4 ms·

Instagram for non-believers

46 points by c1sc0 15y ago

jgrahamc 15y ago
This is slightly off topic, but the reason I never started using Instagram is related to the reason I quit Facebook: the continuous stream of ego-stroking, look-at-me status updates and photographs was just tedious. The narcissism in all these updates, check ins, and shares is unbelievable. I can fully understand why Instagram was worth $1B. It enabled enhanced ego-stroking because it took tedious photographs and made them look like they were cool without any effort.
- brlewis 15y ago
  I think your comment is fully on topic. We're talking about how Instagram grew to be worth $1B. Its appeal or lack thereof to you individually is part of the conversation.
- c1sc0 15y ago
  Think about it this way: previous generations conspicuously consumed "brand X" for the same reason: to show off. Now we can "show off" without consuming. In my book, that's progress. I'm not sure it makes us happier, though.
- yock 15y ago
  Frankly, this says more about the people you follow than the platforms themselves. If you aren't following ego-maniacs (and, admittedly, stay out of the "popular posts" type sections) then there should be no problem. Don't blame the platform for enabling people to be who they really are.
  - larrywright 15y ago
    This. I take pictures of my kids, things we're doing, or interesting things that I see in my daily life. When OP says "narcissism", he's either following much different people than I do, or he doesn't know what narcissism means.
    - mberning 15y ago
      I suppose it depends on your perspective. When I see people posting endless streams of pictures of their kids, home improvement projects, vacations etc. it appears just as narcissistic to me as posting pictures of you at the club or next to your brand new BMW. Everybody has their preference on what to indulge in throughout life but the universal constant is 'look at me'.
      - AznHisoka 15y ago
        Yep, I agree. What some consider normal sharing can be considered narcissism by others. We're just so immersed with our own life, that we never stop and consider whether others would actually care if we shared something. And a platform can enhance the narcissism. Take any humble person and throw him into Twitter, and he/she can't help but tell everyone about their great life, or how they suffer more than others.
      - mladenkovacevic 15y ago
        Yes this is relevant. Family pictures used to be something you put in albums and maybe pull out a few times a year to look at as a family. Publishing all your pictures, all the time is like carrying a projector with slides from random moments in your life to every party you ever go to and setting it up for everyone to see whether they asked you to or not. It sounds like a crazy thing to all of us who are aware of how things used to be.. but maybe for the next generation this is going to be cultural norm. I don't want to be judgmental and I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't tell if that's positive or negative or even if it's a long-term or short-term phenomenon, but at least for right now, that seems to be how we're evolving.
  - jgrahamc 15y ago
    Don't blame the platform for enabling people to be who they really are. I think the issue here is that McLuhan was absolutely right when describing how the medium actually transforms and filters the messages that are sent through it. It's worth reading "Understanding Media" (or "The Medium is the Massage") because one of his key points is that the apparent content of the messages being sent across a medium is a distraction for what's really going on (the societal change brought about by the medium itself). In the case of social networking the medium is broadcasting a message that it's normal to continuously stream updates, pictures etc. about your daily life as if the people following you cared about that. The fact that they do care about it is simply a sign that the medium is shaping society to the social network's particular medium. Also, it's worth considering the difference between a one-to-one sharing of something (let's say a picture of your child shared with your mother) and the broadcasting of information to a chosen social group. The former is a personal interaction which has many subtexts (proud parent showing off their child, wanting to connect with your own parent), whereas the broadcast does not have the same depth. It's just "look at me".
    - GavinB 15y ago
      Let me start by saying that I have the same gut reaction that you do. On the other hand, isn't this position essentially saying that because the things in your life are similar to others and not surprising, they aren't valuable and worthy of documentation? What's wrong with "look at me?" Am I not worthy of being looked at by my friends because I haven't done something remarkable? Just because my kid isn't really all that different from every other kid, or thousands of other people were also at that concert (and my photos are mediocre at best). . . And if I share something actually remarkable that I've done, it's just "bragging," right? I don't log in to facebook very often. But when I do, what else should I expect to see but what's going on in their lives? My instinct is the same as yours--to hold back and be private. To not share my life with others, because they might be bored. To not document my everyday triumphs and failures, because they're not really that different from anyone else's. But I have a sneaking feeling we might be wrong about this one. Maybe our boring human lives are worth documenting and sharing.
