If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Instagram backpedals, gives their version of 'sorry you were offended by what I said': "Our mistake that this language is confusing"   (reuters.com) divider line 91
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7902 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 8:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-18 06:52:53 PM
Advertising on Instagram From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.

I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.
 
2012-12-18 07:33:25 PM
Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.
 
2012-12-18 08:10:16 PM
I bought Aviary ages ago and Google just added stuff to the stock gallery app, so no need for this. 
 
2012-12-18 08:24:21 PM
dunno what is going on.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:13 PM

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.


I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:29 PM
Because God knows all those sepia toned photos of your breakfast were so valuable.
 
2012-12-18 08:26:48 PM
I'm sure that this was just one big misunderstanding. You should definitely come back to Instagram. Especially you, 18 year old girls, who take naughty pictures of yourselves, and then send them to people.


/ we promise not to look at them or sell them
 
2012-12-18 08:31:03 PM
hahahahahahahahahahahaha. 
 
2012-12-18 08:33:35 PM
Instagram: Where pornstars go to post photos of their pets.
 
2012-12-18 08:34:47 PM
I was gonna start posting porn pics and when they start telling me I'm violating the terms of usage say "you're the ones selling it. It's either art or you're perverts."
 
2012-12-18 08:40:18 PM
I never used Instagram because I don't have an iPhone, so........yeah.  I get that when you put stuff online it's out there for the public consumption, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay for some 3rd party to make money off that.
 
2012-12-18 08:45:08 PM
People who as small children used stencils to draw an impressive picture are now the same people who use Instagram.

End transmission.
 
2012-12-18 08:48:24 PM
I'm a malignant narcissist. Instagram has changed my life. Now everyone can see how awesome I am.
 
2012-12-18 08:52:16 PM
It has been said time and time again......If you are not paying for it, you are not the customer. You're the product being sold.
 
2012-12-18 08:53:17 PM

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


Funny you should mention Facebook....
Guess who now owns Instagram.....Why Facebook, of course.
 
2012-12-18 08:55:33 PM

queen biatch of the universe: It has been said time and time again......If you are not paying for it, you are not the customer. You're the product being sold.


That's good. I like that. Makes sense.
 
2012-12-18 09:01:41 PM
Runs_With_Scissors_
I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!


There is a small difference:

interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation.
= you are the new face "Dr Herpivore's anti crotchrot cream"

versus

entity may pay us to display your [stuff] in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

= your face appears on Instagram's(!) front page with the text "I like Dr Herpivore's anti crotchrot cream" after you clicked the Like-button on its product page (or whatever people do on instagram)
 
2012-12-18 09:04:47 PM
Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."
 
2012-12-18 09:06:47 PM
I had to laugh at all my Facebook friends today who posted about this today. They seem confused on the whole 'What Facebook is' thing. They actually seemed to think this was news or somehow different than what Facebook already does.

Just post lots of pictures of rounded corners, compelling design, people swiping touchscreens and leaked source code. If you do that, Facebook will then own it (right?) and then Facebook, Apple and possibly Microsoft can sue each other into irrelevancy.

Well, one can have fantasies anyways.
 
2012-12-18 09:11:27 PM

boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."


And they'd be right since those terms about photo use by advertisers have been on Instagram since at least 1 year if not more. People just freaked out because they did a recent change to the TOU and it was picked up by the blogs and it ran from there. But before that? Nobody had read the damn TOU to begin with...
 
2012-12-18 09:11:53 PM

boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."


This is what drives me crazy. Corporations are jackals, they'll keep nipping at you until they eat you alive, or you end up killing them en masse.
 
2012-12-18 09:12:36 PM

Runs_With_Scissors_: I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.


That wasn't the bad bit. (Well, it wasn't the worst one.)

The bad bit was this:

"you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license"

Coupled with this:

"You agree that all disputes between you and Instagram ... with regard to your relationship with Instagram, including ... rights of privacy and/or publicity, will be resolved by ... arbitration ... As an alternative, you may bring your claim in your local "small claims" court"

Those bits (the bold areas are the worst bits, the underlined areas are new, plus they dropped the word "limited" from the first phrase) translates into English thusly:

"We can do absolutely anything we like with your images including those showing your likeness and even showing you in your own bedroom if we want, use them anywhere, for any reason, and sell them for any amount we like to absolutely anybody without giving you a single cent, and your only recourse is to huff, stamp your feet, and go to an arbitration system designed to favor its client (the company) or to limit damages to us (small claims court). Pthhhhhbbbbbttttt!"

