I still don't get the popularity of instagram. Is it the filters or sharing? There are tons of apps that let me apply a filter and instantly share to FB. As someone who doesn't use instagram have I missed something?
I loved using Instagram on my iPod Touch, and have patiently waited for it to show up on my Android. I think there are a few things at work that make Instagram so popular. First, it is incredibly simple to use, including the filters. I'm also pretty sure it came along pretty early for this kind of application and was timed just right to handle the rise of smartphones, Facebook and Twitter.
Back to the filters. There are lots of people who love (and hate) those filters. I like the filters, but always take an unfiltered photo, then crop and sometimes use a filter in Instagram. In terms of the filter haters, I guess that shows that it's better to have a group of people that love your product and some that hate it, rather than a whole bunch of people who are just "OK" with it.
The API has also boosted Instagram's success, with YC's jazzychad and stammy producing picafight, among other apps.
The Instagram team just managed to produce something that got people's attention and build a community around it. It's not easy and requires some luck. With continued luck, they'll figure out how to monetize all that traffic.
I still don't get the popularity of Starcraft. Is is the blowing things up or the playing against friends? There are a ton of games that let me blow things up while taunting my friends. As someone who doesn't play Starcraft am I missing anything?
...
Or, with less snark: Instagram is fun. Using it makes me smile. Do I need a better reason?
You don't. I wasn't challenging why you use it, I was trying to understand why it was a big deal on Android since I've seen really good filter share apps.
It seems the differentiator is its own social network.
It does make wonder if apps built on FB or Twitter should usually also expose their own network so you can't be as easily commodified.
I think he gets that Instagram is fun and easy. He was saying there are other, similar, fun and easy services. What makes Instagram special? Why didn't the other services make you smile?
"Starcraft::everything" isn't what he was asking about. He wanted to know about "Starcraft::All RTS Games".
He said it was quick, not that it was fun or easy. That's probably what he was missing in the top post. What is it specifically that makes it fun and easy?
Brand name. Instagram is very well loved on the iPhone by many users and has been something Android users wanted.
Anecdotally, my friends who use Instagram typically verbify the word as well, e.g., "I'm going to Instagram this cup of coffee." That, to me, illustrates the brand penetration Instagram already has.
The filters mostly just add a little zazz and personality to the photos. It's more about sharing. I kind of liken it to Twitter but with photos as the centerpiece instead of 140 characters.
I wouldn't underestimate the power of hype at this point either. That is, people using it simply because others are and they want to be just as hip, or people like you and me trying it to see what the fuss is about and perhaps staying because it's good enough and we're already there.
came along early and people dont even know there's other apps. its like the "i want an iphone4!" meme.
they dont care to search (and the app stores aren't all that well organized anyway), they just care to have "the app people talk about".
Even if it's actually not very special in any way, technically speaking.
This is actually the reason why I'm downloading it right now and giving it a chance. I don't have a (personal) Facebook account and I don't ever plan on having one. That effectively lowers the barrier of entry for me significantly.
Didn't know that. Interesting. So are you generally sharing with friends or strangers? I've never had anyone ask me to join instageam to see a picture, which is why I ask.
You post them in your stream, you can choose to only show your photos to people who you've friended or you can choose to post them all publicly. There is no middle ground.
You can share the photos outside of instagram on Twitter, Facebook, Posterous and via mail. People can view the images in their browser if you send them a URL or if they use a third-party website to browse photos.
It's quite flexible and a lot of fun sharing and commenting on other's photos. If you want to get more activity on your photos, you need to #tag them. Some people go overboard with obnoxious 20-30 tag posts.
But you can link it to FB and get notified when friends join.. which I must say has likely been a large driver of their growth. How else would you know which friends are already on the service?
Instagram. Ruining perfectly good pictures since 2011.. or whenever they started.
No offense to the company but I really hate this trend of filtered pictures. Am I the only one who prefers actual pictures rather then low quality "old looking" ones? I'm all for sharing pictures easily but keep them real!
I guess it really depends on what filters you apply to your photos and how to apply them. I agree that some people don't know when to stop or how to identify photos that might look better without filters, but you're gonna find that type of users everywhere.
I'm sort of in the same boat. I heard about it, downloaded it, and was thinking "that's it?". Taking pictures using the stock iphone camera app is easier and faster.
I've never used Instagram, but I did use picsplz for a bit, and those filters usually made the photo look better given the shitty quality of my phone's camera.
Taking a photo is a creative endeavor, not necessarily an effort to flawlessly recreate how something actually appears to the human eye. Engineers frequently do not get this.
