4 ms·

>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: whe

>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.
  - jewbacca 15y ago
    The difference between one thing (the primary thing) and three things is massive. Especially if this involves dropping out of a social situation, even for a few seconds, to do it.
- glanch 15y ago
  Uh, what? I don't even get to decide whether or not the photo is worth sharing after I take it? That's actually worse.
  - larrywright 15y ago
    No, you can in fact discard the picture you took. What OP is saying is that it's one button to share to as many different social networks (plus email) as you want. It sounds minor, but it really is much more convenient.
  - davidw 15y ago
    My guess (I don't use it either - I can't stand the stupid filters), is that if you fire up Instagram, instead of the regular camera app, you'd know that it's going to automatically share everything you take.
  - c1sc0 15y ago
    I guess it's a matter of intent: if I already know I'll want to share the pic I'm about to take I just fire up Instagram, otherwise I use the standard camera app. On a related note: the Google+ Instant Upload feature does even 'better'. From the G+ website: "All photos and videos taken with your mobile device are uploaded to the From your phone album. These photos and videos are only visible to you unless you share them." That's even more frictionless sharing, but not in a way I like: it freaked me out when I inadvertently turned this on.
klausa 15y ago
You post million different things on your Facebook and Twitter timeline. You have links, random thoughts, quotations, discussing with other people etc. etc. Add people inevitably complaining 'Dude, you're posting 5 pictures of your cat EVERY DAY!', and having separate, photo-only social network suddenly makes sense.
rplnt 15y ago
> Essentially, Instagram sold your "attention" to Facebook for $1BB. Or rather "don't pay attention to the google" :)

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.
- jewbacca 15y ago
  The difference between one thing (the primary thing) and three things is massive. Especially if this involves dropping out of a social situation, even for a few seconds, to do it.
glanch 15y ago
Uh, what? I don't even get to decide whether or not the photo is worth sharing after I take it? That's actually worse.
- larrywright 15y ago
  No, you can in fact discard the picture you took. What OP is saying is that it's one button to share to as many different social networks (plus email) as you want. It sounds minor, but it really is much more convenient.
- davidw 15y ago
  My guess (I don't use it either - I can't stand the stupid filters), is that if you fire up Instagram, instead of the regular camera app, you'd know that it's going to automatically share everything you take.
- c1sc0 15y ago
  I guess it's a matter of intent: if I already know I'll want to share the pic I'm about to take I just fire up Instagram, otherwise I use the standard camera app. On a related note: the Google+ Instant Upload feature does even 'better'. From the G+ website: "All photos and videos taken with your mobile device are uploaded to the From your phone album. These photos and videos are only visible to you unless you share them." That's even more frictionless sharing, but not in a way I like: it freaked me out when I inadvertently turned this on.

klausa 15y ago

You post million different things on your Facebook and Twitter timeline. You have links, random thoughts, quotations, discussing with other people etc. etc. Add people inevitably complaining 'Dude, you're posting 5 pictures of your cat EVERY DAY!', and having separate, photo-only social network suddenly makes sense.

rplnt 15y ago

> Essentially, Instagram sold your "attention" to Facebook for $1BB. Or rather "don't pay attention to the google" :)