are a minority in the larger scheme of things. > This is easily avoidable by just using their current UX of uploading pictures in their mobile app. Namely, one at a time. Putting this into their website wouldn't allow users an easy way of uploading 100's of images at once. True. But the desktop is not their focus. > My interpretation of this is that your opinion is the perfect web product for Instagram is one that people don't use. Which I guess brings us back to the beginning question. :) No, my interpretation is that Instagram was not built as a web product. It was built as a mobile product and the web is secondary to that. They are focused on building the best product to meet their demand, and unfortunately for you their demand is not on a browser-based solution. Not to be rude but I think you are looking for a deeper reason why they don't have a web app, when in reality the reason is simple. Again, the purpose of Instagram was to capture photographic moments in time via your mobile device and share those moments with others. They built a successful product around that and to meet that need.
• tedmiston 11y ago
  When Kevin and Mike started Instagram, they were trying to solve 3 problems [1]: 1. Mobile photos don't look great 2. Uploads on mobile are slow 3. Sharing to multiple services without having to think about which app in advance Using their app was the way to solve these problems. So now those problems are solved, and they’ve moved into related spaces. Layout, for example, came about because every other photo collage app either: (1) had a terrible user experience or (2) was plastered with ads (or both). And remember that before Instagram, they built Burbn, where they learned how confusing feature overload was to consumers. > While in San Francisco, Systrom and Mike Krieger built Burbn, a HTML 5 check-in service, into a product that allowed users to do many things: check in to locations, make plans (future check-ins), earn points for hanging out with friends, post pictures, and much more. However, recalling their studies in Mayfield Fellows Program, Krieger and Systrom identified that Burbn contained too many features and the users did not want a complicated product. [2] More than anything else, I think this drove them to focus on simple but great UX and the app; and that's why they don't ship new experimental features as much as, say Snapchat. The Instagram web app is decent today, but this has changed radically in the past year. > “While Instagram.com is designed to be complementary to the mobile apps, it’s important to the global conversations that happen on Instagram,” an Instagram spokesperson said. [3] In the time they idled on the desktop side, some good third party Instagram web viewers were created: Iconosquare, Websta (Webstagram), and INK361 to name a few. Their API access to Instagram was ad free. But this all changed last week when Instagram announced killing off third party viewers, by stealthily burying the lede in the context of one app that was scraping passwords. [4][5] (They already have OAuth after all.) So why all this backstory? Because now they have 300M users they need to monetize. They’re not killing off “malicious apps”; they’re reducing their competition to have more control over the user experience so they can recapture advertising money. Now the problems they’re solving are for businesses to deliver relevant advertising to their user base [6]. When you’re in the app, they control this whole experience (and the analytics around it). Less so on the wild wild web in the land of ad and tracking blockers. That said, with third-party web apps dying off, I think we’ll see the desktop web app continue to grow and be invested in, though with ads. P.S. I am a heavy Instagram user (https://www.instagram.com/kicksopenminds/ https://www.instagram.com/kicksopenminds/). 1: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2735 http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2735 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Systrom#Burbn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Systrom#Burbn 3: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/20/instagram-brings-search-to-the-web/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/20/instagram-brings-search-to-... 4: http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/17/9751574/instagram-app-developers-api-restrictions-security-privacy http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/17/9751574/instagram-app-dev... 5: http://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/17/instagram-new-api-changes/ http://www.macrumors.com/2015/11/17/instagram-new-api-change... 6: http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2015/06/19/the-monetization-of-instagram/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2015/06/19/the-monetizati...
• hanniabu 11y ago
  I forget where I heard this but one reason I heard was to discourage the posting of old pictures since chances are that pictures on your computer are older than those on your phone. When you use the app, you're most likely uploading pictures you recently took.