Ok, I usually don’t write about video other than commenting on YouTube because (a) I’m inherently biased and (b) I don’t want my opinions to be taken as representing the view of my company. But…. since there’s so much heat around the question of “Instagram for video” right now, here’s a quick thought on why photos and videos are very different.
Think about the photos you look at in either your social feeds or specific photos sites: 99% of them interest you because the subject(s) and/or camera holder is someone you know (or you yourself). Because pictures are static, you can also grok and scan them very quickly, meaning the “cost” of a bad picture is low, hence you are interested in pictures from a wider variety of friends. The other 1% of pictures are not interesting to you because of the subject matter (flowers! eagles! antique doorknobs!). Various products are changing this split but I really don’t think it gets past 90/10. [Of course there are photo buffs who just love to spend hours on Flickr browsing hashtags but that’s not what’s driving Socialcam and Viddy installs. And I’m not talking about photos which are incidentally included in news stories – eg the Tebow picture you see when you go to espn.com]
Now, about videos. It’s the other way around. In 99% of the videos you watch you don’t know anyone in the frame. You watch because the subject is interesting (and if it isn’t, you bail pretty quickly). Why? Because there’s a much higher cost to watching a video. Of course hours of video are consumed every day, so I’m not saying people won’t watch videos, I’m saying the “social” in video is more about the subject and then sharing or discussing it with friends. Think of it this way, the average video has ~24 frames per second, each of those is a “picture” – i don’t mind seeing a single picture of my friend and his baby in my Facebook stream, but I wouldn’t want several thousand in a sequential slideshow. That’s what a video is. Again, various technology and products are moving this from 1/99 –> 10/90 but I don’t believe this fundamentally means I want to see more personal video from a broader range of friends.
Note: at mobile scale, 10% of the “video” market is still HUGE so I’m not saying that any of these apps are necessarily flashes in the pan. I don’t know how to explain their recent spike, although I believe it has much more to do with Facebook distribution/feed changes than an inherently viral nature of personal mobile video creation or in-product network effects.
Off the cuff thoughts – where am I wrong?
I agree. Another thing is that shooting, processinG and uploading videos on your phone kills the battery. This is a reason enough for me to not use
Mobile vid apps.
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | TechCrunch
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star – TechCrunch | My blog
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | Crowdfunding News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | TechCrunch
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | Lord of the Net
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool - Entrepreneur News | Australian Society of Entrepreneurs
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool - TRAIKA
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | Newspaper Today
Pingback: My Internet Press » Video Killed The Instagram Star
Pingback: My Internet Press » Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | Techno Alchemy
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | Tasty Bytes News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | My Daily News Update
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | Biggy News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | Biggie News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | Big E News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool – TechCrunch | NewsSupplyDaily
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | AkimoLux.com
Pingback: The Capitals™ – Capitalists' Magazine | 資本家札記 | Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | Crowdfunding News
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | Networld Interactive
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool - TechCrunch | Mash Mush
Pingback: Opinion: Instagram Now Has Video!? | Android Kenya
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | Tableta
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | Tableta
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool | CB Smithwick
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star | CB Smithwick
Hi, Kendra! Just want you to know that i love your templates! I may not have used any but you’re too kind in sharing them for free! 🙂 Following your blog now!!
Pingback: Video Killed The Instagram Star – TechCrunch | Forex Newsline
Pingback: Instagram Wanted To Be “Instagram For Video” Before It Was Cool » |