rone (ronebofh) wrote,

  • Music:

it's not the crime, it's the coverage

So Om Malik wrote this thing about what impelled Facebook to buy Instagram.  First off, i can't get past Malik's assertion of "Facebook's achilles heel"[sic] being "mobile photo sharing".  Seriously?  Mobile photo sharing is a hard-driving revenue stream for anyone in this world?  Is there any evidence that this was considered a weakness by anyone at Facebook?  I can lean on my experience and tell you that sharing photos from my Android phone is stone easy to Facebook, because my phone came with the Facebook app installed.  I couldn't've done it on Instagram at all until very recently.  Facebook was worried about Instagram's mobile photo sharing mojo?  I call bullshit.

And calling Instagram "a platform built on emotion"... what the hell is that about?  I wonder if he's an advance Facebook stock share owner, because it sure as hell sounds like he's trying to talk himself into the deal, which is no less than ludicrous.  Who drops $1B, even if most of it is fake money, on an emotion-based platform?  Emotion fades.

Some are comparing it to Google buying YouTube, but others are comparing it to eBay buying Skype.  I think that it's far more likely to be closer to the latter, except worse.  Bottom line: even if, somehow, this turns out to be a good deal for Facebook, it won't be because of them addressing their supposed "Achilles heel", or because of the strength of Instagram's "emotion".

Bonus cluebie: some "business leader" thinks that Twitter "F$($#@ UP in somehow letting Instagram ended up inside of Facebook"[sic], because nothing says "mobile business advisor" than someone playing with ginned-up valuation numbers.

Tags: arsebook, rant, tech industry, the web sucks
I don't think that its success is anymore accidental than any other success, but its continued presence is more a matter of inertia than of any loyalty earned by a compelling experience.


default userpic

Your reply will be screened

Your IP address will be recorded