      - 15y ago
ryandvm 15y ago
I'm not a heavy Instagram user, but I like the author's assertion. Instagram is so popular because of what it isn't - it's not another photo manager. It's just a totally frictionless way to share photos.
- c1sc0 15y ago
  I didn't put it in the blog post for fear of making it too long, but one example of where "no choice" is a better option is in the image format: Instagram eliminates the question of "Should I shoot this in portrait or in landscape?".
  - marginalboy 15y ago
    That's a "feature"? It's probably the most aggravating characteristic of Instagram for me, and it's the reason I don't take all my pics with the app...
  - tomflack 15y ago
    And simultaneously eliminates the "oh this photo is in portrait/landscape I have to rotate my phone to view it properly."
  - neebz 15y ago
    err..they removed potrait/landscape choice and added a gazillion filters to choose from.
  - JosephHatfield 15y ago
    Agreed. The square aspect ratio is actually very nice for many types of photos;wish my D7000 had a setting for that.
- kentosi 15y ago
  And free (which goes in like with your frictionless comment).
  - tatsuke95 15y ago
tatsuke95 15y ago
>For non-believers: Instagram removed features to make sharing pics simple again. Nope, I still don't get it. I've never used Instagram, so bear with me: when I take a picture with my phone, I click on the share button, pick where I want to share (Facebook, Twitter, email, text) and I'm done. Pretty simple. What is Instagram removing from that process to make sharing more simple? Now maybe I can explain why people are astonished with what Instagram was bought for: they built an apparently amazing product, but it wasn't something that couldn't have been built by Facebook (or any other number of companies) rapidly and cheaply. It was the user base. Essentially, Instagram sold your "attention" to Facebook for $1BB.
- c1sc0 15y ago
  Ah, but then you have only shared a pic & you haven't turned it into a social object you can comment on & like & whatnot. My mistake, I should have put that more clearly in words in the original post. Also, AFAIK when Instagram came out there was no FB & TW share integrated into the standard iOS camera app.
  - sanxiyn 15y ago
    I think that means Instagram succeeded because iOS camera app (unlike Android camera app) was crappy. That is, it mainly fixed iOS deficiency. Is that the right interpretation?
- barredo 15y ago
  > What is Instagram removing from that process to make sharing more simple? You mentioned three steps. 1) > I take a picture with my phone 2) > I click on the share button 3) > pick where I want to share (Facebook, Twitter, email, text) With Instagram 1) take the picture Done, filters are optional, and the sharing is built in. Also, reducing the size (to i think... 600*600 pixels or so) makes it incredibly fast to upload even in crappy edge/gprs networks.
  - tatsuke95 15y ago
    So the posting to Facebook/Twitter/whatever is done automatically, one-click? I can see that being appealing and simplifying things some. But I'd hardly call the old process cumbersome.
JCB_K 15y ago
What I think many Instagram critics misunderstand, is that Instagram is not about the filters. Sure, they're added value for many people, but at some point they'll go out of fashion, and I'm sure the people at Instagram know that damn well. The real value of Instagram is the social network behind it. Photos are the easiest way of sharing what you're doing. You don't need to write a word, you just hold out your phone, snap a picture and upload it. And from the other side it's exactly the same, you don't even need to read to know what your friends are doing, you just glance over the picture stream. Obviously you can do exactly the same on Facebook and Twitter, but by focussing on just photos Instagram has cut away all the clutter. And if you want to share what you're doing (or should I say seeing?) with friends who are not on Instagram, you can still flick the sharing switch.
eliben 15y ago
ISTM that Instragram appealed to FB simply because Google+ has a very convenient automatic upload of all pictures taken by the phone. You can then easily choose which circle or person(s) to share these pics with, or not share them at all and just know they're safely tucked in the cloud. AFAIK FB didn't have this feature. I'd say that at $1bln they overpaid, though.
devinfoley 15y ago
I disagree. Instagram is not about making the photo production process easier. It's about making the photo consumption process easier, so that the photos you take get more attention from others (and you have more fun). You could share your photos to Facebook or Twitter instead, but when users view their streams from those other sites, they're confronted with either a sea of text (Twitter) or a sea of mixed content in non-standard formats (Facebook). Catching up on your Facebook feed is impossible, so nobody does it. Twitter is a bit better because the posts are in a standard format, but still, reading tweets takes a bit of time. Contrast this with Instagram. I'm following over 200 people and I can catch up on an entire day's worth of photos in about 5 minutes. Because it's faster to view an image than read a tweet, and because of the standard post format, Instagram is literally the fastest way possible for me to see what my friends and family have been up to. To me, that's the real value of Instagram.

