

Instagram Photos Will No Longer Appear In Twitter Streams At All - TDL
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/09/it-appears-that-instagram-photos-arent-showing-up-in-twitter-streams-at-all/

======
zaidf
Hopefully I am wrong but this could become symbolic of self-inflicted pain by
a company.

Here's my reading:

(1) Twitter started off by pissing off its API users.

(2) Instagram, a company that is by most means excelling because of a great
product and focus, takes the bait from Twitter and runs all over its own users
and compromises its core principle by making their product shittier. Instagram
thinks _significantly_ fewer pictures will be shared on twitter overall as a
result--a risky assumption.

(3) Twitter rolls out its own photo effect service and gets to be seen as the
nice kid on the block. Meanwhile, Instagram Corp. remains confident Twitter's
own feature can't touch its engagement though objectively, this may be a risky
bet.

(4) app.net jumps in telling the Valley "TOLD YALL!"

~~~
w1ntermute
> app.net jumps in telling the Valley "TOLD YALL!"

Haha, ever since this story broke, I've been waiting with bated breath for a
post by Dalton about how this is another sign that Twitter is "pivoting" or
how users are going to get tired of not being the customers.

~~~
zaidf
Dalton isn't incorrect or lying when he suggests that users are getting tired.
However, the core question for his business is _at what rate_ are users
getting tired? And is the rate accelerating? So far, I don't see this nuanced
conversation and yet, the entire App.net argument hinges upon it.

~~~
w1ntermute
I'm not saying that he's incorrect or lying, I'm just saying that he sounds a
tad pretentious every time he makes one of those posts.

> the core question for his business is _at what rate_ are users getting
> tired?

Right, and tired enough to pay $5 for a one-month subscription to App.net. And
the fact that App.net offers only Stripe for payment doesn't help things.
Neither does the branding problem that App.net has - for the average person,
it's difficult to understand what exactly it does. It's more powerful to have
a social networking platform than a specific site, for sure, and I immediately
appreciated its value when I heard about it. But I don't think most of my non-
tech savvy friends could or would.

~~~
zaidf
You nailed it. _tired enough to pay_ probably matters more than even the rate
of getting tired.

------
tazzy531
It seems like every time that a startup gets bought and internalized to some
proprietary system or network, it opens up the market for another startup in
that same exact space.

Is anyone trying to fill in the hole that instagram will leave?

~~~
ceejayoz
> Is anyone trying to fill in the hole that instagram will leave?

Twitter's photo system effectively already did.

------
jakeonthemove
That's pretty annoying, actually, but it's a good example of what can happen
when these services (used by millions of people) change hands.

On a related note, Cinemagr.am, which I find pretty interesting, should also
focus more on their own website instead of relying completely on Twitter,
Facebook and iOS/Android apps...

~~~
chimeracoder
The first photo they have on their website is rather irritating. Being able to
see the sidewalk moving up and down kind of ruins the effect. I'm surprised
they didn't pick a better example for their own website.

------
andrewroycarter
This is really interesting- A friend of mine and I have just submitted an app
to Apple last friday which allows you to view your twitter streams / twitter
searches / etc but only shows tweets with photos. It's looking at the links in
the tweets for media, and not the media entities themselves, so it looks like
our app will still function correctly (just now tested)! We started making
this app before the api 1.1 debacle so I'm interested to see how it'll play
out.

------
pdog
At all? You can still share a link to an Instagram photo. You just won't see
the full image in the official Twitter stream.

~~~
lowboy
Which is what the article said: the images will no longer appear, just the
links to said images. There's a difference.

------
admford
Seems that Twitter it's self is trying to fill the hole left by Instagram.

[http://allthingsd.com/20121208/twitter-aims-to-release-
photo...](http://allthingsd.com/20121208/twitter-aims-to-release-photo-
filters-in-time-for-the-holidays/)

~~~
ChuckMcM
That would seem to make sense. Personally I think this sheds a bit of light on
the question as to why Facebook would pay a billion dollars[1] for Instagram.
Rather than solidifying its place as the premier "real time news feeder of a
certain size" Twitter is off spending its time re-creating a service that a
lot of its customers really value. By throwing that wrench into Twitter's way,
Facebook gives itself and others time to grow in this space.

[1] We've debated the death the 'value' of this deal which was half stock
(which tanked) and half cash. But for the purposes of this point it was a 'big
chunk of change' for the newly public Facebook.

~~~
politician
I'm baffled as to how spending one billion dollars for the purpose of denying
an easily-replicated feature to a non-profitable competitor can be a plausible
explanation of Facebook's strategy.

------
peacelyse
Can you still push instagram photos to Tumblr where they can be automatically
appear in Twitter from Tumblr?

------
geuis
One thing that Instagram is missing with this whole web focus is a login
feature on their homepage. After looking around, there's a Your Account
feature in the footer text. Not very obvious.

------
JeremyMorgan
Facebook acquired them. It's all about money now.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
There was never a time it want about the money. The startup game in SV isn't
much different than high-stakes poker in Vegas: sure, the game may be fun and
certainly takes skill, but, in the end, it's about coming out on top and that
is measured in dollars.

------
vkuber
Chrome Extension: InstaTwit

