Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The issue with that argument is it was (or at least should have been) clear to everyone that Instagram didn't really offer anything "as a business" initially, it was an unsustainable land grab.

That means that the pivot was always going to come, whether it be to an advertising driven model, a merchandising model, a paying user model or whatever.

While I'm not wild about the direction they've chosen, anyone using Instagram should have known that a change was coming and accepted that risk from the outset.




>> anyone using Instagram should have known that a change was coming and accepted that risk from the outset

The ability to perceive a business agenda should not be pre-requisite to use any kind of service that is being offered. Even if the service is free to the user and it implies that the business must get revenue somehow, most people don't get that, and it doesn't mean it's alright to take advantage of them.

Lots of people are ignorant, have low education or are plain naive. They are easy to manipulate, fool and con. Doing so is fine then?


That's the same kind of argument that people use to say you should only buy "American" cars, or read the labels of where your clothes or smartphones were made. It doesn't work.


Two things:

1) I agree they don't but I'm saying they should. I don't think having people understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch is that much of a stretch.

2) The people filling the HN boards moaning about it are generally internet and business savvy and already have the information they need to understand this. I'm not saying they need to be happy about what's happened, but they shouldn't be surprised and should have understood the risk of it happening.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: