However, the organisations can not survive without advertisements‘
In recent months, at least four of the most interesting new startups — all either from or backed by people with deep roots in the current internet, including Twitter cofounders and many of the most prominent VCs in Silicon Valley — have been launched to, in some way, replace the internet. Not add to it, or change some part. These sites want to fix the whole thing: to remake comments, content, and updates with little to no encumbrance from the current web.
Most notably, perhaps, they’re free of ads. This isn’t at all unusual for a launch product; most of the major sites we use today, such as Facebook and Twitter, started without ads. But these sites seem intrinsically and even philosophically opposed to advertising. Where would an ad go on Svtble? Medium? Branch? App.net was founded on an anti-ad platform, from which it raised nearly a million dollars with a Kickstarter-style campaign:
‘App.net is a different kind of social platform.
We’re building a real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers.
Our team has spent the last 9 years building social services, developer platforms, mobile applications and more.
We believe that advertising-supported social services are so consistently and inextricably at odds with the interests of users and developers that something must be done.
Help us create the service we all wish existed.’
However , app.net charges.
Member tier $ 50
Developer Tier $ 100
It is to be seen whether people prefer spending money.
With the impersonal corporate culture where no body knows nobody(despite the HR spiel of ‘ all are colleagues, no vertical hierarchy, all on first name basis), this is bound to happen.
What has happened to access card given to the employees?
It looks that the security badge given to the boy during his official education there still worked!
‘A 19-year-old technology entrepreneur lived unnoticed in the Silicon Valley offices of internet giant AOL for two months before being discovered.
Eric Simons, from Chicago, slept on sofas, ate free in cafeterias, and used his days to work on his own start up company, offering teachers the chance to share lesson plans.
Other employees assumed he was a colleague and admired his strong work ethic. Simons would already be in the gym when they arrived at 7am, and he always stayed latest in the office at night.
Simons told technology website CNET: “There were so many people going in and out each day. They’d say, ‘Oh, he just works, here, he’s working late every night. Wow, what a hard worker.’”
During his first month Simons estimated he spent only $30 (£20) of his own money, mostly on occasional trips out to McDonald’s. He kept his clothes in a gym locker where he also showered.
The teenager, who had only finished high school a few months earlier, gained access to the offices when he was part of an official education.
Twitters reacted negatively for Facebook concluding the deal with Instagram.
Is the deal worth $1 Billion for an application?
I am doubtful.
Sometimes.deliberated decisions in Business do not pay off, but gut feelings do.
Mark Zuckerberg might prove to be right other wise he might not be where he is today
”
Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg choose to spend $1bn on Instagram, a small web start-up just under two years old, with 13 full-time staff who work on a single smartphone app.
The business model Yes, Instagram is very popular. The app’s fancy “filters” give your photos a lovely vintage feeling, a bit like the faded Polaroids tucked away in the drawers of your parents’ living room. They port mediocre photos into an alternate universe where they look kind of good; an online service allows users to share their pictures with friends.
The drawback, of course, is Instagram’s business model. The company has no revenue to speak of. Maybe its business model was to be bought by another tech firm with too much money in the bank.
So is this the return of silly money to Silicon Valley? Is it a case of panic buying, with valuations pushed up in a bidding war with Google or another competitor?
Facebook is certainly not spending $1bn on an app.
Rather, it is buying three things: a potential rival with a rapidly growing user base; a weapon to fight other even bigger threats in the social networking space; and most importantly a better hook into the world of mobile computing.
“And now Facebook has announced it’s buying the super popular photo-sharing app and social network for $1 billion.
As @HmSeb put it on Twitter, Instagram is in a relationship now, and it’s complicated.
And, as with any new relationship, there is no shortage of opinion and overreaction. Here’s a sampling of the unfiltered hyperbole:
“Instagram just officially died today,” wrote @AmirKassaei .
“I liked instagram before they sold out,” wrote @EAJosh .
Not everyone was turned off. Some said they might now reconsider. “I might install @instagram now that all the whiny hipsters are leaving,” wrote @commagere . And @benjaminjackson had a good point: “At least you can look forward to your mother being on Instagram soon.” Lovely.
Springing up are tweets and tips on how to break camp and pull out your content and links to delete your account altogether. But take a minute before clicking that link and maybe use more caution about leaving than you do about what you shoot or what filter to use. Facebook has said it plans to leave Instagram independent.
One man on the cyberstreet suggested this could actually solve a cultural quandary. Assuming the voice of Facebook, @DavidSlack tweeted that maybe job applicants won’t need to worry about those embarrassing pictures on Facebook anymore: “We’re buying Instagram to ensure photos of our era are blurred enough that no-one in the future can identify the stupidest people in history.”
Additional input received from Maduhr Gupta is here below.
“In updated s1 Facebook reveals that it agreed to pay $1 billion for the photo-sharing site Instragram consists of $300 million in cash and about 23 million shares of the company’s common stock. The company also noted that it agreed to pay Instragram(photo sharing sites) a $200 million termination fee in the event the deal for some reason is not completed. for more logon to’
You must be logged in to post a comment.