Really? Because it seems to me that a lot of engineers at instagram figured out that using the same set of preprogrammed filters over and over again allows users to feel like they are being creative.
And is there anything wrong with people feeling like they are creative?
Same argument applies to Guitar Hero. People may make the argument that they're not playing guitar and therefore should stop playing Guitar Hero, but many people find it fun. You can disagree with them, but that doesn't make it less fun.
>And is there anything wrong with people feeling like they are creative?
Yes, there is, when they aren't being creative. When they're just choosing a cookie cutter, telling them they should feel creative is cheating them of the real thing.
1. Creativity is a man made concept and so by default is subjective. Who is to judge what's "creative" and what's not?
2. If filters - which could just be an analogy for a technology tool - has no place in "creativity", where do you draw the line? Pulled to the extreme, how about when I use photoshop, or a korg synthesizer, or an elaborate framework to make art, music, or programs?
3. It's a consumer entertainment app after all. People have fun with it. What gives?
I actually have a feeling it makes peole dumb. Seriously.
No more self thinking, it's all about riding the wave, feeling like you're doing something "cool", yada yada.
But people will do that anyway. Not everyone is creative. There are people who legitimately think pop music is the best music they've ever heard. They're not wrong, that's just what they like. Forcing them to listen to indie would just make them hate indie more. (as an example)
Perhaps we should start calling this Casual Creativity. I think it's a good analogue to Casual Gaming which to me has the same advantages and drawbacks compared to real gaming.
> And is there anything wrong with people feeling like they are creative?
Sometimes they take pictures of things I'm interested in or curious about, and the picture is obviously mangled compared to the original, and you can't make out as much detail as you'd like. Mangled in exactly the same way that thousands of other people mangle their photos: the first few times I saw it, I thought it was clever/cute, but then it got old, and now I loathe it.
Same here. Was on my phone, but it wouldn't show up in Play Store app search, only on the web interface. Since there's no mobile web version of the Play Store, I had to navigate the desktop version using my mobile device.
Really poor downloading experience overall--took 10 minutes to get an app which I don't think is nearly as good as the iOS version. It's missing blur functionality, the filters don't seem to be as effective, and there are WAY too many unlabeled icons which you have to tap to figure out what they do.
Here's a tip: Instead of using the Play Store app search search for the following:
<thing you want to search for> site:play.google.com
Not only are you much more likely to get what you're looking for, but the result links you get back will give you the option of opening the link in the Play Store [1] (through the magic of Intents), so you won't have lost anything in terms of integration.
I really, really, really don't understand why someone at Google hasn't chucked the default search in favor of a site search of play.google.com (or, back in the day, market.google.com). I used to be befuddled as to how Google, of all companies, couldn't implement a decent search for their app store. Now I'm amazed because they've also implemented a good one and just aren't using it!
[1] Presuming you're using an Intent-aware browser (e.g. Browser [best bet], Chrome, Dolphin not Firefox or Opera) and presuming you haven't picked a default for the browsing Intent. Though if either of those apply to you, you probably know how to work around it.
I have never used Instagram. Could anyone please explain/justify the 13Mb size of the App?
I'm just wondering, because the biggest App I have on my phone is Google Maps, which takes around 12Mb. The next one takes 6Mb at most. I know games heavy on graphics might take more, but a how does a photo App take so much?
Is there any particular reason you're focused on the size of the app as a meaningful metric? I don't mean that to come across as condescending; I'm legitimately curious. Except for the 20mb 3G download limit I honestly can't think of a time where app size has played a factor in me deciding to install or keep an iOS app.
For one thing, some less expensive Android phones have very limited internal storage. I have a very decent one who's achilles heel is the internal storage. The internal storage has been completely full pretty much since I got it, and any new app either has to be installable to the SD card (and most are, thankfully - except for anything Google makes for some reason) or be critical enough to displace an existing app.
Size can be a meaningful metric. Would you prefer to download a 1Mb BMP or a 12Kb JPG? Why are all the JS minify tools so popular? Just some examples.
I'm actually surprised that no one else is curious about why some apps take 1Mb and others 10Mb and so on, or their contents in general. Sometimes it's because they have a ton of images, a little 3D engine or whatever. The replies about filters in this specific case make sense.
You seem to be using size as a proxy for speed: how long until I can use this tool? A slow website (e.g. one that loads 1MB BMPs or un-minified JS) makes you wait every time you access it; a large app download only makes you wait the first time you initially download it.
