The Hipsters are a Billion Dollar Industry
simply.io
simply.io
Yes, Instagram has some value, but it's in the users and the eye of that particular person that you enjoy. The photographs themselves are rarely anything of note.
I do think it's unfair to lump these companies. Hipstamatic is just selling an app. Even if the community turns into nothing, they sold quite a few apps at $2. Most of these companies though have nothing to sell and little value to provide. They are just hoping for some angel to bail them out until the inevitable Google buyout.
And stop reading TechCrunch already.
EDIT: why choose? cant i combine my love for vintage polaroid burlesque with modern erotic search engine optimization?
Someone must be working on it
For example, I think path is a much different animal than the others, and while I agree with his overall point (there are some ridiculous valuations going around), it's more of an angry rant than a critique of the apps themselves.
You know what else is of now value? That blog post...
The post begins with and relies upon this faulty premise. This is not explained, and I would argue that Hipstamatic and Path do create value for the users. The latter allows me to socialize with people in a more private manner, while the former takes photos, values in of themselves.
Furthermore, why must the users of these apps necessarily be "hipsters"? Is this a requirement for the use of these apps? (Clearly not, as Hipstamatic was one of the biggest apps on the store last year, and not all of those users can be generalized as hipsters).
This is like complaining Jersey Shore adds nothing of value to people's lives. Sure, it doesn't, but it's not supposed to. It's entertainment. Just because people are easily entertained and advertisers will pay for those eyeballs, doesn't mean it's not a financially viable business.
Some apps solve problems and are useful. Some apps entertain (solving a different problem - boredom). Confusing the two purposes leads to posts like these.
(For the record, I completely agree that there are a lot of useless apps out there, but how is that different from there being a ton of useless TV shows, movies and video games out there? If you don't want to contribute to that because you think it's a poor use of time, then don't, but it doesn't mean that there's not a market for it and that there isn't money to be made there).
How does this figure fair in comparison to other startup, small business failure rates. Isn't the default for most startups death? (pg article for reference - http://www.paulgraham.com/hubs.html)
Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in 2009 said, "I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth - one shred of evidence… [U.S. Financial services increased its share of value-added from 2 percent to 6.5 percent] Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you're paid?" The only financial innovation over the past 20 years that impressed Volcker was the automated teller machine.
F* it, we'll do it live! We're going to live edit now...