Those bits are the REAL bad bits. Putting your name next to an ad is child's play compared to that language. If anything, the ad thing and the response to it is a bit of sleight-of-hand misdirection.
 
2012-12-18 09:14:07 PM

Runs_With_Scissors_: Advertising on Instagram From the start, Instagram was created to become a business. Advertising is one of many ways that Instagram can become a self-sustaining business, but not the only one. Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that we'd like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos. We are working on updated language in the terms to make sure this is clear.

I wonder why that is? Oh, I know! The words from the user agreement itself!

"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.


Yep. Read "we didn't realize customers actually would read our updated EULA, figure out we're planning on claiming their media, and bolt - so, we'll try to reword it so that it's harder to figure out what we're doing."
 
2012-12-18 09:16:26 PM
media-cache0.pinterest.com
 
2012-12-18 09:18:45 PM

rocky_howard: boyuber: Instagram: "Sorry that we used such vague language."
Translation: "We didn't think anyone ever read this shiat."

And they'd be right since those terms about photo use by advertisers have been on Instagram since at least 1 year if not more. People just freaked out because they did a recent change to the TOU and it was picked up by the blogs and it ran from there. But before that? Nobody had read the damn TOU to begin with...


Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

Oh, and the fact that they can change the contract at any time without any notice to their users (meaning you have to read it *every* time you visit the site to see if something has been changed), and without any advance warning of an impending change (all they have to do is say "admin reasons" and they are allowed to change it instantly, as many times as they want -- and your having visited the site to see if the contract changed is in itself deemed an acceptance of the changed contract that you've not even seen)... THOSE are the really bad changes.
 
2012-12-18 09:21:33 PM
Instagram is owned by Facebook now. Mark Zuckerburg would never, ever exploit people in order to build his product, right??
 
2012-12-18 09:23:08 PM

Wardrobe_Malfunction: Instagram is owned by Facebook now. Mark Zuckerburg would never, ever exploit people in order to build his product, right??


If he could actually build his product out of the freshly-flayed flesh of his users, I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it.
 
2012-12-18 09:26:30 PM

gweilo8888: "you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license"


Just noticed I underlined "worldwide", that was an error on my part. That's not new. It's transferable, sub-licensable, and no-longer saying limited that's the new bit.
 
2012-12-18 09:28:28 PM
Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.
 
2012-12-18 09:29:00 PM

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


AFAIK...Facebook only has the right to use the photos so long as you have them on Facebook. Take them down and you're safe.
 
2012-12-18 09:41:46 PM

goatleggedfellow: 1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.

AFAIK...Facebook only has the right to use the photos so long as you have them on Facebook. Take them down and you're safe.


Mostly correct, although they do have the same awful transferable, sub-licensable verbiage, they do at least explicitly state that the license ends the moment you delete the content or close your account (with the exception that if your friends have shared the content it can stay on the site even after you delete your account). But Instagram doesn't even do that.

In fact, Instagram says *your* rights end when you close your account, but makes no mention of their own rights ending. (It may be implied, given that they explicitly state your inability to sue survives contract cancellation but don't mention their other rights, but it should be made clear in the verbiage.)

Here's Facebook's equivalent verbiage:

Facebook: "For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

Instagram: "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, except that you can control who can view certain of your Content and activities on the Service as described in the Service's Privacy Policy, available here: http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/."

Upon termination, all licenses and other rights granted to you in these Terms of Use will immediately cease.

[The] arbitration agreement will survive the termination of your relationship with Instagram."
 
2012-12-18 09:43:47 PM

Carth: Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.



Have you tried Vignette?
 
2012-12-18 09:48:31 PM

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

 
 
Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false
 
2012-12-18 09:49:01 PM

rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]


Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?
 
2012-12-18 09:50:23 PM

gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false


Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?
 
2012-12-18 09:53:03 PM

gingerjet: /false outrage is false


The only thing that I see that really kills off products is that they ride it till it goes in the ground, never adding features and when they do it is a shiatstorm of wacky crap. See Yahoo's purchase of Flickr. Hell there wouldn't even be an instragram if Yahoo kept that property up.
 
2012-12-18 09:54:07 PM
Someone post the Nickleback Instagram song. It's awesome.

/let me get this duck...
 
2012-12-18 09:54:09 PM
Egotistical yuppies everywhere breath a sigh of relief.
 