46 points by c1sc0 15y ago

This is slightly off topic, but the reason I never started using Instagram is related to the reason I quit Facebook: the continuous stream of ego-stroking, look-at-me status updates and photographs was just tedious. The narcissism in all these updates, check ins, and shares is unbelievable. I can fully understand why Instagram was worth $1B. It enabled enhanced ego-stroking because it took tedious photographs and made them look like they were cool without any effort.

brlewis 15y ago
I think your comment is fully on topic. We're talking about how Instagram grew to be worth $1B. Its appeal or lack thereof to you individually is part of the conversation.
c1sc0 15y ago
Think about it this way: previous generations conspicuously consumed "brand X" for the same reason: to show off. Now we can "show off" without consuming. In my book, that's progress. I'm not sure it makes us happier, though.
yock 15y ago
Frankly, this says more about the people you follow than the platforms themselves. If you aren't following ego-maniacs (and, admittedly, stay out of the "popular posts" type sections) then there should be no problem. Don't blame the platform for enabling people to be who they really are.
- larrywright 15y ago
  This. I take pictures of my kids, things we're doing, or interesting things that I see in my daily life. When OP says "narcissism", he's either following much different people than I do, or he doesn't know what narcissism means.
  - mberning 15y ago
    I suppose it depends on your perspective. When I see people posting endless streams of pictures of their kids, home improvement projects, vacations etc. it appears just as narcissistic to me as posting pictures of you at the club or next to your brand new BMW. Everybody has their preference on what to indulge in throughout life but the universal constant is 'look at me'.
    - AznHisoka 15y ago
      Yep, I agree. What some consider normal sharing can be considered narcissism by others. We're just so immersed with our own life, that we never stop and consider whether others would actually care if we shared something. And a platform can enhance the narcissism. Take any humble person and throw him into Twitter, and he/she can't help but tell everyone about their great life, or how they suffer more than others.
    - mladenkovacevic 15y ago
      Yes this is relevant. Family pictures used to be something you put in albums and maybe pull out a few times a year to look at as a family. Publishing all your pictures, all the time is like carrying a projector with slides from random moments in your life to every party you ever go to and setting it up for everyone to see whether they asked you to or not. It sounds like a crazy thing to all of us who are aware of how things used to be.. but maybe for the next generation this is going to be cultural norm. I don't want to be judgmental and I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't tell if that's positive or negative or even if it's a long-term or short-term phenomenon, but at least for right now, that seems to be how we're evolving.
- jgrahamc 15y ago
  Don't blame the platform for enabling people to be who they really are. I think the issue here is that McLuhan was absolutely right when describing how the medium actually transforms and filters the messages that are sent through it. It's worth reading "Understanding Media" (or "The Medium is the Massage") because one of his key points is that the apparent content of the messages being sent across a medium is a distraction for what's really going on (the societal change brought about by the medium itself). In the case of social networking the medium is broadcasting a message that it's normal to continuously stream updates, pictures etc. about your daily life as if the people following you cared about that. The fact that they do care about it is simply a sign that the medium is shaping society to the social network's particular medium. Also, it's worth considering the difference between a one-to-one sharing of something (let's say a picture of your child shared with your mother) and the broadcasting of information to a chosen social group. The former is a personal interaction which has many subtexts (proud parent showing off their child, wanting to connect with your own parent), whereas the broadcast does not have the same depth. It's just "look at me".
  - GavinB 15y ago
    Let me start by saying that I have the same gut reaction that you do. On the other hand, isn't this position essentially saying that because the things in your life are similar to others and not surprising, they aren't valuable and worthy of documentation? What's wrong with "look at me?" Am I not worthy of being looked at by my friends because I haven't done something remarkable? Just because my kid isn't really all that different from every other kid, or thousands of other people were also at that concert (and my photos are mediocre at best). . . And if I share something actually remarkable that I've done, it's just "bragging," right? I don't log in to facebook very often. But when I do, what else should I expect to see but what's going on in their lives? My instinct is the same as yours--to hold back and be private. To not share my life with others, because they might be bored. To not document my everyday triumphs and failures, because they're not really that different from anyone else's. But I have a sneaking feeling we might be wrong about this one. Maybe our boring human lives are worth documenting and sharing.
    - 15y ago

ryandvm 15y ago

I'm not a heavy Instagram user, but I like the author's assertion. Instagram is so popular because of what it isn't - it's not another photo manager. It's just a totally frictionless way to share photos.