If I'm going to be using an app on a daily basis for an extended period of time, the speed concerns I care about are how long it takes the app to start up once launched, and how long it takes me to accomplish tasks. Over the lifetime of using an app, I'd argue that an extra two or three minutes in the app's initial download is little more than a rounding error.
Those were just examples. And I'm not at all concerned about the download time, having wi-fi and all. My concern is the space that takes on my phone (and why).
But if we're talking about speed specifically, do you think a 10Mb app would be or load faster than a 1Mb one? This makes me wonder by the way... Does a non-optimized image (part of an app UI, not a photo) take longer to display in a mobile?
Don't know about the Android app, but in the iPhone app the executable is 3.5MB, and the rest of the 13MB app is mostly made up of PVR files (Edit: "PowerVR Texture Files", it seems) and various images.
I've never thought about 13MB as a "big" app size, though. iPhoto is 100MB, for instance.
The filters are just simple image transforms. Generally they're just specified as GL shaders, which means that even in the largest case, you're talking about a kilobyte or two. Considering that they're compressed (as all APKs are), you can divide that by half, if not more.
Think it's the filters. Some are purely an algorithm, but I assume other filters work by merging the photo with a template image. Maybe this has to be stored in high res in the app.
Google+ is a good example of something that is plain wrong in my opinion.
I uninstalled it months ago, so I can't tell if it has great improvements. But from what I recall, it can be easily compared to... the Facebook app, for example. What is the purpose of those 20-ish Mb of difference between the two?
You would think Google would be making great and efficient apps with their own platform.
I imagine that the Google+ app is so big because it contains all the resources (images, translated text, layouts, etc.) for both the tablet and cellphone versions. Also, it needs to include extra libraries to support some of the newer ICS features on older phones/OS versions.
I would assume that is mostly the filters. A few weeks ago someone posted the filters on github, and there were some really complex opengl filters in there.
If you're not satisfied with App2SD, root your phone, partition the SD (512-1024 MB should be enough) and use Link2SD to transfer all files to that SD partition automatically, including cache.
But I agree this is an annoying problem on low-end phones, and it used to be in 2010 as well for HTC phones. Google really needs to force manufacturers to leave at least 1 GB of internal storage for apps, even for the lowest end of phones. I understand that would add to the cost, and would slow down Android's domination in the feature phone market, but there needs to be at least some standardization for the benefit of both developers and users alike.
So it went from 150-200 MB to 350 MB? That's still too low I believe. People shouldn't worry about their storage days into using their device. A lot of regular folks won't even know how to use App2SD. It's silly that at this point users still have to ask developers why their app is so big at 10 MB and why it isn't just 5 MB, or whatever. This really constrains developers, and it's not fair to them.
This seems a bit silly to complain about 13Mb unless you are using a phone from the dark ages. Most phones now days have 16Gb+ of storage, the past two I bought had 32Gb and 64Gb respectively. If you do have a limit for space for some reason then why not just download it and give it a try, if it's slow and horrible just uninstall.
I'm using a Desire. Well known for being an awesome HTC phone with just one flaw: very little internal space. So, this sort of limitation has made me very aware of the space any app takes. I have a Galaxy Tab 10.1 with infinite space (compared to the Desire, anyway), where I put all the heavy apps. But I still check the app size before downloading, out of habit.
Also, as a developer myself I can't help but wonder what is inside an app and what makes one super lean and others so heavy. The same way I wonder why apps usually ask for a zillion permissions they don't need.
The limited space is one major flaw of the phone and it almost makes it unusable. That is why I suggest a custom ROM. I use one called Supernova and it is great, it is basically the stock ROM with the internal memory moved on the SD card. With it I have almost 2GB of internal memory and almost 100 applications. The instructions are not super user friendly but it is worth it!
Another alternative is to install Darktremor Apps2SD[1] on top of another ROM such as CM7. This will let you partition some of your SD card as extra "internal" space.
Not huge, but my brother has a HTC Wildfire S (early last years budget model) and struggles with constantly juggling apps. Not all apps on Android can be moved to SD.
They're not even using the Android sharing system. The only way to share from the Instagram app is to upload to Instagram, and optionally tell it to forward the photo to one or more of the sites they support (Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Tumblr). If you want real Android sharing, you have to switch to the Gallery and share from there.
To be fair, Readability is doing a good job of responding to feedback from Android users. There are still more than a few issues (e.g. better control of background processing), but they did quickly turn around support for Share Intents (first out and then in) so I'd say they're moving in the right direction.
