One of the main reasons Facebook 'won' was because it managed to beat MSN. MySpace had a chat feature. Bebo had a chat feature. But MSN still reigned supreme as the way to talk to people online. MySpace and Bebo had bulky inboxes like an email client and MSN was quick and fun. MSN is still slightly better for the user than Facebook ever was; it did webcam chat without issue much earlier, you could appear offline to 'friends', you could add people you barely knew and satisfactorily block them forever. So then Facebook comes onto the scene and has integrated chat. You've added all your friends, like on Myspace and Bebo, and suddenly you don't _need_ MSN up to talk to them. You still do for the few friends you have that don't have Facebook, but slowly it becomes easier to just open Facebook and open MSN when you want to talk to those friends. Eventually MSN just remains closed. And as it was suffering from the iTunes style of updating anyway, that wasn't the worst of things. Even if it was slightly better, the extra effort isn't worth it. Facebook damn well knows this. They've got you talking on their website, now they've got you on their apps. They are an important part of life because they've also beaten texting in how we communicate. So Snapchat comes along, and Facebook don't like it. There's another way to communicate, and this one is even more low effort than before. It's seamless, it's easy to do and to understand. They know that one of the reasons they're so dominant is that the price to communicate is being on Facebook. So why is Snapchat so dominant, aside from ease of use and tumblr-esque simplicity in communication? You're right that it captures attention and demands you look at every pixel for those 3-10 seconds. You've probably also heard that it's used for porn, but it's a method of communication so that's a given. Taking a DP on Facebook, for me, may take up to 2 hours. I'm not actually kidding. I'm not an expert photographer, and I'm damn well not that ugly or attractive to merit it, but I like taking pictures of myself for Facebook that make me look okay. I feel compared to everyone else I know and people I don't know.
Snapchat, if you trust it, takes your photo and then removes it forever. Okay fine it's not foolproof, but the idea is that you send it to your friends and assume they probably aren't horrible people. People share things with someone because they can, and in this system they can't. You get a sense of impermanence that means you don't worry as much. If I upload a random photo of my day on Facebook, maybe 1-3 of my friends will give a shit, so I wouldn't put it on FB, but I also can't be bothered uploading it to send to them in a message. So Facebook photos are now where you put the highlights of yourself to show off. Snapchat is where you can fuck around with friends.
Just curious, are you British? I took a quick perusal at your profile and your word choice indicates this might be such, but I wanted to ask. The reason is because I'm American and MSN was never popular here, not in the way you describe. I had some British and Irish friends at some point and they all had MSN email addresses and I guess used the other functions you describe. I had no idea that you could use MSN in that way, in fact. For chatting online, AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) was always the thing back "in my day" i.e., the early '00s. What is a DP? Otherwise I agree with your assessment about Snapchat and the deletion of photos. Snapchat allows you to be ugly and it doesn't matter. My friends and I send pictures of ourselves making the fattest/ugliest faces. We send pictures of ourselves when we're on the toilet. It's inappropriate - or it would be if it were permanent - but it's funny. And because Snapchat deletes the images, it's not damaging. I agree, 100%. And then some.Facebook photos are now where you put the highlights of yourself to show off. Snapchat is where you can fuck around with friends.
*Display Picture. Close eightbitsamurai, but not quite. I'm so British. If you'd looked longer you'd notice I talk about the NHS occasionally. @msn.co.uk was the late adopter email. It started out @hotmail.com and then @hotmail.co.uk for MSN based email addresses afaik. AIM was a thing, but it wasn't that popular in my teenage years. I think MSN was being used around me from about 01 to maybe 09? Snapchat is really integral just because of that impermanence. I think the world needs more outlets where you're not judged.
That's a line form Peep show.
Honestly, if I hadn't worked with so many Brits while living abroad, I don't think I would know it. I have never heard mardy, though I have heard the word "manky" (is that the right spelling?). There seem to be quite a few interesting words in colloquial use in England (not to mention the rest of the UK) that I think Americans would enjoy using.
I've only ever heard manky said, but that looks right to me! English has some lovely words. We use SO many american-isms though, couch and trash and basically adopted into our language now. (Sofa and rubbish are the proper words, of course) I always get quite annoyed that Americans don't have kettles. WHAT IF YOU WANT TEA.
Heh, some of us do, but generally not the electric kettles. Some people microwave their water for tea (I know, I know). It is curious that American media infiltrates so many English speaking countries, but very little English language media from outside of the US comes in. I used to play that up with a friend of mine whenever he would complain about America, by talking about how much I enjoyed Benny Hill.
I've never used snapchat either and if you don't mind I have a couple of questions: 1. How long does the image last? 2. Can you take a "screen shot" on your phone and capture the image? I see the appeal but I've not really been in a position to use it. As for the 3billion, well... that's just craziness. I think it's a good rule of thumb that if someone offers you $3bb and you don't take it, you're going to regret it some day.
1. I used it for a week or so because I was curious how it works. As far as I remember you can configure it to your preference between like 3 and 10 seconds. So you have a range you pick you want the receiving end to be able to look at it. 2. Yes you can, but the other person gets a notification about that. If your phone is rooted though, there are maaaany ways of capturing that photo unnoticed. But the vast majority of the users probably don't take screens of the pics, at least not without the other person knowing. Edit: Holy balls I'm tired, I didn't see that there are multiple answers already, lol
No worries, thanks for the response all: eightbitsamurai, T-Dog. 10 seconds is faster than I thought. I was thinking a minute or two. I like that its so fleeting. In a way, this could force people more in to the present moment, forcing them to really absorb what they're taking in. My guess is that most of what they're taking in isn't all that substantive, but the opportunity for it to be exists.
You set the image to last anywhere between one and ten seconds. And yes, you can take a screen shot of the image but the person who sent it will get a notification saying that it was screenshot. I think the main appeal is just for nudes, really. I've never used it in any way that resembles an in-person conversation. I check it sort of absent mindedly at this point...people send pictures of them doing usually trivial stuff and I occasionally respond with pictures of me doing the same. I don't think you're missing much.
I think it depends on the people using it. Meanwhile, I have. In fact, it's the primary/basic/pretty much only way I stay in contact with my TN cousins. We've had longer conversations and we just share snippets of each other's days as well. Yeah.I think the main appeal is just for nudes, really.
I've never used it in any way that resembles an in-person conversation.
people send pictures of them doing usually trivial stuff
Yeah that's one point I forgot to put down - I understand lots of things about Snapchat, now. But I don't understand anything about Snapchat's creators for dropping such an amount of money. Even if it Snapchat ends up being revolutionary, what if it isn't? 3B with the right amount of careful planning could sustain my entire family and extended family for generations.
It's interesting that you wrote about and ended with "value". I have not used it, mostly because when I heard about it last year, my 16 year old niece was the one using it. She of course, gave me that teenager look. That one I used to shoot at people so often. The one that goes, "Ugh. You are old." Anyway, value is interesting. Now, I have just said that I don't use the thing or even know much about it, but the demographic seems to be primarily teenagers and some people in their 20's (correct me if I'm wrong). What's more appealing to that demographic than giving the finger to The Man (or whatever the fuck they call that concept now)? This is pure speculation, but might it be possible, given the ephemeral nature of what the app does and apps in general, that the creators are trying to create greater value for their product? Yeah, if I were offered 3 billion I would take it in an instant.
To me, the thing about turning down 3 billion is, it's not money you ever had in the first place, so you can't miss it if you turn it down. I assume the creators had some reason for turning the money down and they might regret it later, but - and I guess I'm going to sound naive - I don't find turning down 3 billion that big of a deal if you have what you consider good reasons for doing it. Especially if you never got in for the money in the first place and the creators of Snapchat didn't. I guess it could be regarded as a return on time investment, considering I don't think they make money on the app now. There's no advertising and it's free and no one gives you money just because people are using your app. (As far as I understand it.) It depends on what I was offered 3bn for. If I turned it down because maintaining creative control was worth it to me then I would not be upset about turning it down at all. I guess my point is that not having that 3bn does not negatively impact their lives. Having the 3bn could positively impact their lives, assuming they (the Snapchat team) were also responsible, hired money managers, etc. But it could also be dangerous if you're not smart about the money.
My guess: Snapchat's VC structure gives relatively little to the founders (who are currently in control of the company) and their financial position is better in possession of the IP than after the sale of the IP. It makes sense. Facebook has been flailing about lately, throwing cash at anything they see that might preserve their marketshare. So $3b is their "safe" offer, rather than their "pain point" offer. I'd feel dumb passing up on $3b unless I suspected there was $6b on the table.
I don't think they're idiots. If we all think they're idiots, they know something we don't. A finite window? Sure. Then again, how old is Dropbox? six years? Apple offered them "nine digits" in 2009 and by 2011 they were making $250m in revenue PER YEAR. Right now, they might be making a billion a year, they might not. So. If SnapChat figures they could be making $1b a year by 2016, taking $3b from Facebook is a fool's bet. Personally, I don't see SnapChat making $1b a year by the time the sun goes out, but IPOs don't care. Twitter will make about $40m this year but Wall Street values the company at eighteen fucking billion dollars. Amazon, as mentioned, has never really made money at all but has a market valuation of $165 BILLION.
I'm noticing a lot of people who haven't used SnapChat themselves. SC is popular in younger demographics because it offers a few things: Privacy: the images are "deleted", and you can chose how long someone views the image. SnapChat also offers a sort of anonymity. Kids now who have smartphones and whatnot value privacy. They don't want their parents snooping in on what they're doing online. Although I am not really sure the images are entirely deleted. I'd like to know how they manage that.
You also get to know when someone looks at your message. shrug From time to time I find this useful. Snapchat claims that the images are purged from their servers after they have been seen. This has come up with law enforcement, I saw an article about it. Right now Snapchat claims that the only images it can deliver to law enforcement, should they be requested, would have to be unopened.
ok, that's interesting now. What if you get a message and it wasn't opened. Say it originated from a known criminal. Postulate further it was sent to a recipient that was intending to open the message. Authorities talk to Snapchat and SC says the message has not been opened and therefore subject to search. If the recipient never opened the message, how can they be implicated?