I know it's humor, and suspect Randall is generally far brighter than I, but comparing a photo sharing social network to a friend's garage is fallacious. In point of fact, people feeling like they were being sold out and getting vocal about it -from Zuck's wedding photographer to National Geographic and regular users in between- did make a difference, did it not?
You're missing the point. Whether a garage owner is "sensible" or not, or whether he is a friend or a professional, the fact is that he is still the owner, not you.
That's actually a deeper truth of cloud computing in general, something that mainstream people (like Louis C.K. did recently) seem to actually grasp better than us geeks... probably because many of us have a vested interested in the public trusting us with (and being absolutely irresponsible with) their personal data, so we'd rather ignore some inconvenient truths.
Look, obviously Instagram's servers, infrastructure and software are their own. I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point. They are in fact a company, serving users, and need those users' trust to do what they want to do. I am totally fine with Instagram or any free service making money and experimenting with ways of doing that. I have no issues with contextual advertising or trying to sell me something. The issue people complaining about is one of trust and a feeling/fear of broken faith. (e.g. "Hey, use our cool site for photo sharing! Oh by the way, now all your photos are belong to us.")
> I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point.
No, it's not. It's the dirty little secret of "free" cloud services: you're using somebody else's resources to store your own (intellectual) property, relying on vague TOS clauses that can change from one minute to the next. This is exactly why this brouhaha took off: all of a sudden people "felt" those clauses were now abusive; they realised they were relying purely on Instagram's benevolence, and they "felt" that benevolence was now gone.
This is the case for any cloud service, including Dropbox, iCloud etc; there are probably a few exceptions (I'd expect Salesforce to have tighter TOS), but the overwhelming majority of consumer-oriented cloud services are in the same boat. Last I checked, Dropbox reserved the right to go through your files -- for troubleshooting purposes only, no doubt, but again we have to take their word for it. How many times did you actually read those TOS? For what I know, they might now state that Dropbox can sell your data to China.
The hard truth is that the garage is not yours and it will never be yours; in the best scenario, you are renting it with a tight contract , but in most cases you just had a chat with the owner once and he sorta promised not to resell your boxes full of comic books. Sooner or later you'll find a less honourable owner, and shit will fly.
So what are you saying: don't trust or use any cloud services whatsoever? Or only use ones you pay for? I think that's taking it to another extreme. There is obviously an equitable balance between free services and the level of privacy/control one sacrifices. It's up to each individual user to decide. I think an important component of that is how the company communicates with its users, and in this case, the track record of its parent company on similar matters.
So, I don't take an "all or nothing" view, but I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I just don't think it is a "dirty secret" (not with this crowd anyway)
Edit - I'd like to add or underscore that I agree with what you're saying that ToS can change at anytime, etc. My emphasis is on how companies treat and talk to their users. I don't think all cloud services should be painted with same brush, they should be judged on their own merits and how they do business generally. A Facebook-owned Instagram already made people nervous. This change in ToS brought back memories of other unpleasant changes.
2nd Edit - Munroe's comic ends with the idea that it's useless to complain or drop the service. Clearly it isn't because Instagram responded and reverted back to their original ToS. They need users too. They acknowledged that they heard them. The joke misses or ignores that fact.
I agree that the main difference at the moment is how companies manage the conversation, and I'm not a maximalist -- I use tons of cloud services myself -- I just don't think the issues they raise can forever be swept under the carpet. Unless the industry gets its shit together, more and more companies will abuse their position and try to "pull a Facebook" or "pull an Instagram", leading to an inevitable backlash at the legislative level (certainly from Europe, if not the US).
In the meantime, users should be educated on the risks of cloud platforms as much as their benefits, and in this sense I think the strip is very useful.
You're right that it's not a 1:1 analogy, as for example the National Geographic photos probably brought enough traffic by themselves to be useful for Instagram, if they could figure out how to benefit from traffic alone. But for most people Randall is spot-on, Instagram holds their photos and gets... ?
However the way Instagram went about these TOS changes, and their initial response are both comical examples of how not to handle stuff like this. I honestly think most understand the idea that Instagram can't host their photos forever without some way of making money from that, but the solution for Instagram can't be to expand the TOS to encompass every conceivable act and then try out solutions while saying "Oh, we pinky promise we won't do that vile thing".
Figure out the plan (or plans) first, then make the TOS fit the plan. And communicate with everyone involved during the process instead of presenting a fait accompli.
I know it is redundant to make a "well said" type comment, but "well said!" The sense that users are just pawns waiting to be monetized once scale is reached and the proprietors figure it out is what I think unsettles more informed users.
Some might say PR is meaningless window dressing but I think it's critically important -even for start-ups- if they're operating or intending to operate at scale.
Of course they're being sold out. They are the product - product gets sold. Anyone who thinks they aren't the product is delusional. Facebook didn't pay $1B to sell users filters, or hope they login to Instagram.com and click ads. No, they were purchased for their network value.
I don't think Facebook's master plan is for us to log-in and click ads, I think their plan is for us to log-in and be ads. This is an important distinction from most ad-supported free web services. I do not mind being "targeted" and shown relevant advertising based on my interests of behavior patterns on the site or group of sites. I very much mind being used as an someone else's endorsement or having my actions and relationships themselves be monetized. I think most everyone does. Just pointing this out because it's a nuance of the "you are the product" philosophy that differs from most other free services.