Searching for "Instagram" in the Play store only brings up clones of the app. I would guess the search algorithm takes total downloads (which will be higher for existing apps, for now) into account over matching the app name.
We launched an android version of our app (Zite) on Thursday.
For 1.5 days, users were unable to find us with a search for "zite" because google was silently correctly to "site". I estimate we lost between 70-90% of potential downloads during that timeframe.
It shows up in search now, but it's about the 20th result (may have been true earlier as well, I didn't try scrolling far). But even if it wasn't indexed immediately (which is still ridiculous - it's all their system), they're still not taking app name or current trends into search results.
I certainly won't disagree with you there. I scrolled quite deeply through the list earlier and didn't see it, which is why I assumed it wasn't indexed yet. The searching could definitely use some tweaking to weigh the name / trend more heavily.
Curious about their decision to go with custom tabs at the bottom of the screen. Not being a full-time Android user, I always thought tabs were displayed across the top. Are more and more Android apps using tabs at the bottom?
I don't personally use tabs at the bottom in my apps, nor do I see it as a prevailing trend in apps. However, I can see why you'd want tabs on the bottom: it's closer to your thumb if you're holding the phone one-handed. This makes it easier to use the tabs, since you don't have to reach across the screen.
A new design pattern in Android 4.0 (and available via Google's compatibility library down to 1.6) is that you're supposed to be able to swipe between tabs, so in theory there is no advantage to having them at the bottom. (Tabs in Android have always been at the top.)
Big question now: how long it will take Instagram to double its user base? Considering how many people were expecting this launch I'm sure they will become one of the most popular apps on Google Play pretty soon.
> This app is incompatible with your HTC Wildfire.
Not that I even wanted to use it, but other photo making, photo editing, photo filtering and photo sharing apps work on my modest little smartphone. F.ex. Flickr, even the mobile Photoshop.
Such is the difficulty in targeting a non-standardized system. Developers have a hard time making apps for platforms that vary wildly. It's a lot more cost effective to hit the big, easy targets on Android then focus your effort on iOS. Single-platform, more purchases, and less development work.
Boo hoo, quit dropping those cliches in here. From what I see, Instagram is one of the few for whom it was too hard (can't recall what was the last time an app didn't work for me). "Requires Android: 2.2 and up" so it's either they excluded lower resolutions or it requires too much RAM for my device to handle or sth, neither of which is a system problem as apps of similar and bigger photo functionality work just fine and smooth.
"Requires Android: 2.2 and up" so it's either they excluded lower resolutions or it requires too much RAM for my device to handle
Note that I didn't say developers couldn't handle it, I said it's not always cost efficient to do so. If someone is still on Android <2.2 or if their device doesn't have enough memory, that's an Android issue. Android exclusively is the only platform to have devices with wildly varying system versions, RAM, and resolution.
I don't see anything in your post that even begins to make an argument against that. On the other hand, I've seen at least one post of a developer making a high profile exit from the Android community because of the differences.
It's not that Android is hard, it's that is harder, and for less return. Most mobile developers can't afford to buy every system to test on, and can't afford lengthy development and support cycles.
I wouldn't mind that a single dev or some indie team starting up can't handle their workload or afford a device to test on. They are funded 7mil so affordability shouldn't be an issue, they just supposedly can't make this app work on lower requirements than their competitors' products and that only was my point.
If they don't care, it's their problem and I'd have left after my first post, but pardon me, I'm tired of every comment like that where someone is trying to excuse developers by raising some Android cliches that there are too many phones around. There are apps more powerful than Instagram which work on my entry-level htc, theirs doesn't and it's their fault, not the OS, not the devices'.
Most Android developers starting new projects are not going to make any serious attempt to support your phone because it is out of date, even by the standards of the Android ecosystem.
I thought zalew's complaint was that his phone is Android 2.2 (IIRC the Wildfire did get to Froyo), but that still isn't enough for Instagram. Especially when most other apps in Instagram's space don't seem to have a problem.
It still looks more like an iOS app than an Android one. That is unfortunate. Both Android and iOS have pretty much the same userbase right now, and it deserves the respect as a platform. You wouldn't expect to see a Mac-style app on Windows, or a Windows-style app on Mac, and that's with a much larger difference in userbase. Even Linux apps get their own style.
That is merely a patent application, not a patent. Also, an example of misleading tech journalism that dcurtis didn't change on his website even after multiple people pointed this out.
I guess the hypothetical reality is more interesting than real life.
