Comment by replicatorblog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by replicatorblog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think people forget how inconsequential Instagram seemed at the time Facebook bought it. It was popular and growing fast, but the notion that this 12-person startup was worth a billion dollars was laughable. Read contemporaneous accounts and many reporters were incredulous. It was prima facie evidence of a bubble.

I don't know if a regulator would have had the foresight to see Instagram, which was still as much known for its filters as its social network as anything but a compliment? Look at how Instagram was seen as one of many similar products at the time:

https://www.engadget.com/2012/05/25/instacrt-puts-all-other-...

https://lifehacker.com/5970648/five-best-photo-filter-apps

An early rival, Hipstamatic, was named the Apple App of the Year in 2010: https://techcrunch.com/2010/12/09/apple-top-apps-2010/

Insta has taken on a life of its own over the last 2-3 years, but if they had chose to go their own way, whose to say Facebook wouldn't have clobbered them, in much the way they nuked Foursquare.

I'm not opposed to regulation, per se, but we should also be careful not to indulge in revisionist history.

This is totally NOT correct. When Facebook bought Instagram, Justin Bieber was already posting pictures there. I was already posting pictures there. My friends were already. It's not users, it's growth rate and engagement. And they were through the roofs. Also, thinking that Andreessen, Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg just go and throw away $1B for the sake of it... it's nuts. Also, 30M MAU mostly in EU and US it's an extremely high number. For comparison, it has grown x20 in the last 5 years since the mentioned number has been reached. Approx. it kept its growth rate relative to scale, give or take a multiplier - depending on how you do the math.

On another plan (not really related to the argument- but more as to what really made IG stand out), when almost identical services as you mentioned are similarly growing, the only difference is the endorsement behind closed doors. Instagram was endorsed by Adam D'angelo, Jack dorsey and Sequoia w $50M in its war chest

Yeah this is definitely correct. I was on board believing FB would become bigger and bigger. But the Instagram acquisition seemed crazy. How many users did Instagram have when it was acquired? 30 million? How could anyone think Instagram would get to where it did (Instagram is supposed to do $6-7B in revenue this year).

Also, FB itself wasn’t what it is now at the time either.

The big platform companies see engagement and growth metrics for all startups, not just the numbers they are pitched. The public didn't expect Instagram to be a success - Facebook had more information.

This information asymmetry is a big issue. It means big platforms can detect competitors early and know when to offer generous acquisition deals to neutralise them. The people working in these competitors don't have this comparative basis to tell how well they're doing.

As a small player, it's very hard to see how successful your competitors are. For example, Google and Apple only provide vague statistics about number of downloads in their appstores, rounded very loosely. But they internally can track detailed metrics. Facebook and Twitter are used as distribution mechanisms, for login, and as sources of contact info. They can glean insights from that.

Facebook has even better insights through the Onavo VPN, which as it tunnels traffic from other apps, can even show which features are doing well https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/12/facebook-starts-pushing-it...

At the time it was bought, Instagram was a major thing for myself and my friend circles. It had been for a little while.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com