Last week, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, the co-founders of Instagram, announced that they were leaving Facebook, where they had worked since co-founder Mark Zuckerberg bought their company six years ago.
“We’re planning on taking some time off to explore our curiosity and creativity again,” Systrom wrote in a statement on the Instagram blog. “Building new things requires that we step back, understand what inspires us and match that with what the world needs; that’s what we plan to do.”
Quite so. It is always refreshing when young millionaires decide to spend more time with their money. Facebook paid US$715 million for their little outfit when it acquired it — Instagram had 13 employees at the time.
However, to those of us who have an unhealthy interest in what goes on at Facebook, the real question about Systrom’s and Krieger’s departure was: What took them so long?
Since they are smart lads, one imagines they must have realized that what they were trying to do within the Facebook empire was doomed to fail.
They evidently hoped to continue to run Instagram as a distinct entity while harnessing the engineering and global computing infrastructure of Facebook to enable it to grow more quickly than it would have done as an independent company.
In that, at least, they were right. Instagram has grown like crazy. In June, it reached the 1 billion user mark. This year, it is expected to bring in US$6 billion in advertising revenue, which means that it is the biggest revenue generator within Facebook after the main news feed.
One analyst has estimated that Instagram would provide Facebook with US$20 billion by 2020, or about a quarter of the company’s total revenue.
If Systrom and Krieger imagined that they would be left alone to run such a money pump within the Zuckerberg dictatorship, they were delusional, especially given that for some time there were intimations of things to come.
Earlier this year, for example, Facebook removed a shortcut link to Instagram from its bookmarks menu inside the Facebook app, thereby eliminating traffic that flowed from Facebook to Instagram.
Whereas Systrom and Krieger originally reported directly to the “Supreme Leader,” a few months ago, Zuckerberg installed a layer of management between them and himself, with the result that the boys found themselves reporting to chief product officer Chris Cox.
At which point it must have been clear that the writing was on the wall. All of which is par for the Facebook course.
In 2014, the company paid a staggering US$19 billion for the messaging app WhatsApp, whose co-founder Jan Koum always vowed that its users’ privacy would be paramount.
“Respect for your privacy is coded into our DNA,” he wrote in a blog post after the Facebook acquisition had been announced.
“And we built WhatsApp around the goal of knowing as little about you as possible. You don’t have to give us your name and we don’t ask for your e-mail address. We don’t know your birthday. We don’t know your home address. We don’t know where you work. We don’t know your likes, what you search for on the Internet or collect your GPS location. None of that data has ever been collected and stored by WhatsApp and we really have no plans to change that,” he wrote.
Reading that at the time, one wondered what Koum had been smoking if he believed that he would be able to stick to those lofty principles within a corporation whose business model depends on knowing all those things about its users.
Within Facebook, Koum tried to run WhatsApp on his lofty principles. He even provided end-to-end encryption for users to make sure that their messages could not be monitored for targeting purposes.
However, Zuckerberg, who had left WhatsApp untouched and independent for some years, finally snapped.
The service would have to start making real money, either by weakening encryption or by some other means such as mapping users’ networks.
In April, Koum announced his resignation from Facebook and departed, a sadder, wiser (though much richer) man.
So the only surprising thing about the experiences of the fco-ounders of Instagram and WhatsApp is that anyone should be surprised by what has happened to them.
Facebook is a data vampire; the only thing it does is suck people’s life data to paint targets on their backs for the benefit of advertisers.
All that sanctimonious guff about “building a global community “ is just corporate cant.
Any start-up founder hoping to be acquired by Zuckerberg’s empire ought to remember former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s definition of appeasement as “feeding a crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last.” Because he will.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS