
Why the Instagram founders really quit - Tomte
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/17/18411363/why-instagram-founders-quit-hamburger-button-location-tracking
======
ineedasername
This article was based on another one written by Wired. [0] That much longer
article is well worth the read for a more in-depth look at the politics and
challenges that Facebook has gone through recently.

[0] [https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-
zuckerberg-15-mont...](https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-
zuckerberg-15-months-of-fresh-hell/)

~~~
morley
The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it
confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at.

> Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave.

> With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a
> disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate
> sensibilities.

Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sensitive about Facebook's
demands? Or are they making fun of Facebook here? It seems like the author
tried to inject some attitude into the piece without nailing down their point
of view.

~~~
jackfrodo
The primary definition of delicate: fine in texture, quality, construction,
etc.: a delicate lace collar.

I read it as a compliment.

If he had said "delicate ego" it'd be a different story.

~~~
kbenson
Delicate is synonymous with "fragile". Delicate lace collars are fine when in
appropriate context, but that context is fairly narrow (when you know it will
be protected enough to survive).

As for people, I don't think our culture values fragility in an individual.
Conversely, we definitely do value resilience. I'm not sure of a case where
you could refer to a physical or mental aspect of someone as delicate or
fragile (when it's relative to the norm where it's not) and it comes out
positive.

------
strict9
Instagram remains enormously popular because it's not exclusively 1:1 mutual
relationships, has a minimal interface/feature set, and most importantly isn't
easily susceptible to outrage and anger gawking like twitter/FB are.

They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't
mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share
any time soon.

~~~
isoskeles
> FB thirst traps

What is this referring to?

~~~
strict9
They've given more and more nudges over the years to funnel people from IG
back to FB. I have no idea but doubtful it's working, just smells of
desperation.

>badged notifications inside Instagram begging people to open Facebook being
maybe the most prominent example.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/25/17903556/instagram-
founde...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/25/17903556/instagram-founders-
quit-kevin-systrom-mike-krieger-facebook)

~~~
naravara
Facebook designs its dark patterns to have the subtlety of a sledgehammer to
the face.

On some level it's actually a minor blessing because they're all so grating
and obvious. If they had any sense of tact they'd probably do a better of job
of lulling people into indifference about them the way Amazon and Google do.

------
fogetti
"Zuckerberg was intent on making him miserable enough that he would quit" \- I
thought only the lowliest managers keep doing this bullshit and in bigger
companies they are more grown up and they have a spine. Politics are the
ugliest of all the crap that one has to take in the IT world. And no-one can
avoid it. You can be in the lowest position they will still drag you into. I
feel bad for Systrom. I really do.

~~~
joering2
No sorry, the bigger company the more nasty they get. I used to work for
Oracle and IBM and it blew my mind how grownups with children would play
childish games and jump at each other throats at every occasion.

I also work for less known company with revenue of $100MM and was the same
stuff. My manager used to tell me: If you have family [to go home to after
being at the office for 12 hours] don't work here.

~~~
JohnFen
> the bigger company the more nasty they get.

Yes. This is why I strongly prefer working for small companies. They tend to
offer much more interesting work with a much better working environment.

------
chatmasta
I'm surprised there is not one mention of the word "vesting" in the entire
article. Systrom left six years after the acquisition (likely full vested) and
shortly after returning from paternity leave.

~~~
TheDom
A 6 year vesting schedule would be highly unusual. AFAIK it’s usually 2 (or
maybe up to 4) years after an acquisition. Therefore I don’t think that this
was a factor in his decision.

~~~
weaklearner
I don't have a citation here but I think facebook tried to create a slow
vesting schedule for these aquihires so they would have golden shackles

~~~
the_watcher
Is this just your assumption? The WhatsApp acquisition was pretty famously on
a 4 year vest [0], not sure why IG would have been different.

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-
re...](https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-rest-and-
vest-for-450-million-facebook-stock-2018-8)

~~~
kerng
It's also not uncommon for companies to drop that and have majority vest
quicker to get rid of founders faster (provide a good encouraging deal) -
especially if they dont play ball.

------
docker_up
It sounds like despite the criticisms in the article, Instagram has done it
right. Everyone still uses the app, with no backlash the way Snap did. My wife
and all her friends are using it like crazy still, it's sometimes the only way
I can get in contact with her. So Facebook deserves a lot of credit for that,
despite the tone of the article.

~~~
kelnos
I'm just a single data point, but my IG usage has dropped considerably over
the last year or so. Too many ads, the non-chronological feed, and "feed
clutter" (follow suggestions, Stories reminders) have ruined it for me.

