4 ms·
That picture with Facebook photos in comparison to the other major sites is impressive, I didn't realize they had that much dominace. In other news, please, we
by templaedhel 15y ago
That picture with Facebook photos in comparison to the other major sites is impressive, I didn't realize they had that much dominace.
In other news, please, we haven't (IMO) solved the photo sharing/storing software problem. Snapjoy is close, but until I can have public photos, face (people) based grouping, and tags/event organization, it's not there yet.
- aw3c2 15y agoThat image is wrong and misleading. Facebook: 140000000000 photos Flicker: 6000000000 photos Instagram: 150000000 photos LoC: Wikipedia says 12000000 which is around the "Facebook has 10000 times more" so let's use that. ----- Let LoC be a square of 1 pixel side lengths. Instagram is 12.5 times as much. So the area would be ~13 square pixels, that leads to side lengths of 3.5 pixels. Flickr is 500 times the LoC -> 500 square pixels -> square with sides of 22 pixels Facebook is 12000 the LoC times -> 12000 square pixels -> square with sides of 110 pixels As image: http://i.imgur.com/gCjqV.png http://i.imgur.com/gCjqV.png Ouch.
- tseabrooks 15y agoImage is definitely wrong based on your numbers but I'm not sure it's "misleading". Your picture also shows a complete dominance by facebook. The difference is big, but not important for the purposes of the article. Especially when you consider how poor humans are at determining amounts of things based on area (see the recent discussions on pie charts).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]