AppData says that Instagram may have lost 25% of users after TOS change

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rage_against_Dh05rPifiXBIJRE1rCOyML

by Irishsteve • 14 years ago

90 85 14 years ago

It's a bit far down the page. Not much info but is as follows...

Facebook's (FB) Instagram unit may have lost nearly aquarter of its users after a recent flap over its change in terms of service. That's according to the New York Post, quoting figures fromAppData. Instagram had 16.4 million active daily users the week it rolledout its policy change, but that number has now fallen to 12.4 million.

antidoh• 14 years ago

Where on CNBC are these "Primer Posts" linked from? In other words, what CNBC page would I bookmark to see the latest one?

The best I could come up with is a search, which is silly.

http://search.cnbc.com/main.do?target=all&categories=exc...

ja27• 14 years ago

I know several friends that deleted their accounts over what they read about the TOS changes. Not one of them was an actual active user.

liedra• 14 years ago

What's your point? I have several friends (and myself as well) that deleted their accounts and they were actual active users.

pimeys• 14 years ago

I was a quite active user posting about 1-3 pictures per day, liking stuff and having a bit over hundred followers. I deleted my account after this change. Good riddance Facebook.

jonknee• 14 years ago

How do you know they weren't active? You can log on to look at photos and be counted as a Daily Active User. Just like there are tons of lurkers on Twitter.

mtgx• 14 years ago

Too bad something like that never happened to Facebook itself whenever they pushed for their more aggressive default privacy settings. Maybe that would've forced them to reconsider a little and have more reasonable default privacy settings.

jQueryIsAwesome2• 14 years ago

Facebook is like a basic need now, Instagram is more like a hobby with many acceptable alternatives.

propercoil2• 14 years ago

I think you are getting downvoted because of your username

islon• 14 years ago

The keyword here is "could".

kmfrk2• 14 years ago

I deleted the one photo in my profile and all my likes - and cleaned up in the accounts I followed - but I'll still see if I can write a personal client that fetches the photos of people I am following and stores any "likes" in my own database.

After that - or before, if Instagram insist on changing their rules - I'll probably delete it altogether.

hrabago• 14 years ago

This goes on to show that people actually do care about these issues. The problem is that generally people aren't aware of the terms they're agreeing to unless someone breaks down what the TOC actually means, or what the consequences could be.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

The question Instragram has to answer for themselves is, is losing these users a bad thing? It's an obvious answer, do you want 16 million users who aren't making you a dime, or 12 million users who are able to be monetized?

Even if it dropped to one million, one million users making you money is arguably better than any number of users who aren't making you money if you're running a business.

w1ntermute6• 14 years ago

Yeah, I really got the feeling that SV had finally jumped the shark when Instagram got sold for $1 billion. How can a service with users, but no clear revenue stream, be valued so highly? It seems like people have gotten too caught up in navel (and traffic stats) gazing to see what's really important when running a business.

loceng• 14 years ago

It's all to help bolster the facade that Facebook would be worth $100 billion.

sek• 14 years ago

Facebook was scared, Instagram had a hockey stick growth and Twitter tried to buy it. It was a defensive move.

If Instagrams growth is stopped now, who profits from it? Do users get back to Facebook or other services?

sksksk• 14 years ago

It wasn't worth $1bn on the general market, but it was worth 1% of Facebook's equity (which at the time was worth $100bn)

Photos are Facebook's biggest feature by far, and Instagram is the only company that has come close to challenging it, when you look at it in those terms, 1% isn't a lot at all

ErikAugust• 14 years ago

People forget how well connected Systrom and Instagram were/are. Systrom worked at early Twitter, worked at Google, close with people at Facebook, and seeded by Andreessen ($75mil off a $250K investment). At the end of the day, it's about people. The speed of the transaction helped too.

danso• 14 years ago

Sure, it's a bad (or at least unwelcome) thing...one of a social network's primary currencies is the network effect that entices more and more people to make it an essential part of their online lives. Every millon users, even if they're all dead beats, is more leverage to convince big companies who will pay you to join into your ecosystem.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

The network effect is nice, but money is nicer - especially if you were just bought for $1b by the epitome of the network effect. Instagram needs something to sell in order for companies to be willing to pay to join them, and what can they offer but the personal information of their users?

kmfrk2• 14 years ago

Depends on whether your business model is user-profiling/data-mining, ads, or monetization of user content.

Lurkers like I are fine with regards to display ads where the number of viewers is important, and where user profiles can be created over their like/follows/follower habits.

It's not like people who don't post are necessarily bad for business.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

Well the point I was making was that if by monetizing your userbase you're going to lose some of your userbase, it's still better to monetize a smaller userbase than to have a large userbase with no cash inflow.

Were there other options available to them that wouldn't have lost users? Possibly. I have no stats to back it up other than personal experience, but I would venture to say that no matter how you monetize your userbase, there's always going to be some people who expect it for free, no strings attached, and will cause a stink then leave if there's any monetizable component to it.

antr• 14 years ago

all i know is that before i deleted my account, around 15 close friends deleted theirs. We are not teenagers, but adults with well-paid jobs - i.e. the sweet-spot target demographic for most big ad-spending brands.

jusben13692• 14 years ago

I think the response would be "Do both" Keep your 16 million uniques and monetize them. It shouldn't be an either/or.

nightpool• 14 years ago

Right, but you can't always do everything. Sometimes tradeoffs have to be made. I'm not saying this is necessarily one of them, but Instagram could see it as one.

darkxanthos• 14 years ago

I've been there myself and its a helluva slippery slope. When you're a start up growth is everything so losing 25% of your uniques is terrible BUT... They've already been acquired so now for Facebook to lost 25% of instagrams uniques... You may have a point.

However how many are already Facebook users and thus already profitable?

pbreit• 14 years ago

Even if you hadn't already sold, and even if you werent still in growth mode, you still want the users. Who's to say they aren't monetizable?

jimzvz2• 14 years ago

I think you are under the false assumption that the users that left, left because they didn't want to be monetized.

reedlaw• 14 years ago

If not over the TOS then why did they leave? The timing seems too close to be purely coincidental.

jstanley• 14 years ago

Not really on topic, but they seem to have missed out an unbelievable number of spaces between words. I wonder what has happened there.

colkassad• 14 years ago

Probably copied from an email or something else that wraps text.

dspig• 14 years ago

Looks like search-and-replace newline with nothing, but some of the newlines were acting as spaces. It's a shame even big organizations can't afford basic proof reading any more :(

josephlord• 14 years ago

Making a judgement on the basis of two datapoints for weekly data where one of the weeks is a major holiday in the biggest relevant markets strikes me as a bad idea. Unless you can use previous years seasonality to adjust the data.

It may be that Instagram would normally have an increase rather than a decrease at Christmas but I wouldn't assume that without data.

tommy_m• 14 years ago

Yeah, one out of every four users on FB/Instagram read and understand the TOS, then care enough to stop using the service. That makes perfect sense...

mrharrison2• 14 years ago

No way, thats completely false. The only people that really care about the TOS or even know whats going on, is us geeks. Normal people on the street don't care or even realize whats going on.

jeremyarussell• 14 years ago

I'm one nerd, and I know a solid two hundred plus people in real life that asked me what the Instagram thing was all about because they had heard about some stuff and needed clarification. I won't run through what I talked to them about but I can assure you, it is not just nerds and geeks that care about this stuff. The key difference why I got 200+ people IRL asking me questions about Instagram? Because I am patient and can explain things in layman's terms. Non-technical people won't ever ask someone that assumes they don't want to know these things questions regarding these things.

mrharrison2• 14 years ago

Dude you just assumed on me. I just dislike when people post bogus articles like this on hacker news. Completely unfounded data. You assumed this data was because of the TOS and so did CNBC to get more page hits. Yes I asked many people who didn't ask me, and they didn't think much of it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bogus-story-about-instagram-l...

jusben13692• 14 years ago

It's too early to tell if this is good data or not. Assuming it is it begs the question. Why would Instragram's Users (a major % of them) act in a way we've never seen when other SN's pull similar moves? What's so unique about Instagram vs FB and is their any broader lesson to be learned from that?

rayiner• 14 years ago

As far as I can tell, it's all about selling peoples' pictures versus using them to leverage targeted ads. I don't think most Instagram users ever thought about how the service would be monetized, but I think even the ones that did assumed it would just be ads like FB, etc. But taking someone's pictures and selling them is a whole different ball game.

neya5• 14 years ago

Instagram is a perfect example of how arrogance could re-define the 'image' of a company.

The real problem for Instagram was not about selling its users' photos. The real problem was being 'sneaky as fuck'. If you intend to sell our photos, we actually have no problem. You just have to make it clear to us. But what did Instagram do? Silently update it's terms of service WITHOUT informing its users. Legally, it's not obliged to do so, but when you have tons of data that THE USERS have uploaded, it is YOUR duty to tell us, atleast inform us before trying to sell it. This is what created that public outrage, because Instagram failed to notify any of its users of this change. You can't just walk in one fine day saying, "You know what? All the pictures YOU have taken effort getting it right, will be ours from today, and I guess it's best you don't know about it."

Well, fuck you Instagram, you deserved this. When I joined Instagram, I knew someday it would have to make money to sustain and most likely my data would be compromised (something an average user wouldn't realize and would assume it's forever free). Fitting ads somewhere inside your app or on your webpage would have been a much better solution, because it is something the average user would see (and possibly wouldn't mind either). But your sneaky as fuck change in TOS was UNETHICAL. You deserve this. I just hope some other open source app replaces you and your fame fades away. Because you are u.n.e.t.h.i.c.a.l.

k-mcgrady• 14 years ago

>> If you intend to sell our photos, we actually have no problem

I don't think that's true. Anyone I saw that left always made it clear they didn't want Instagram selling their photos and that was their reason for leaving.

neya5• 14 years ago

sorry, I meant if they made it clear before-hand like, before joining their service. So you wouldn't be suddenly disappointed like what happened now.

mbell• 14 years ago

You seem to have not read the ToS before or after the change. It was actually more restrictive _after_ the change.

All this 'outrage' seems to fundamentally be about the user being reminded that the ToS actually existed in the first place, not any changes made to it.

SolarUpNote2• 14 years ago

But wasn't this whole thing a big misunderstanding?

They were never going to sell users' photos. The TOS changed to make way for "promoted" photos (advertising).

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-wer...

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

cryptoz• 14 years ago

I think you're agreeing with OP. The problem was never rooted in selling photos, the problem was Instagram's arrogance and willingness to sneak changes into the TOS without talking to the users. The changes themselves maybe didn't matter so much in this case as did their inability to communicate.

zmj• 14 years ago

That statement would be made regardless of their original intent. It isn't evidence in either direction.

logn• 14 years ago

"The language we proposed also raised question about whether your photos can be part of an advertisement. We do not have plans for anything like this and because of that we’re going to remove the language that raised the question"

They admit right there that the TOS allowed for brands to feature user photos in ads. It's a nice cover to claim you never intended that, then if so why put it in TOS? Maybe the legal department got carried away, but more likely they envisioned photos being like Facebook "likes" (e.g., "Joe Adams likes Amazon!"). You might have Amazon promoting a user image of someone reading a Kindle on Instagram.

neya5• 14 years ago

Whether they were going to sell the photos or not wasn't the issue, they just gave themselves the 'right' or 'possibility' to do so without anyone's consent.

Either way, let me give you an analogy - You catch a someone red-handed trying to steal your belongings from your house. If you asked him what was he doing there, he's obviously going to defend himself. He would say anything but 'I'm here to steal your stuff.' In this case the burglar just said he's here for a cup of coffee, which to me seems too good to be true.

mongol• 14 years ago

I can't say that you are wrong but some of the criticism has been that the new conditions make it _possible_ for them to sell them, regardless of their "intention" as they state in the blog post.

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

We may never know. There was so much backlash against their TOS changes they had to walk them back. And even if their original intent was to sell their users' images for use in ads then it would be in their interest to claim otherwise and pretend it was just a misunderstanding.

alexqgb2• 14 years ago

Ok. You can start by properly reading the link you posted. Here's the opening line:

"Yesterday we introduced a new version of our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service that will take effect in thirty days. These two documents help communicate as clearly as possible our relationship with the users of Instagram so you understand how your data will be used..." Key words: "These two documents help communicate AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE."

Scroll down another three inches, and you'll find this gem: "Legal documents are easy to misinterpret."

Well no shit. Privacy Policies and ToS agreements are notoriously opaque. But here's what's even harder to understand: a person who (correctly) thinks that documents like these are "easy to misinterpret" nevertheless asserts that they "help communicate as clearly as possible", and does so at the top of a blog post that is supposed to do what? Communicate MORE clearly than possible?

Maybe all this can simply be chalked up to bad communication skills, a general lack of self-awareness, and a weak grasp of academic basics like logic and English. But most people don't regard freshly minted billionaires as idiots, and refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's twice as true when the billion dollars come from someone who is widely seen as untrustworthy.

freshfunk2• 14 years ago

This is a perfect example of how ignorance can lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's also an example of how erroneous media can easily mislead the public.

Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook.

But advertising is so evil right? Time to give up Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, LinkedIn, New York Times, etc.