2012-12-18 09:59:42 PM

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


And that is why you put no public content on fb
 
2012-12-18 10:03:04 PM

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


The Qwikster debacle will be taught in marketing classes right alongside New Coke
 
2012-12-18 10:03:34 PM

gweilo8888: rocky_howard: gweilo8888: Actually, no. Compare the old TOU side by side with the new one. The verbiage about ads being placed next to content is significantly changed. However, as I said, that's not the real bad bit. The real bad bit is the words "transferable, sub-licensable", plus the fact they contractually prevent users from suing either as a class action or individually.

[d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net image 600x223]

Um, no. The new terms are SIGNIFICANTLY worse. "Use" already means "modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and translate", and "transferable, sub-licensable" plus non-limited means they can not only distribute part or all of your work, but it also means that they can sell it to anybody else to do the very same.

Essentially, the new terms mean they can do *everything* they could under the old terms, but they can now also give your content to anybody else they want to and let the unknown third party do any of those things too.

And as for the second quote, there is a BIG difference between "may place advertising ... on, about, or in conjunction with your content", and "may display your username, likeness, and actions you take ... in conjunction with paid or sponsored content". But yes, as I have repeatedly said, the whole advertising thing is a tiny red herring. The huge deal is the words "transferable, sub-licensable" right to your photos, along with the fact that they do not explicitly state that those rights end when your photos or account are deleted.

I also strongly question the legality of stating that a minor can provide implied consent on behalf of their legal guardian simply by accessing a website. If a minor could provide implied consent of their own guardian, surely that would defeat the purpose of a guardian existing?



www.the-tshirts.com

It's as if this man is their lawyer.
 
2012-12-18 10:05:29 PM

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


Swing and miss. Stock has zero to do with usage. Facebook stock dropped dramatically after the IPO. You're telling me they lost as many users? Get real...
 
2012-12-18 10:05:59 PM

gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?


Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..
 
2012-12-18 10:16:05 PM

rocky_howard: Swing and miss. Stock has zero to do with usage. Facebook stock dropped dramatically after the IPO. You're telling me they lost as many users? Get real...


It's actually you that's whirling that bat aimlessly around.

By their own admission, they lost 3.25% of their then-total userbase in a single quarter, or some 800,000 users. A look at their subscriber growth shows that it has been depressed from their pre-Qwikster growth ever since, and they continue to struggly to hit even the low end of their own reduced subscriber growth targets. The real impact a little over a year later is in the millions of users.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/24/technology/netflix_earnings/index.htm
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/23/netflix-subscriber-additions-disappo i nt-reports-q3-revenue-of-905m-and-earnings-of-0-13/
 
2012-12-18 10:17:13 PM

twistofsin: gweilo8888: gingerjet: Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false

Very cute and trite, but more than a few of those outrages have resulted in people defecting en-masse. Have you looked at Netflix's stock lately?

Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..


Netflix uses 30% of the intertubes. That's a lot of tubes. It's possible they can lose revenue, but gain profit. Replacing a less profitable but higher revenue generating product with a cheaper but more profitable one can be frowned upon by Wall Street, regardless of long term outlook. Netflix will be fine.
 
2012-12-18 10:19:31 PM
Wait...you are supposed to read the terms of agreement? Fluck that! Maybe thinking about lawsuit bucks.
 
2012-12-18 10:19:35 PM

twistofsin: Pssst ...

Disney has recently signed on with Netflix. I think they are going to rebound just fine ..


Psst: They're way short of hitting their own projected annual growth, let alone the growth they showed before Qwikster:

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/netflix-stock-sinks-q3-earnings-report-20362 4 278.html

(They forecast 7 million new streaming subscribers in 2012; by the end of Q3 they'd managed only 3.26 million, leaving them little chance of hitting that target. On the other side of the coin, they're bleeding DVD subscribers like there's no tomorrow, and are down to just 8.61 million.)
 
2012-12-18 10:26:23 PM

CruJones: Netflix uses 30% of the intertubes. That's a lot of tubes. It's possible they can lose revenue, but gain profit. Replacing a less profitable but higher revenue generating product with a cheaper but more profitable one can be frowned upon by Wall Street, regardless of long term outlook. Netflix will be fine.


Fine my ass. They're having to fight to prevent a hostile takeover from the same man who killed Blockbuster.