Does the distinction matter to most software developers? From my perspective, the legal risk is almost identical. Something will most likely make its way through the patent office. At that point you can be sued and (unless you're independently wealthy and have plenty of free time or you have an employer who will take care of your legal defense) the quality of the patent doesn't matter.
Your first point is subjective, your second point is confusing (pull to refresh is the only way refreshing works?) and your third point implies that people are already familiar with it (on Android you're mostly not, I've only ever seen it on lazy iOS ports).
iOSey or not, it's quite easy to discover, and is accessible from anywhere within the thing that you're pulling. On a phone as big as my Galaxy Nexus, it would be nice not to have to reach all the way to the top of the screen, as this requires me to adjust how I am holding the phone when I was previously in a "casual scrolling through items" position.
Ditto. However, it doesn't explain why it isn't on the iOS version as well.
The reason that I can think of is because Instagram refreshes (or rather pulls in) an entire new batch of photos. The expected UX for pull to refresh is that usually builds new data on top of the previous data, ie: Twitter, instead of loading entire new batch.
I'm disappointed that Android users have flocked over to Instagram considering they've been running on the iPhone happily for a long time now without any real wish to ever bring their service to Android. There are many similar apps already on Android and considering the Android community I would have imagined them to not back Instagram's move out of principle.
Personally, I wouldn't ever use the product, but I'm glad to see that they've finally brought it to the Android platform after so long.
Android is the world's most popular smartphone OS.
Most users use it because it is the OS that powers the phone that they thought best fit their needs when they bought it, not because they have any special loyalty to a 'community'.
Why wouldn't they flock to a popular service that lots of people say is fun?
Isn't Lightbox doing more or less the same thing as Instagram on Android? And Lightbox has some nice features, like explorer views for pictures from your facebook and twitter streams. The Lightbox also adapts much better (e.g. to larger screens) than instagram so far.
There are lots of Instagram clones out there but choosing one of those means losing Instagram's social network, which (as a moderate user of Instagram) I wasn't so hot on doing.
Instagram opened up its API recently to Hipstamatic [1] (which I think predated Instagram, not sure though). Interesting to see Instagram realize that their value is in their userbase and not in their specific filters. I don't know if they have plans to become a platform or not, but with millions of users (and with this Android release, millions more coming), they've definitely got that as an option.
Just look at that obnoxious period hanging out there slyly at the end of the non-sentence subject. It's full of "just a period here, not an exclamation point, but I'm pretty sure you're gonna be pretty ebullient anyway" faux-understatement. None of their other post titles end in periods.
One thing that surprised me about this app is the completely blank screen I was greeted with after installing. No CTA, no idea really what to do next. Of course I can play around with the app and figure it out, but it seems like a huge oversight not to help me along.
Instagram = filters + social. Istagram doesn't have the best platform for filters or social, but is a case where the sum is greater than its parts. For filters, I prefer Camera+ and for this type of sharing I like Tumblr. If only Tumblr had a photo filter app.
I'm so glad this app is finally available for Android. I sold my iPhone 4 last August and I've missed this app so much. I also miss Path, but it's not currently compatible with my Samsung Replenish. Oh well. If you don't have this app yet, I highly recommend it.
Why does Instagram need access to my phone's address book? Will it steal that data too, or ask me before copying anything to their servers? Just want to know before install. I don't want to share photos with /everybody/ in my address book.
I heard the Instagram hype all over internets and tried the software, but deleted it right away when I saw it required an account. I can see why they are doing this, but from my perspective it's just greedy. No need to integrate everything, I just want to take some pictures not register to a service. Soon we will have calculator apps that force you to make super-calc-account where you can share your calculations with your friends...
For those confused about the confused, if you've not used Android, it's trivial to share to any capable app via the default Camera/Gallery. It's very fast for me to snap a photo and share it over FB/Twitter, so unless you're into "hipster filters", Instagram doesn't really add a lot of value to the experience.
That, and I don't know anyone that uses it. I'm surrounded by iPhone users in the Midwest but I don't know a one of them that have used Instagram, most don't know what it is.
No. Either way you're going to have to launch an app in iOS to share a message to Facebook. You can tweet pictures straight from the photo gallery, but if you want to post to Facebook then you have to launch the Facebook app and upload the picture from there. Instagram doesn't really solve any issues because now you're just launching another application instead of Facebook.
I thought the initial problem Instagram solved (before its own network became popular) was that you could launch one application are share multiple places (and I suppose eliminating another app from the flow with filters).
However, since I'm an Android user I could easily mistaken about this.
Download are really going to high, but time will tell how people are going to use it...I am definitely going to download and try it on my android phone.