Frankly, I find it funny that your everyday consumer is in an uproar because they think that their kissy-face photos could even be sold.

Companies like National Geographic whose businesses are built on the IP around their photos have legitimate reasons to be concerned in general. In this case, though, these changes would've allowed them to advertise their magazine on Instagram. Professional photographers may also want to protect their content from being used in advertising.

But 99% of users are every day people taking pictures of babies, dogs and the sunset...content that would almost never be "sold."

Also, the fine print on AppData shows that their method of measuring users is completely prone to error. Many other apps showed a drop off and FB made some algo changes around the same time.

propercoil2• 14 years ago

Your assumption that these photos can not be sold is simply false. Maybe you specifically won't pay but i would. I pay for premium services when i need graphics. Think of an instagram api you can get access to and showcase pictures with tags x,y that are popular within your service.

neya5• 14 years ago

>Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook.

Dude, are you Instagram's lawyer? How can you be so sure?? Either way, you still don't get the point. It wasn't about whether they were going to sell it or not. It was about they giving themselves the 'right' to automatically, possibly do so in the future.

Naturally, when you do something like this, especially with others' data, you could in the least inform them. Because it's their fucking content. When I joined facebook and orkut, I saw the ads on the side. I knew it was a compromise I had to make. So it really didn't matter to me.

That's why I still use Google. Because I know the company is trying to make money by letting me use it. With Instagram, when I joined it, there were no ads nor did they tell me or give me a hint that my photos would be 'sold'. An average user would have assumed it would remain free forever, but I knew they would somehow need to make money. But, they didn't express their intent to make money (through selling your photos) clearly because they knew if they did so, no one would join their service. Hence they basically deceived you into joining their service for free initially and one fine day gave themselves the rights to sell your photos. That's unethical. The problem here is I took the effort to get the photo right, but I am NOT compensated monetarily for my effort. Instead Instagram just benefits from it. So it's like a free photo sharing site first that is automatically turned into a stock photo site without your consent where you don't even get any benefits when your photo is sold. I'm sorry, that's unacceptable and that's unethical.

What the consumer owns is none of your business - be it babies, dogs, sunset or even elephants. It's their will to do what they want with their phone's camera. And like I said, there's even nothing wrong with monetizing these photos as long as you express your intent clearly.

alxndr• 14 years ago

The CNBC page has one paragraph that mentions Instagram, and cites the New York Post for its info. Here's the NYP article about Instagram: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rage_against_Dh05rPifi...

guelo• 14 years ago

I'm kind of surprised by how small Instagram is. Facebook paid a billion dollars for those 12 million users.

diego• 14 years ago

That's more than 1% of Facebook's users. At the time, Facebook was worth 100B.

jpdevereaux• 14 years ago

But also consider that many if not most of those users were already on Facebook.

antninja• 14 years ago

They paid a billion dollar to prevent Twitter from having a decent photo service. Facebook doesn't need Instagram. Twitter did.

ebf• 14 years ago

Those are daily active users. Monthly active users are around 43.6 million.

Source: http://www.appdata.com/apps/facebook/124024574287414-instagr...

robinwauters• 14 years ago

Sorry but it's bullshit. Apologies for self-promoting my The Next Web article on this, but many popular apps seemingly lost a lot of users according to AppData's data. It doesn't add up at all.

http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2012/12/28/no-rage-against-ru...

idunno246• 14 years ago

this. appdata's data fluctuates wildly quite often. given the quality of the inside network blogs, i'd call any of it into doubt

wildranter• 14 years ago

The takeaway point here is this: never let accountants nor lawyers run your business.

oscargrouch• 14 years ago

The new CEO is just brilliant! well done!

frozenport• 14 years ago

Also the trend is down. So, they keep loosing.

trustfundbaby• 14 years ago

While I want this to be true, the Nextweb rebuttal of this article makes a lot more sense http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2012/12/28/no-rage-against-ru.... I'd wait on some better data.

jacquesm• 14 years ago

Weaselwords like 'may' in the title don't help here. Either they did or they didn't, if you don't know don't bother writing an article.

Atacat• 14 years ago

This headline is completely misleading. It was the NY Post's (incorrect) take on the data that was behind this article, not AppData.

chrisringrose• 14 years ago

It's a hoax.

I'm afraid this is all moot. Instagram didn't lose 25% of it's users.

http://gizmodo.com/5971784/instagram-says-25-user-exodus-is-...

AppData says that Instagram may have lost 25% of users after TOS change

Related Stories