Those 30% of the intertubes? (Can't be bothered checking the validity of your claimed number; let's pretend it's true.) They're pretty damned expensive. They're weaning customers off a profitable business with a great selection, and putting them onto a business that was only sustainable in the first place because the subscriber numbers were so low when they signed their first round of contracts with movie studios. Each time they renegotiate on a contract expiration, they're having to piss away significantly more money because of all those subscribers they've got now, so the cost of streaming to Netflix is increasing exponentially, yet the selection is far, far worse for customers than what was available to them on DVD.

(I am among the many customers who cancelled Netflix altogether because their Watch Instantly selection was so bad and not remotely worth what I was expected to pay for it, yet they clearly have no interest in their DVD customers any more either. To whit: they aren't bothering to replace their damaged discs, and have actually started sending the same broken discs out over and over even after they're reported broken. I've gotten back the very same disc I reported faulty previously, with the exact same fault in the same place, so I know that to be a fact.)
 
2012-12-18 10:30:29 PM
Even under the new terms facebook is still more nefarious. I dont know what people are so up in arms about.
 
2012-12-18 10:33:43 PM

gweilo8888: It's actually you that's whirling that bat aimlessly around.


NAah, you're the one who's been on everyone's case. Just look at the amount of times you've posted.

and regardless of your later numbers, stock has zero to do with usage, so cry all you want, that was a false statement.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:40 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com 

Some trial balloons aren't very successful.
 
2012-12-18 10:44:49 PM

rocky_howard: NAah, you're the one who's been on everyone's case. Just look at the amount of times you've posted.


Actually, I've largely been agreeing with people. It's mostly you whose case I've been on, because you've been on mine with a bunch of total nonsense.

rocky_howard: and regardless of your later numbers, stock has zero to do with usage, so cry all you want, that was a false statement.


So you're just going to ignore the data that proved you wrong, then. OK. Cool. I know where we stand. You're a troll.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:33 PM

gingerjet: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.
 
 
Relevant.  
 
/false outrage is false


Why? That article was just a list of reasons people might quit sites, it's not relevant at all to this thread nor revrendjim's post. Why does not liking something make the complaints false?
 
2012-12-18 11:00:02 PM

gweilo8888: CruJones: Netflix uses 30% of the intertubes. That's a lot of tubes. It's possible they can lose revenue, but gain profit. Replacing a less profitable but higher revenue generating product with a cheaper but more profitable one can be frowned upon by Wall Street, regardless of long term outlook. Netflix will be fine.

Fine my ass. They're having to fight to prevent a hostile takeover from the same man who killed Blockbuster.

Those 30% of the intertubes? (Can't be bothered checking the validity of your claimed number; let's pretend it's true.) They're pretty damned expensive. They're weaning customers off a profitable business with a great selection, and putting them onto a business that was only sustainable in the first place because the subscriber numbers were so low when they signed their first round of contracts with movie studios. Each time they renegotiate on a contract expiration, they're having to piss away significantly more money because of all those subscribers they've got now, so the cost of streaming to Netflix is increasing exponentially, yet the selection is far, far worse for customers than what was available to them on DVD.

(I am among the many customers who cancelled Netflix altogether because their Watch Instantly selection was so bad and not remotely worth what I was expected to pay for it, yet they clearly have no interest in their DVD customers any more either. To whit: they aren't bothering to replace their damaged discs, and have actually started sending the same broken discs out over and over even after they're reported broken. I've gotten back the very same disc I reported faulty previously, with the exact same fault in the same place, so I know that to be a fact.)


They don't want the DVD business anymore, they know its the past. Would it help if I told you they are building their own CDN, and cut what they currently spend with Akamai in half? And that they are looking at open source cloud platforms to slice licensing (and Amazon) costs as well. They aren't going anywhere soon. They actually have a pretty good strategic IT plan, which is pretty much their entire business now. Warehouses and shipping departments eliminated. It makes sense.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:45 PM

gweilo8888: So you're just going to ignore the data that proved you wrong, then. OK. Cool. I know where we stand. You're a troll.


No, those numbers didn't prove your theory of "massive exodus". Yes, it affected Netflix. No, it doesn't mean the service is even close to being in danger. Like the other guy said FALSE OUTRAGE IS FALSE.
 
2012-12-18 11:21:22 PM

gweilo8888: On the other side of the coin, they're bleeding DVD subscribers like there's no tomorrow, and are down to just 8.61 million.)


As popular as it was, the DVD system sucks. I only enjoyed it when I copied the disc, sent it back, and watched later at my leisure. Getting one or two discs and having to watch all of it before you send it back is lame.

