Why the Instagram founders really quit

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.

Thanks for linking to this, the story is interesting without a shadow of a doubt. From Verges point of view looks like Zuckerberg has a clear tendency to be monopolistic personality, which is sort of typical for huge CEOs. Currently reading on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos scam, control freak to say the least.

"Questions I'm going to investigate..."

By reading Wired.

Thanks for sharing the Wired article - it's really good and I have read the entire thing.

What stood out was the conclusion to me, when Zuckerberg was asked how FB would be in 10 years, and his replies show that he does not understand the implications technologies will have on society and the dangers they enable - it sounds like that's his main repeating pattern. From comments like dumb fucks, to impossible FB had any influence on the presidential elections, to being excited about future mind reading devices FB should build - Facebook (Zuckerberg) doesnt seem to learn to enable technology with safeguards.

That's what continues to stand out to me, and why I would not trust FB any time soon again.

I can't help but feel like there's no actual narrative being formed throughout the article - the vignettes keep coming one after another until your eyes glaze over - the story can't keep its eye on one thing at a time - I'd recommend skipping to section VII.

The app design makes it harder to repost something and nudges you to post your original content about your daily life. Casual, low-key, not polished every day life stories from friends and even people I don't know that well are the main reason I open Instagram, and unlike the main feed (where everything is polished and photoshopped), it feels authentic.

Well, there's also Instagram Stories, which is Snapchat with better UX and not resorting to stupid technical workarounds like doing screenshots of camera apps

> FB thirst traps

What is this referring to?

The big question is... What can replace fb groups. For any non-tech topic they seem to be the goto replacement for good old discussion boards.

I use Instagram much less than I used to because of mainly three things:

1) The feed is no longer reverse-chronological.

2) I see way too many ads in my feed.

3) Feed clutter: I don't want to see suggested hashtags or follows in the feed. I don't need the feed to randomly remind me about a few people's Stories. I just want the photo posts, and nothing else.

I expect all of those things were driven by the FB side of the house. If so, for me, FB definitely has ruined IG. I no longer consider it to have the "minimal interface/feature set" you rightly cite as being so important.

I do appreciate that IG isn't as susceptible to inflammatory outrage posts like FB is (one of the reasons why I'm effectively off FB with the exception of event invites), but it's just not enough.

It happened to Steve Jobs even back in the 80s.

I bet he cries himself to sleep at night on a pillowcase stuffed with cash.

I mean, yeah, it's a nasty feeling. But there were compensatory factors.

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.

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.

Which is what makes the FB internal position on Instagram's growth so silly. If users are moving off of your old thing onto something else, you WANT to own that new thing! Otherwise someone else does, and your business slowly dies.

The only alternative to this is for people to keep using FB forever and ever, but that ship sailed a very long time ago due to many decisions they made over the years.

Basically, they made one of the best acquisitions in tech history and then got upset that it worked so well. Madness.

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.

You fact checked she doesn't carry a insta-hubby on the side?

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.

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.

Never underestimate the importance of ego. :-) Companies frequently make bad acquisitions due to the ego of the founder. (This is not an example) Other times founders spike the pet projects of their rivals.

It looks stupid because you're assuming all actors have the same goal: make the company they work for the "best," however that is measured. But that's often not the goal of executives. They are often more interested in protecting and gaining power.

Companies do this all the time, and single-product companies are especially vulnerable if the one product is the founder's pet product.

History is full of awkward acquisitions and politics where business decisions are made poorly and for all the wrong reasons.

Instagram may have been better performing when it came to users, but likely FB is more profitable per user.

you don't seem to understand organizations and their politics then, or more charitably, you're being intentionally obtuse. egos, esteem and positioning are the primary drivers of decision-making in an organization (i.e., a political body).

the good of the product is of secondary concern in most organizations. it's the opposite in (young) startups, because their success depends on it. this, to me, is one of the main reasons to work for a startup, not the financial rewards or the vague experience of it. it's to build a product you're proud of.

It's a tough pill to swallow, I'll give you that, because it challenges the idea that we live in a just and ordered world. If it turned out that nobody was in charge, or that those in charge are no smarter than we are and don't particularly deserve to be in charge, or even that they're mismanaging things grossly... well that means nobody in the world really knows what the hell's going on and we're all just floundering along. That feels like being orphaned. Or pushed out the door into the cold night with no shirt. "Le Roi est mort - vive le Roi!"

This is an insightful perspective.

> 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.

I believe Zuckerberg is still Facebook's controlling shareholder, so no one's getting rid of him until he wants himself out (or does something so egregious that the government removes him a la Hans Reiser or Musk with his SEC shenanigans).

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.

Yea good question, who wants him out? The journalists, a lot of people, but probably not the shareholders.

Or maybe his true character is emerging, as it inevitably does with anyone who has such a high profile. You can't keep putting makeup on a snake forever and keep fooling everyone.

The Interface is a newsletter, that's why it seems all over the place.

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.

> ... 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.

No, I think he'll be like the ones who don't. He'll take on some expensive hobby and claim it is for the greater good.

Back when his reputation wasn’t so low: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-zu...

I think Zuckerberg and Page should exercise their clout as a media moguls. Murdoch is scared of them. Also, Obama and Trump's Presidential victories show how a well coordinated social media campaign can win you the Presidency. Zuckerberg wants "to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us." He should double down on that. You are right though.. Europe is really the only regulator we can rely on right now... but the global alt-right movement is trying to change that (see Steve Bannon in Europe).

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.