I'm starting up a Branch to talk about the new Instagram TOS. Part of me just wants to say "eh, who cares...nothing is private anymore!" but the other part of me doesn't want pictures of my 4 year old and 1 year old selling muffler straps or something crazy like that.

Thoughts? Ideas? Branch is perfect for these kinds of discussions. I want to understand!

I think the hindrance to paid vs. free software is that more people use the free version. And when you're talking about a social network, the more people using it the better. I mean, why do more people use Instagram instead of Hipstmatic? Because Hipstamatic is $.99 and Instagram is free.

i've paid for flickr pro for five years or more now. and now with their newly redesigned app (launched with amazing timing), it has mobile uploads, filters, and will easily replace instagram and it's facebook bullshittery.

I would try Flickr pro but since I use so many Google apps I honestly would like to jettison Yahoo. Maybe I will check out Hipstamatic.

I totally get the "eh, who cares...nothing is private anymore!" Because that was my first thought. But I just don't like the idea of not getting a choice to opt out-- that it is all or nothing.

I think there's a line between giving up your viewing privacy when you post stuff - like pictures- to the internet and the service SELLING your images to make profit. It's the fact that they can use my images to sell products or services that I don't feel comfortable with. I agree with Emily, I wish there was a way to opt-out but I guess that's why it's free. You're exchanging the right to post pics for their right to use them.

I do wonder if people would be as upset about this if the TOS included this clause from the get-go? Perhaps it's the change that seems unethical/greedy than that actual change itself.

To me the perfect thing would be to pay to keep my content restricted where it can't be sold. There would also be the option to use it for free, but then they can use your content for commercial purposes.

Megan-- totally agree that it seems greedy.

Librarianry--I think that's the perfect option. A paid and free version of the app with different TOS.

Like I said, I think the CYA Legalese makes it seem more malicious than it is. But when you're using a service like Instagram that's free, and you wonder "How are they making money?" the answer is usually "They aren't right now, but just wait until they monetize it."

I like the one-stop shop with Google; i.e., Picasa for pics and Drive for just about everything else. Also lets you sync/backup to a hard drive. Fees are minimal if you go over a certain free GB limit (I believe it's 5 GB). Downside is sorting/searching on Picasa is clunky. Other than that, been using it for years.

I sound like a commercial .. they should pay me.

if it helps, you can log into flickr with facebook or google - no yahoo! creds req'd.

as much as i'm a google-girl, i can't stand picasa.

Picasa blows. The compression is terrible and nobody uses it. For professional photography, Flickr is great.

I can't seem to branch, am I the only one? Otherwise some of my comments would not be in the main thread.

@Emily: I take that approach to Facebook. It really tears me up. I'm not sure what to do.

@Dan and @Julie: I am a huge Google fan and I agree with you about Picasa. They really need to end that service or fold it into something else

@Dan: The "Branch" option is off to the right of every post. Does that work for you?

I just keep getting a "What is Branching?" dialog

My opinion about online privacy issues like this are a little loosey goosey. I guess I think people are flattering themselves if they think corporations are paying that kind of attention to what they post. I don't like the idea that instagram might use my photo of taco flavored doritos as an ad pointed to my friends, but since it's free, I guess I'll deal with it. If there was a paid version of the app, with no ads, I would pay for it in a heartbeat. I almost always choose the paid versions of any apps I like, Instagram would be no different.

I think any social network would have a hard time getting off the ground if it weren't free.

Okay, so here's what I don't understand: why is paying for services like Instagram never an option? What happened to the "freemiun" model?

Let's pretend Instagram is free like it's always been, but for $5/mo you won't see any ads, your photos are & will remain your own, and maybe you get some more filters.

Do advertisers really lose anything there? I'd say most users who would pay for Instagram so they don't see ads aren't the type who click on ads very often.

Is there some business reason I don't know about that makes this a bad idea? Do they fear of too much negative press from that decision? And could it be any worse than what they're getting now?

I think it's hard to say since we're not the ones running Instagram (or Facebook). I can't imagine they didn't consider this.

This discussion makes me think about App.net join.app.net and their idea "We are selling our product, NOT our users." I'd be all for paying $36/year for a service like this...but are there enough people using App.net to make it worth $36/year?

@Justin Someone was kind enough to send me an invite when app.net was doing the promotion (not sure if it's still going on or not). It lets you do a month free to check out the service. I can't get into it, but more for a lack of community (much like Google+ for me). But NOW I'm really starting to see what Dalton Caldwell was talking about. I can ignore Facebook's advertising and Twitter's promoted tweets, but I do not like what Instagram. Caldwell's option is very intriguing right now.

Fark.com runs on a similar model. You can look at it for free, but monthly subscribers get more features. That said, I don't pay for a Fark subscription and don't plan to. And I probably wouldn't pay $5/month for Instagram either.

I shy away from Yahoo! products as much as possible but might look at Flickr PRO again with the recent updates. I wish Google had a similar (paid) product. Picasa just doesn't do it for me.

Lots of different scenarios here. Paying $36/year for a service with not nearly as much value (to me, at least) as Twitter provides doesn't make sense.

Starting a social network with an entry fee is tough for that exact reason, as others have stated above. Even Hipstamatic, which was just *one dollar* in the App Store, didn't gain the following Instagram did. I'm sure there were other factors also at work there, but lots of average users really seem to hate paying for apps.

But when you've got an established network with millions of users and no entry fee, what's wrong with adding ads and allowing users pay to remove them to help support the service? Perhaps it's not be profitable enough? Maybe we'll never know.

I agree that starting a social network with an entry fee is not the way to go. The whole idea is that you need X users for it to work - or fail (Friendster, MySpace).

But I don't think the reason that users chose Instagram over Hipstamatic was the 99¢ barrier to entry. It's that Instagram had a social network inherently built into it's photo filter app, while Hipstamatic is a photo filter app that allows you to share to existing social networks.

Flickr always gets me with the Pro model, because when my Pro runs out, I can't access my pictures anymore! The free version gives you 200 photos, so anything before that is missing. I always feel like they're holding my pics for ransom!!

My big problem with this Instagram news is that it just seems like they're being so sneaky about it. And considering that Facebook just seems to be doing a lot of opt-in stuff and weird things with privacy lately, it just doesn't leave me feeling too good about it.

'll wait a week to see if they go back on it, but if not I'm deleting my account and using Flickr Pro or Hipstermatic.

I'm not 100% this is legit (since I don't use Instagram), but this is what National Geographics posted saying they may leave: img.ly

blog.instagram.com

Systrom said Instagram was listening to its users and would fix any mistakes on the social network's part. He said Instagram never intended to sell people's photos to others without compensating the photographers.... "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." (LATimes article)

I feel this was a nice response to the concerns.

They were never intending to SELL your photos, they never even stated that they owned them. The terms indicated they maintained the right to license your images and...

“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,”

Until they actually change the TOS terms again nothing has changed.

I'm gonna keep this Branch open because it seems like we still have a lot to say (and I LOVE IT!).

Personally, I got rid of my account. The new TOS was the event that made me do it, but I must admit I was on the fence about it for quite some time. Do I really need to share photos like this? Why am I sharing photos like this?

To be honest, the whole Twitter/Instagram debacle that happened last week (?) was really something I didn't jive with, as Twitter is my preferred social network.

I know I am coming in late but I think that we all know that the "free services" we use online have to make money somehow.

Nothing is free and we are going to be paying one way or the other.

I would actually rather pay for a service in $$ instead of having to pay with my privacy.

Of course I have the choice not to put my photos up on instragram, facebook, or anywhere else.