Schlepping your ass to the grocery or corner store is a tolerable alternative but I'm back to just stealing everything that's not on streaming.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:46 PM

CruJones: They don't want the DVD business anymore, they know its the past. Would it help if I told you they are building their own CDN, and cut what they currently spend with Akamai in half? And that they are looking at open source cloud platforms to slice licensing (and Amazon) costs as well. They aren't going anywhere soon. They actually have a pretty good strategic IT plan, which is pretty much their entire business now. Warehouses and shipping departments eliminated. It makes sense.


A more accurate summary would be "They don't give a shiat about the DVD business any more, because Reed Hastings has his panties in a bunch over streaming". He is hell-bent on pushing it, whether it makes sense or not. When you look at what he is spending just on getting content for streaming*, estimated at around US$1.7 billion annually, it is very clear indeed that it does not make sense. The money for all this content has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the customers, who are faced with ever higher monthly Netflix bills to pay for it all. (And remember, if the user base for streaming continues to grow, these deals will be dwarfed when they're renegotiated two or three years down the road.)

Streaming will, eventually, bankrupt Netflix. When it does, be sure and come back and say Hi. Promise I won't say I told you so.

* Citations:
House of Cards (26 episodes, confirmed): US$100 million (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/10/11/amazon-netflix/1621579/ )
NBC deal (rumored): US$300 million (http://mashable.com/2011/07/13/netflix-nbc-revolt/)
Disney deal (rumored): US$300 million annually (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/netflix-bests-starz- in-bid-for-disney-movies/)
...and on, and on, and on. Netflix is reporting around 1.7 billion dollars annually in commitments to cover its streaming business, and that's JUST for the content, before you factor in the costs of getting that content to its customers. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/force-netflix-deal-disney-movies-incl uding-star-wars-1C7441219)

rocky_howard: gweilo8888: So you're just going to ignore the data that proved you wrong, then. OK. Cool. I know where we stand. You're a troll.

No, those numbers didn't prove your theory of "massive exodus". Yes, it affected Netflix. No, it doesn't mean the service is even close to being in danger. Like the other guy said FALSE OUTRAGE IS FALSE.


Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:48 PM

moothemagiccow: gweilo8888: On the other side of the coin, they're bleeding DVD subscribers like there's no tomorrow, and are down to just 8.61 million.)

As popular as it was, the DVD system sucks. I only enjoyed it when I copied the disc, sent it back, and watched later at my leisure. Getting one or two discs and having to watch all of it before you send it back is lame.

Schlepping your ass to the grocery or corner store is a tolerable alternative but I'm back to just stealing everything that's not on streaming.


Not quite as lame as buffering... buffering... buffering... oh, wait, the movie's come back again! Damn, that's blurry. Oh well, I guess it's playing again... Oh. Shiat. It's started buffering. Oh well, I'll come back and watch it later.

*leaves*

*comes back at a less popular hour*

"Netflix is offline for maintenance"
(This is verbatim my typical experience during the ~year or so that I had Netflix streaming, and I have typically had the highest or second-highest tier speed available to me from my cable internet provider, which is far in excess of what is available over DSL, my only other choice for internet -- and I am not in a rural area, either. And yes, Netflix regularly had outages when I was trying to watch movies -- it even happened midway through a movie several times.)

Sorry, as bad an experience as DVD might be, Netflix streaming was far, far worse. And on top of that, the movie selection was utterly appalling compared to DVD, where the selection was its saving grace, and absolutely second to none.
 
2012-12-19 12:21:41 AM

gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.


That equates to a WHOPPING 3.44% of their customers.
 
2012-12-19 12:41:01 AM
I'd quit, but I never joined in the first place.
 
2012-12-19 12:55:13 AM

sugardave: gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.

That equates to a WHOPPING 3.44% of their customers.



If you have continual quarters of customer growth and you backtrack and LOSE customers that is a back quarter to Wall Street and will reduce the overall value of your company. Not sure how anyone who knows anything about financial projection/analysis is denying this.
But I may have answered my own question.
 
2012-12-19 12:57:46 AM

sugardave: gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.

That equates to a WHOPPING 3.44% of their customers.


You fail at math. And reading. And... well, everything, really.

It was 3.25%, as I clearly stated earlier. And while you clearly have a huge boner for Reed Hastings, that was a pretty catastropic fail. Losing close to a million customers by their own admission (and quite likely even more, in the real world) in the space of a few weeks is just unbelievably poor management.
 