c1sc0 15y ago
I didn't put it in the blog post for fear of making it too long, but one example of where "no choice" is a better option is in the image format: Instagram eliminates the question of "Should I shoot this in portrait or in landscape?".
- marginalboy 15y ago
  That's a "feature"? It's probably the most aggravating characteristic of Instagram for me, and it's the reason I don't take all my pics with the app...
- tomflack 15y ago
  And simultaneously eliminates the "oh this photo is in portrait/landscape I have to rotate my phone to view it properly."
- neebz 15y ago
  err..they removed potrait/landscape choice and added a gazillion filters to choose from.
- JosephHatfield 15y ago
  Agreed. The square aspect ratio is actually very nice for many types of photos;wish my D7000 had a setting for that.
kentosi 15y ago
And free (which goes in like with your frictionless comment).
- tatsuke95 15y ago

tatsuke95 15y ago

>For non-believers: Instagram removed features to make sharing pics simple again. Nope, I still don't get it. I've never used Instagram, so bear with me: when I take a picture with my phone, I click on the share button, pick where I want to share (Facebook, Twitter, email, text) and I'm done. Pretty simple. What is Instagram removing from that process to make sharing more simple? Now maybe I can explain why people are astonished with what Instagram was bought for: they built an apparently amazing product, but it wasn't something that couldn't have been built by Facebook (or any other number of companies) rapidly and cheaply. It was the user base. Essentially, Instagram sold your "attention" to Facebook for $1BB.

c1sc0 15y ago
Ah, but then you have only shared a pic & you haven't turned it into a social object you can comment on & like & whatnot. My mistake, I should have put that more clearly in words in the original post. Also, AFAIK when Instagram came out there was no FB & TW share integrated into the standard iOS camera app.
- sanxiyn 15y ago
  I think that means Instagram succeeded because iOS camera app (unlike Android camera app) was crappy. That is, it mainly fixed iOS deficiency. Is that the right interpretation?
barredo 15y ago
> What is Instagram removing from that process to make sharing more simple? You mentioned three steps. 1) > I take a picture with my phone 2) > I click on the share button 3) > pick where I want to share (Facebook, Twitter, email, text) With Instagram 1) take the picture Done, filters are optional, and the sharing is built in. Also, reducing the size (to i think... 600*600 pixels or so) makes it incredibly fast to upload even in crappy edge/gprs networks.
- tatsuke95 15y ago
  So the posting to Facebook/Twitter/whatever is done automatically, one-click? I can see that being appealing and simplifying things some. But I'd hardly call the old process cumbersome.

JCB_K 15y ago

What I think many Instagram critics misunderstand, is that Instagram is not about the filters. Sure, they're added value for many people, but at some point they'll go out of fashion, and I'm sure the people at Instagram know that damn well. The real value of Instagram is the social network behind it. Photos are the easiest way of sharing what you're doing. You don't need to write a word, you just hold out your phone, snap a picture and upload it. And from the other side it's exactly the same, you don't even need to read to know what your friends are doing, you just glance over the picture stream. Obviously you can do exactly the same on Facebook and Twitter, but by focussing on just photos Instagram has cut away all the clutter. And if you want to share what you're doing (or should I say seeing?) with friends who are not on Instagram, you can still flick the sharing switch.

eliben 15y ago

ISTM that Instragram appealed to FB simply because Google+ has a very convenient automatic upload of all pictures taken by the phone. You can then easily choose which circle or person(s) to share these pics with, or not share them at all and just know they're safely tucked in the cloud. AFAIK FB didn't have this feature. I'd say that at $1bln they overpaid, though.

devinfoley 15y ago

I disagree. Instagram is not about making the photo production process easier. It's about making the photo consumption process easier, so that the photos you take get more attention from others (and you have more fun). You could share your photos to Facebook or Twitter instead, but when users view their streams from those other sites, they're confronted with either a sea of text (Twitter) or a sea of mixed content in non-standard formats (Facebook). Catching up on your Facebook feed is impossible, so nobody does it. Twitter is a bit better because the posts are in a standard format, but still, reading tweets takes a bit of time. Contrast this with Instagram. I'm following over 200 people and I can catch up on an entire day's worth of photos in about 5 minutes. Because it's faster to view an image than read a tweet, and because of the standard post format, Instagram is literally the fastest way possible for me to see what my friends and family have been up to. To me, that's the real value of Instagram.