Comments
Obligatory XKCD (and fresh!): http://xkcd.com/1150/
I know it's humor, and suspect Randall is generally far brighter than I, but comparing a photo sharing social network to a friend's garage is fallacious. In point of fact, people feeling like they were being sold out and getting vocal about it -from Zuck's wedding photographer to National Geographic and regular users in between- did make a difference, did it not?
You're missing the point. Whether a garage owner is "sensible" or not, or whether he is a friend or a professional, the fact is that he is still the owner, not you.
That's actually a deeper truth of cloud computing in general, something that mainstream people (like Louis C.K. did recently) seem to actually grasp better than us geeks... probably because many of us have a vested interested in the public trusting us with (and being absolutely irresponsible with) their personal data, so we'd rather ignore some inconvenient truths.
Look, obviously Instagram's servers, infrastructure and software are their own. I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point. They are in fact a company, serving users, and need those users' trust to do what they want to do. I am totally fine with Instagram or any free service making money and experimenting with ways of doing that. I have no issues with contextual advertising or trying to sell me something. The issue people complaining about is one of trust and a feeling/fear of broken faith. (e.g. "Hey, use our cool site for photo sharing! Oh by the way, now all your photos are belong to us.")
> I think that's so obvious on the face of things that it's trite to labor the point.
No, it's not. It's the dirty little secret of "free" cloud services: you're using somebody else's resources to store your own (intellectual) property, relying on vague TOS clauses that can change from one minute to the next. This is exactly why this brouhaha took off: all of a sudden people "felt" those clauses were now abusive; they realised they were relying purely on Instagram's benevolence, and they "felt" that benevolence was now gone.
This is the case for any cloud service, including Dropbox, iCloud etc; there are probably a few exceptions (I'd expect Salesforce to have tighter TOS), but the overwhelming majority of consumer-oriented cloud services are in the same boat. Last I checked, Dropbox reserved the right to go through your files -- for troubleshooting purposes only, no doubt, but again we have to take their word for it. How many times did you actually read those TOS? For what I know, they might now state that Dropbox can sell your data to China.
The hard truth is that the garage is not yours and it will never be yours; in the best scenario, you are renting it with a tight contract , but in most cases you just had a chat with the owner once and he sorta promised not to resell your boxes full of comic books. Sooner or later you'll find a less honourable owner, and shit will fly.
So what are you saying: don't trust or use any cloud services whatsoever? Or only use ones you pay for? I think that's taking it to another extreme. There is obviously an equitable balance between free services and the level of privacy/control one sacrifices. It's up to each individual user to decide. I think an important component of that is how the company communicates with its users, and in this case, the track record of its parent company on similar matters.
So, I don't take an "all or nothing" view, but I genuinely understand where you're coming from. I just don't think it is a "dirty secret" (not with this crowd anyway)
Edit - I'd like to add or underscore that I agree with what you're saying that ToS can change at anytime, etc. My emphasis is on how companies treat and talk to their users. I don't think all cloud services should be painted with same brush, they should be judged on their own merits and how they do business generally. A Facebook-owned Instagram already made people nervous. This change in ToS brought back memories of other unpleasant changes.
2nd Edit - Munroe's comic ends with the idea that it's useless to complain or drop the service. Clearly it isn't because Instagram responded and reverted back to their original ToS. They need users too. They acknowledged that they heard them. The joke misses or ignores that fact.
I agree that the main difference at the moment is how companies manage the conversation, and I'm not a maximalist -- I use tons of cloud services myself -- I just don't think the issues they raise can forever be swept under the carpet. Unless the industry gets its shit together, more and more companies will abuse their position and try to "pull a Facebook" or "pull an Instagram", leading to an inevitable backlash at the legislative level (certainly from Europe, if not the US).
In the meantime, users should be educated on the risks of cloud platforms as much as their benefits, and in this sense I think the strip is very useful.
You're right that it's not a 1:1 analogy, as for example the National Geographic photos probably brought enough traffic by themselves to be useful for Instagram, if they could figure out how to benefit from traffic alone. But for most people Randall is spot-on, Instagram holds their photos and gets... ?
However the way Instagram went about these TOS changes, and their initial response are both comical examples of how not to handle stuff like this. I honestly think most understand the idea that Instagram can't host their photos forever without some way of making money from that, but the solution for Instagram can't be to expand the TOS to encompass every conceivable act and then try out solutions while saying "Oh, we pinky promise we won't do that vile thing".
Figure out the plan (or plans) first, then make the TOS fit the plan. And communicate with everyone involved during the process instead of presenting a fait accompli.
I know it is redundant to make a "well said" type comment, but "well said!" The sense that users are just pawns waiting to be monetized once scale is reached and the proprietors figure it out is what I think unsettles more informed users.
Some might say PR is meaningless window dressing but I think it's critically important -even for start-ups- if they're operating or intending to operate at scale.
people feeling like they were being sold out
Of course they're being sold out. They are the product - product gets sold. Anyone who thinks they aren't the product is delusional. Facebook didn't pay $1B to sell users filters, or hope they login to Instagram.com and click ads. No, they were purchased for their network value.
I don't think Facebook's master plan is for us to log-in and click ads, I think their plan is for us to log-in and be ads. This is an important distinction from most ad-supported free web services. I do not mind being "targeted" and shown relevant advertising based on my interests of behavior patterns on the site or group of sites. I very much mind being used as an someone else's endorsement or having my actions and relationships themselves be monetized. I think most everyone does. Just pointing this out because it's a nuance of the "you are the product" philosophy that differs from most other free services.