2012-12-19 01:09:33 AM

Minimum: I'd quit, but I never joined in the first place.


Join, upload pictures of your dogs junk, and then quit in protest.
 
2012-12-19 01:18:06 AM
Instagram and Facebook have to have these clauses in their TOS for a reason. You're basically giving them permission to exhibit the things you upload. "But isn't that sort of implicit?" Yes. For most people with a frontal lobe who aren't sue-happy, it's pretty obvious. If you post a picture on Instagram, then Instagram will make it available for others to see. That's what the website does.
 
But there are people who either have no comprehension or think they're crafty. And these people would just love to sue Facebook or Instagram for big dollar amounts. They'll say to a judge and/or jury, "when I uploaded a picture of my totally fair trade organic gluten-free couscous sandwich, I didn't realize anyone else would be able to see it. I want a jillion dollars."
 
The TOS prevents this sort of rubbish from happening. If you don't like it, don't use Instagram. I seem to have gotten along quite well without an Instagram account, and I'm still breathing.
 
This whole "they're stealing our content" hogwash was stupid back when people freaked out over Geocities having a similar clause.
 
2012-12-19 01:45:48 AM

CruJones: Someone post the Nickleback Instagram song. It's awesome.

/let me get this duck...


Link
 
2012-12-19 01:50:25 AM

legendary: If you have continual quarters of customer growth and you backtrack and LOSE customers that is a back quarter to Wall Street and will reduce the overall value of your company. Not sure how anyone who knows anything about financial projection/analysis is denying this.
But I may have answered my own question.


You're missing the point. Nobody's talking about stock value price, which is meaningless, but usage, usage, usage. People that use the product.
 
2012-12-19 01:54:26 AM
What is the purpose of Instagram?
I really don't get it.
Filters? Who the fark cares?
 
2012-12-19 01:54:53 AM

gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.


No, it's not a huge exodus. It's a loss, but not a huge exodus, which is the point of discussion. Learn what words mean. Huge exodus would be if Netflix had MySpace levels of droppage. It doesn't. You're just overblowing their loss.

Also, you're sounding like Disco Stu: "As per the chart, Netflix lost 3.25% of their customers, if these trends continue, they'll be at zero customers in 2 years and a half."

24.media.tumblr.com

Yes, they lost 3.25% of their customers during that snafu. Now calculate how many new customers they've gotten since then. Oh right. They've already covered that and you're just looking like a fool on FARK.com
 
2012-12-19 01:59:27 AM

GreenAdder: Instagram and Facebook have to have these clauses in their TOS for a reason. You're basically giving them permission to exhibit the things you upload. "But isn't that sort of implicit?" Yes. For most people with a frontal lobe who aren't sue-happy, it's pretty obvious. If you post a picture on Instagram, then Instagram will make it available for others to see. That's what the website does.
 
But there are people who either have no comprehension or think they're crafty. And these people would just love to sue Facebook or Instagram for big dollar amounts. They'll say to a judge and/or jury, "when I uploaded a picture of my totally fair trade organic gluten-free couscous sandwich, I didn't realize anyone else would be able to see it. I want a jillion dollars."
 
The TOS prevents this sort of rubbish from happening. If you don't like it, don't use Instagram. I seem to have gotten along quite well without an Instagram account, and I'm still breathing.
 
This whole "they're stealing our content" hogwash was stupid back when people freaked out over Geocities having a similar clause.


Funny how Geocities managed to exist for an ENTIRE DECADE after removing those similar, complained-about clauses from their TOS. It's almost as if... *gasp*... they didn't actually *need* them, and just stuck them in because they thought they could get away with it...

Sure, Facebook / Instagram might not abuse those terms in the contract now, but when they inevitably go down the crapper in a decade's time and become the next Myspace, do you really want those landgrab terms in the contract that let them sell all the personal photos you forgot you even uploaded for stock?

rocky_howard: You're missing the point. Nobody's talking about stock value price, which is meaningless, but usage, usage, usage. People that use the product.


You're missing the point: we've all worked out you're a troll and would continue to deny the obvious truth even if it ran up to you and punched you in the face.
 
2012-12-19 03:13:01 AM
I really really hope people don't fall for this bullshiat and stop using Instagram. And not just because it's obnoxious sometimes, but because I like watching Facebook fail. They paid $1 billion for a web version of a crappy Photoshop 2.0 filter, and I want to see it fail.
 
