But Systrom concedes it’s not zero. He continues to give Meta’s attorney a hard time by firmly resisting attempts to get him to admit that he’s merely speculating about his prediction that Instagram would have been big on its own. “You deal in a world of probabilities,” Systrom says. “You can never be sure.”
Instagram has since “generated many multiples of that price and then some,” Systrom says, adding that, “the number of people at Facebook who said, ‘I don’t know where we’d be without you,’ was many.” He dryly gives Zuckerberg some credit: “Sometimes you make a bet and it turns out well, and I think Mark did that.”
In another tense exchange between Huff and Systrom, the Meta attorney presents a 2012 email Systrom sent Zuckerberg before the acquisition. Systrom wrote that the photos people post on Instagram rather than Facebook are quite actually different, describing the photos on Instagram as “not social photos” but rather photos of the world. On the stand, Systrom calls this a “negotiation tactic,” and says, “that was probably less true than I was leading on.” When Huff calls it misleading, Systrom says, “I think it is okay to play your hand a certain way.”
Meta attorney Kevin Huff suggests that Instagram benefited largely from cross-posting to Facebook prior to the acquisition, but Systrom says it mostly cut the other way. “We helped Facebook make their app more engaging by posting photos over to them,” he says. After Huff shows him a 2012 email Systrom sent to Zuckerberg crediting Facebook cross-posting for Instagram’s success, he asks if Systrom was lying to Zuckerberg at the time. Systrom answers with a stern look and a single word: “Sir.”
He is now being questioned by Meta’s attorney and says that “network effects make it very difficult to displace large incumbents, including Instagram.” The question for Systrom is “how big” rivals like Snapchat and TikTok “could have gotten” absent Meta’s network effects, which disincentivize people from leaving a service that many of their friends are already on.
A 2018 document lists the features that Meta integrated with Instagram, including cross-posting with Facebook, and explains how they impacted each app. The overall effect is described as increasing Instagram’s active users by millions each year, while the impact on Facebook was described as “neutral.” Systrom says Zuckerberg decided to cut these integrations that largely benefited Instagram.
The Meta CEO’s reaction to Instagram’s growth, as Facebook’s growth plateaued, stirred complex feelings in him, Systrom says. “My experience of him is that he was always very happy to have Instagram in the family,” he testifies. “But also, I think as the founder of Facebook, he felt a lot of emotion around which one was better, meaning Instagram or Facebook, and I think there were real human emotional things going on there.”
Zuckerberg had mixed feelings about Instagram over the years, depending on how it was impacting engagement on Facebook, Systrom testifies. “Depending on the temperature of that feeling, we would get more investment or less investment.” Systrom believes that Zuckerberg “was not investing in Instagram” because he saw it as a threat to Facebook.
Meta dispatched a few members of its growth team to work with Instagram on growing after the acquisition, Systrom testifies. But then, he says, “I woke up one day and they were gone.” Systrom complained in a 2014 message to another Instagram executive that “no startup would simply pull growth people,” and he says on the stand that if Instagram were still independent, “the probability of that happening is very close to zero.”
Systrom says he received “zero” of the trust and safety headcount allocation Meta created after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and was instead told to work with Meta’s central team. “I felt that was not appropriate given the scale of Instagram,” he testifies. “To get zero of some of these major proclamation investments felt like there was something going on there.”