Completely agree. They are not doing anything even remotely innovative. Added direct messaging means nothing when the simple direct messaging channel has already evolved beyond just a picture/video. A techchrunch article said they are like Apple, not doing it first, but doing it the best. That's complete BS as well. It doesn't look or feel any different or better than FB messenger, iMessage, whatsapp, snapchat or any other messaging apps for that matter.

People are doing this too. It looks dumb, but inside there're lots of interesting technical challenges.

Some of the awe inspiring breakthroughs are often extremely boring technically. I started my career in the computational chemistry and was looking over the shoulder of the guys doing some really bleeding etch research on organic compounds simulation. Oh, man, do you know how boring it is for a programmer? You're looking at the handwritten prototype of the research paper, filled with quantum physics formulae and encode all this greek language into FORTRAN-IV. Then you run it for a week and either go collecting Nobel prize or finding bugs in your "program".

Is it bleeding etch or bleeding edge? I cant keep up with stuff anymore.

leading edge (marketing bs) -> bleeding edge -> bleeding etch. It's a very old joke, I've read it in Dr. Dobbs sometime in mid-90s.

That's exactly right, and it's a great move on their part.

Instagram itself wasn't some grand innovation. It's an experience product, that's meant to be easy to use and fun. It's not here to cure cancer, it never pretended to, and it doesn't need to attempt to.

I feel the same way. I often wonder with all the bright minds and current innovations in tech, why we still continually try to come up with novel ways to send cat pictures over the internet. Surely there are more interesting uses for the vast technological resources available to this generation.

You're missing the most important question in all of this: interesting according to whom?

It's equivalent to someone that prefers non-fiction scientific educational TV shows, claiming that it's outrageous all of the money goes toward sitcoms or the next Avengers movie.

Reminds me of this Steve Jobs quote. Amusingly, you could substitute 'television networks' for 'social networks' and it would be a relevant argument today, despite being made 17 years ago:

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." - Steve Jobs, Interview in WIRED magazine (February 1996)

Fair enough. These apps do have their target market, I just feel like we (myself included) could be doing more to help people rather than just keeping them entertained.