2012-12-19 03:15:13 AM
because i'm sure each one of the 150 taco photos used for taco bell's Doritos Locos Tacos commercial was taken by ad men and not just found randomly by doing a search on instagram, right?

pbs.twimg.com
 
2012-12-19 04:11:00 AM

Coco LaFemme: I never used Instagram because I don't have an iPhone, so........yeah.  I get that when you put stuff online it's out there for the public consumption, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay for some 3rd party to make money off that.


Note the ads to the right of your comments >>>>>>>>>>>>
 
2012-12-19 04:34:00 AM
Every pic you take
Every post you make
Everything you like
All your friends in sight
Facebook's using you

Every smiling friend
You post on Instagram
Won't belong to you
Nothing you can do
Facebook's using you

Oh can't you see
They know you and me
Can match your name to a face, that can be accessed anyplace

And maybe just next year
Whatever shop you near
Cameras ID you
To further market to
Facebook now owns 'you'

Since it came the net is a worse space
If I share I feel like I'll be traced
The buttons and the "like us" pleas disgrace
The thoughtful words that they replaced
I just can't not feel paranoid

You own nothing here
It couldn't be more clear
Instead of getting mean
You feed the machine
The one that's using you

-© 2012 Facebook
via Rosinal McDonald
 
2012-12-19 04:48:41 AM
Do not have a Facebook account, Twitter account, and have never used Instagram. More and more it seems I've made the right choices.

/with age comes wisdom
//get the fark off my lawn
 
2012-12-19 05:02:56 AM

Rosinal: Every pic you take
Every post you make
Everything you like
All your friends in sight
Facebook's using you

Every smiling friend
You post on Instagram
Won't belong to you
Nothing you can do
Facebook's using you

Oh can't you see
They know you and me
Can match your name to a face, that can be accessed anyplace

And maybe just next year
Whatever shop you near
Cameras ID you
To further market to
Facebook now owns 'you'

Since it came the net is a worse space
If I share I feel like I'll be traced
The buttons and the "like us" pleas disgrace
The thoughtful words that they replaced
I just can't not feel paranoid

You own nothing here
It couldn't be more clear
Instead of getting mean
You feed the machine
The one that's using you

-© 2012 Facebook
via Rosinal McDonald


That's awesome, and how I instinctively felt about all the "social networks" one by one as they appeared. I never wanted to be on them. I don't want people to know anything about me. If I meet you face to face in person I can make a decision about what to tell you based on the circumstances of our encounter and how I feel about you. If I type personal things into Facebook, that decision is taken away from me. I don't like that, so I don't participate. I just don't get people who upload pictures of every meal they eat and tweet "poop is coming out," don't get "Honey Boo Boo" either but that also exists.
 
2012-12-19 06:15:56 AM
Too late! I refuse to use this service that I've never used and likely would not have used any ways.
 
2012-12-19 07:23:58 AM

pxlboy: Carth: Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.


Have you tried Vignette?


I haven't, but it looks like it is worth a try. Thanks for the recommendation.
 
2012-12-19 07:26:16 AM

1000 Ways to Dye: revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.

I hope you're not on Facebook, because the Terms & Conditions also allow them to use your public content in any way they see fit.
Same with most sites that allow user-hosted content for free.


I'm not.
 
2012-12-19 08:20:27 AM

Carth: pxlboy: Carth: Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.


Have you tried Vignette?

I haven't, but it looks like it is worth a try. Thanks for the recommendation.


Vignette is great. Worth coughing up a few pennies for the pro version too.
 
2012-12-19 10:04:33 AM

Carth: Camera ZOOM FX is a much better app and Flickr is a better place to share photos. Sorry instagram there is no reason to go back.


It would be nice if Flickr would get around to updating their official Android app. I can't use it on my tablet. Otherwise, I agree.
 
2012-12-19 10:28:49 AM

revrendjim: Yeah, sorry, I already uninstalled Instagram and won't be looking back.


Instagram is owned by Facebook.

If you want to protest this kind of crap, you need to quit using facebook. If you continue using facebook, the lesson they will learn is "If we want to do stupid crap, make a subsidiary company and do it under that name and it will be OK".
 
2012-12-19 10:31:40 AM

gweilo8888: You're missing the point: we've all worked out you're a troll and would continue to deny the obvious truth even if it ran up to you and punched you in the face.


Who's "we"? The only one crying troll left and right to everybody is you.

Grow up, kid.
 
2012-12-19 10:48:14 AM

Coco LaFemme: I never used Instagram because I don't have an iPhone, so........yeah.  I get that when you put stuff online it's out there for the public consumption, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay for some 3rd party to make money off that.


Then you'd better be prepared to pay for the service, because no one's going to host it if they don't stand to make money off it. The question is how they make money: by selling your stuff to someone else, or selling ad space to someone else.
 
2012-12-19 11:53:49 AM

rocky_howard: Who's "we"? The only one crying troll left and right to everybody is you.

Grow up, kid.


The only person who's been called a troll is you. And while I'm the only one who's called you out on it, I'm not the only one who's pointed out that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-12-19 11:58:35 AM
gweilo8888: sell all the personal photos you forgot you even uploaded for stock?


Given that most people either take pictures of their food and/or naughty parts, sure. Sell 'em.
 
2012-12-19 12:21:05 PM

gweilo8888: The only person who's been called a troll is you. And while I'm the only one who's called you out on it, I'm not the only one who's pointed out that you have no idea what you're talking about.


Uh, yes, you are.
 
2012-12-19 12:26:49 PM
Why don't people understand terms of service? They're usually pretty similar from one site to another. 
 
It's standard on sites that give you the opportunity to contribute stuff (comments, pics, etc.) that when you do so, they have the right to use it pretty much how they want without paying you. Or asking your permission. By accessing the site (or using the app or whatever), you are granting them permission. If you don't like that, you're free to not access the site/use the app. 
 
Maybe people should, I dunno, read that shiat. At least once. 
 
What, you thought they employ all those people and maintain all that equipment (giant server farms, among other things) for your benefit? They're not running a charity outfit. After a certain point, they have to monetize. They do that by selling ad space and user info. 
 
Being "connected" to the entire world has a price. This is it. 
 
2012-12-19 02:05:51 PM

gweilo8888: sugardave: gweilo8888: Losing one in 29 of ALL of your customers in a single quarter (largely, in a single month) is not a huge exodus?

What do they have to do, lose every single customer in one go, and a few hundred million customers they didn't even have?

You're funny.

That equates to a WHOPPING 3.44% of their customers.

You fail at math. And reading. And... well, everything, really.

It was 3.25%, as I clearly stated earlier. And while you clearly have a huge boner for Reed Hastings, that was a pretty catastropic fail. Losing close to a million customers by their own admission (and quite likely even more, in the real world) in the space of a few weeks is just unbelievably poor management.


I divided 1 by 29 and got 0.03448275862068965517241379310345....so you're right, I guess. I failed to round up to 3.45%
 
2012-12-19 11:59:40 PM

sugardave: I divided 1 by 29 and got 0.03448275862068965517241379310345....so you're right, I guess. I failed to round up to 3.45%


Ummm.... the 1 in 29 was a vague approximation of the actual numbers, which I linked to and used in the real calculation of 3.25%.

"By their own admission, they lost 3.25% of their then-total userbase in a single quarter, or some 800,000 users."

So no, 3.44% is not correct.
 
2012-12-20 12:43:24 AM

gweilo8888: sugardave: I divided 1 by 29 and got 0.03448275862068965517241379310345....so you're right, I guess. I failed to round up to 3.45%

Ummm.... the 1 in 29 was a vague approximation of the actual numbers, which I linked to and used in the real calculation of 3.25%.

"By their own admission, they lost 3.25% of their then-total userbase in a single quarter, or some 800,000 users."

So no, 3.44% is not correct.


So, you gave the wrong ratio of 1 in 29, which I used to make my equation....but I'm the one who is wrong. Okay. It's really unimportant, is it not, except for you to be right and someone else wrong? Gold star for you!
 
2012-12-20 02:03:11 AM

sugardave: So, you gave the wrong ratio of 1 in 29, which I used to make my equation....but I'm the one who is wrong. Okay. It's really unimportant, is it not, except for you to be right and someone else wrong? Gold star for you!


You are farking pissing me. I posted the exact number of users stated as lost by Netflix, provided multiple redundant links to sources of that information which include the precise number of users Netflix had at the time, and provided an approximation (accurate to the nearest whole person, which is what makes sense) of the number of users lost... and because you can't be bothered to read or look at citations, and lazily made up your own maths rather than taking the number that was actually calculated and provided for you... that is MY fault?

You are a total and utter farking muppet, and you are on ignore. Buh-bye now. Go cup Reed's balls or something, you're boring.
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report