Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Facebook buys Instagram, now what?

By Chenda Ngak Topics Tech Talk (Credit: Facebook/Instagram) (CBS News) Facebook announced they would purchase popular photo-sharing app Instagram Monday for a mind-blowing $1 billion. Once the acquisition is complete, people are wondering what will happen to the two-year old app that took smartphones by storm.

Facebook to acquire Instagram for $1 billion
Full coverage of Facebook at Tech Talk

Speculation has already started over what the world's largest social network will do with Instagram. Skeptical users took to Twitter to decry the deal, even threatening to delete the app.

Naysayers have legitimate reasons for concern. Instagram is the most popular product that Facebook has purchased. Soon after Facebook purchased the location-based social network Gowalla in December 2011, the company closed up shop in March 2012. Facebook also purchased the up-and-coming FriendFeed in August 2009, but the social aggregation site has stalled since.

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves, however. Gowalla was already losing ground to more popular services like Foursquare and Facebook Places. As for FriendFeed, the market for social aggregation didn't quite evolve the way many thought it would.

Instagram for Android gets 1 million downloads in first day
Instagram launches for Android smartphones

A corporate takeover does not exactly spell doom for Instagram. This could be a great thing for both services.

Ideally, what Facebook will do is leave Instagram's simple user interface alone - meaning, no advertisements or redesign. Instead, the social network should port the features like filters and sharing over to Facebook mobile upload.

Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg emphasized that they would not change Instagram in a significant way.

"We're committed to building and growing Instagram independently," Zuckerberg said on his Facebook feed Monday.

Another feature that would shine is better Instagram integration with Timeline. Currently, you can't highlight an Instagram photo so that it spans two columns in Timeline. If we're lucky, Facebook will push for a photo size that can be featured on Timeline.

While there are websites that aggregate Instagram photos, there is no official website for users to visit and manage photos. It wouldn't be a surprise if a stronger web presence gets put in the queue.


Latest CBS News Headlines Popular CBS News Stories
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News

View the original article here

Facebook buys Instagram ...but for what?

(CNET) - There's a lot of speculation today about why Facebook would spend $1 billion to acquire the uber-hip photo-sharing app Instagram.

To some, it seems obvious; to others, it's the biggest sign yet of a growing Web bubble. To me, it just raises question after question, and the biggest one is "why." What does Facebook gain from buying Instagram?

Users: Instagram has 30 million users and a potentially huge influx of more, thanks to its recent expansion onto the Android platform. Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom says he thinks Instagram should easily reach 100 million user - that's significant engagement, for sure.

But Facebook doesn't need users. Facebook has users - some 850 million of them. And while I've argued that Facebook's growth potential is slowing, the social network could scoop up another 100 million global users with its eyes closed over the next year, especially as its global expansion increases. And I'm not sure Facebook is in the market for more users so much as it's in the business of figuring out how to make money off those users. So far, Instagram represents more users, but not any more revenue: more mouths to feed, if you will. Facebook shouldn't be after more un-monetized users, at this point.

Mobile: My colleague Rafe Needleman and others argue that mobile engagement is the biggest reason Facebook lusts after Instagram. A large (and growing) and super-engaged mobile audience and decent mobile uploading (which Facebook still lacks, for some reason): that must be it. Mobile is where it's at, after all: go mobile or die.

That doesn't feel right either. After all, mobile is both boon and bane for Facebook. Again, Facebook already has mobile users: in December 2011, it said 425 million monthly active users got to Facebook on a mobile device. It has mobile apps now on every platform - the fact that they're not very good, in some cases, doesn't mean they're not in wide use. Facebook doesn't have a problem with acquiring mobile users: it has a problem making money off them.

If you believe Facebook's S-2 filing in advance of its upcoming IPO, the company is, in fact, deeply concerned that an expanding mobile base could be a serious problem for its business. Remember this?

"Although the substantial majority of our mobile users also access and engage with Facebook on personal computers where we display advertising, our users could decide to increasingly access our products primarily through mobile devices. We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven."

So, then, why buy a primarily mobile app that doesn't currently, as far as we know, make any money?

Instagram's stated goal has been to build lots of users, then serve them ads - the song of every app maker on the market. Well, they'll probably get a lot more users from a Facebook purchase, but how long does it actually take to make back a billion dollars, especially when no one has yet managed to rake in significant dough from mobile ads? It seems to me that an acquisition like this could actually deepen Facebook's mobile woes, at least in the short term. Yes, Facebook needs to be mobile, but isn't Instagram just another pressure point?

Competition: As investor Chris Dixon put it on Twitter, "Giving up 1% of your market cap to take out your biggest threat is a savvy move."

That's an argument that could have legs. Instagram CEO Systrom told Venture Beat that it plans to "help every user on earth share their lives and discover the world through a series of beautiful images." (Emphasis added.) That's an ambition worthy of Mark Zuckerberg himself, and Android expansion is a major step in the world domination direction.

Or is it?

Photo filter apps are hardly the precious commodity they were when Instagram was still frustratingly iPhone-only. Lightbox, PicPlz, Little Photo, Magic Hour ... here's a list of just 10 apps that easily replace the filtering capabilities of Instagram on Android, and there are many more out there.

And if it's filters plus a new community to sign up for that you're after, why, Facebook and Instagram competitor Path are also on Android. I'd argue, however, that considering the wide breadth of Android users, most of them are not, in fact, in search of yet another hip new photo-sharing network to sign up for, which is its own potential growth issue for Instagram. If Android users already have Picasa for photo sharing, lots of good app replacements for applying filters, Facebook for social networking, and Path for all of the above, is the hipster allure of Instagram enough to get them signing up in droves? Or is that just the San Francisco Bay Area bubble talking?

Data: OK, so if it's not users, it's not mobile, and it's not taking out the competition, maybe it's just data. Instagram's 30 million users have uploaded some 100 million photos that are conveniently geo-tagged and maybe kind of personal.

Really? Facebook needs more personal data? Facebook's users upload 100 million photos a day. They're not only geo-tagged, they're also tagged with precise business locations and other people, all of whose information is also already on Facebook. Instagram doesn't strike me as the treasure trove of personal data that Facebook needs to finally, at long last, crack the nut on targeting ads.

The questions go on and on. There are a few answers that do make sense: the acquisition keeps Instagram away from Google and Twitter, both major competitors. Notably, it gets some decent engineering into the House of Facebook that can shore up Facebook's mobile-uploading and site-viewing interfaces, both of which badly need an overhaul. And maybe all the above data points, in aggregate, do actually add up to $1 billion in reasons.

But I can't help it: I still feel like there are more questions than answers to why this price tag makes sense. I hope Facebook isn't getting distracted by hipster buzz or the photo-sharing bubble, especially at a time when its business decisions need to be as sound as possible to shore up future investor confidence. Don't spend those billions before you've got them, guys.

Molly Wood is an executive editor at CNET, host of the Buzz Report, Buzz Out Loud, and Tech Review at CNET TV, and author of the Molly Rants blog. When she's not enraging fanboys of all stripes, she can be found offering tech opinions on CBS and elsewhere, and offering opinions on everything else to anyone who will listen.

Follow on Twitter »

View the original article here

Facebook buys Instagram for $1bn

9 April 2012 Last updated at 19:53 Instagram screenshot Instagram says more than 1 billion photos have been uploaded to it Facebook has announced it is to buy Instagram - the popular photo-sharing smartphone app.

Facebook is paying $1bn (£629m) in cash and stock for the takeover.

Instagram was only launched in October 2010 - initially just for the iPhone before being offered as an Android app last week.

Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to continue to develop Instagram as a separate brand, allowing it to post to rival networks.

The app is free and allows users to apply 17 filters to the pictures they take - changing the colour balance to give the images a different feel - before they are uploaded.

It has proven hugely popular. The firm says that it has more than 30 million users uploading more than 5 million new pictures every day.

Paul Kedrosky, a tech investor and author of the Infectious Greed blog, told the BBC: "I understand Instagram has 13 employees - so at $77m a head that makes it the most expensive business deal in history that I can think of."

'Important milestone'

Mr Zuckerberg wrote on his Facebook page: "We think the fact that Instagram is connected to other services beyond Facebook is an important part of the experience.

"We plan on keeping features like the ability to post to other social networks, the ability to not share your Instagrams on Facebook if you want, and the ability to have followers and follow people separately from your friends on Facebook."

He added: "This is an important milestone for Facebook because it's the first time we've ever acquired a product and company with so many users. We don't plan on doing many more of these, if any at all."

Mr Kedrosky said the speed of the deal was unusual.

"I'm told it also came together very quickly, like a lightning strike.

"After launching on Android last week and adding one million users a day, it became obvious that this wasn't just a photo sharing app - it was a competitive social network, and the concern may have been that there would be rival bids.

Lee Simpson, Jefferies International: "It has something of a smack of the dot com era to it"

"That's the only reason to think Facebook would have done this in the quiet period ahead of its flotation."

Instagram's FAQ says it had previously raised $7.5m in funding from three venture capital firms and "a small group of angel investors".

The deal marks the second time in four months that Facebook has taken on staff from another social network.

In December, it announced it was hiring the co-founders of the location-based check-in service Gowalla. The network closed down shortly afterwards.

The moves come ahead of Facebook's planned flotation later this year. The firm reportedly plans to issue $5bn worth of stock on the New York-based Nasdaq exchange in May or June. The deal could value the firm as being worth as much as $100bn.


View the original article here