I think he's talking about the mobile space specifically..

And to go further: I have a Flickr account, I have some Picasa galleries.. I rarely visit those sites except to upload a batch and then go elsewhere.

I use Instagram 5-10 times daily when in transit, on lunch, while watching TV, etc...

It's probably too late, but if Facebook would like to hedge their bets by seeing if they could make an Instagram workalike & user traction for much much less than $1B -- for say, oh, a mere $1M up front and $9M upon delivery -- I'd be willing to take a shot. One man team. Give me say 2 months absolute tops. I deliver the mobile app, website, backend. Facebook brings the massive user base. Oh wait, again, they could already do this, without needing me. Or Instagram. So, put me down as another guy who thinks it's a misspend on Facebook's part, partly due to perhaps being drunk on their own "funny money" valuations.

sbarre has it right. You missed this part: "Instagram is the main mobile photo app."

Damn reading comprehension. ;)

To go a step further, consider: Flickr is available on every device (computer or phone) with an internet connection . Instagram was iOS-exclusive until a week or two ago, and yet it managed to reach sixty percent of Flickr's user base size. That's astounding.

Two serious, non-cheeky questions:

--does Android's Camera app have social sharing features?

--does it provide some kind of cloud-based sharing support?

I see the above, plus Instagram's 30M+ user base, as their main benefits.

That statistic represents pent-up demand. It's now available on the mobile OS with the largest share of the smartphone market.

You don't expect Instagram to double its user base within a year? Maybe even more?