~~~
Invictus0
Counterpoint: I love the Stories feature. Stories are for dramatically
different content than the primary feed. They are for the mildly-interesting,
curious little joys that permeate our lives, but are not interesting enough to
merit documentation for posterity. And yet, it is still different that the
type of content you see on Snap because the audience is different.

------
goatherders
Not seeing the meat on the bone here. It's quite normal at large companies for
interview requests to be approved by someone. It's quite normal for
infrastructure, support, tooling, resources to get moved around a lot. It's
quite normal for people in one department to be irked at the (perceived) extra
attention another department receives.

I'm not FB fan but I'm pretty sure MZ isn't jealous of the growth of anything.

~~~
spyspy
Yeah this sounds like trying to dramatize what is normal business operations.
There's going to be politics at any company larger than a sole-proprietorship.
The fact they stayed for 6 years is honestly a remarkable retention assuming
this is at least 2 years beyond vesting.

------
chmod775
So they crippled a better performing product to protect a lesser product - or
rather to protect some egos.

I refuse to believe they are that stupid.

~~~
javagram
Facebook app probably has better ad revenue potential?

I just opened up instagram and scrolled through for a bit and I didn’t see a
single ad. Seems very different from the Facebook experience.

~~~
bastawhiz
I don't know which Instagram you're using, but every two or three posts for me
is an ad. The "second person's story" when watching stories is an ad.
Instagram has, by far, more ads than any other app that I use.

~~~
javagram
Perhaps it depends on your average engagement with the app (the official iOS
one, to be clear). I only open it once a month or so, and follow only a few
dozen accounts. Perhaps it doesn’t know enough about me to target ads or there
is some algorithm that avoids showing ads when you come back after a long
break.

~~~
tachyonbeam
Don't-scare-new-users-away mode. Ease you back in with a gradual increase in
ads the more engagement they see from you?

------
bitL
Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently,
somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.

~~~
nostrademons
At this point Zuckerburg has pissed off much of America. Doesn't have to be an
insider; there are plenty of outsiders that would love to see him gone and can
bankroll a few media hatchet jobs.

It probably also doesn't help that Facebook has turned most media outlets into
digital sharecroppers fighting for reshares, and they know it. Big Tech in
general is not popular within the media, because they've essentially destroyed
the media's business model and took most of it for themselves.

------
FlyingBears
How much did FB save on due options by forcing founders of their big
acquisitions out? I think for WhatsApp it was like 800 million that was
conditional on the monetization.

------
mschuster91
Hmm. When in that timeline was it that Instagram switched to "algorithmic
feeds"? That one really annoys me with no end and I can't imagine that this
was supported by the "old" Instagram leadership.

------
mromanuk
The introduction of the article discuss the title, then it detours to analyze
social media, Twitter, Russia, China. Looks like 3/4 social media articles
stitched together

~~~
sambe
That is intentional - it's a regular column about social media:

"The Interface is a daily column about the intersection of social media and
democracy. Subscribe to the newsletter here."

The headline is the leading story and the final paragraph before "Democracy"
brings the story to a close.

------
blunte
I predict that Zuckerburg, when he's old and seeking new prestige, will
abandon his (dirty) capitalistic activities and take on the philanthropist
persona that many other tech giants (who we often forget the dirty methods
they used to reach their heights) have.

The EU, with its often absurd laws (re: link tax, cookie rules) may be the
only threat to the juggernaut that Facebook is (and by extension, the power
that a cutthroat nerd holds over others).

As for TFA, by now we should not be surprised. This is what happens when you
sell your company to Facebook. You hopefully get a nice cash-out, which maybe
you can use to do more and better things, but you certainly give over your
dear creation for ultimately dark purposes.

~~~
chillacy
Back when his reputation wasn’t so low:
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-
zu...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-
giving-away-99-of-his-facebook-shares-2015-12)

~~~
JohnFen
Non-amp link: [https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-giving-
away-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-giving-away-99-of-
his-facebook-shares-2015-12)

------
linuxftw
Perhaps the founders were really just dead weight and were forced out because
they contributed no value to the product.

What's so unique about instagram? Only thing I can think of is that it's
popular. It doesn't seem to be novel from a technology standpoint. There
doesn't seem to be any secret sauce for making it generate cash. What would
you say, the founders did successfully after the acquisition? Given unlimited
power, what could they have done?

I think the answer is not much. The founders did a good job at getting some
capital and making a popular product. Mission accomplished. Time for them to
move on.

~~~
strict9
It's popular because it's not an enormous junk drawer of features that tries
to be everything to everyone.

Their success was in keeping a design that was brainlessly simple and easy to
use/understand.

~~~
linuxftw
Well, then I suppose they weren't needed any more. A full time C-level/VP-
level position who's mere job is to say "Don't change anything!" doesn't seem
very useful.

