8 ms·

What about snapchat is useless? Or is this just typical "damn kids these days" speak? The app is an incredible form of communication, and there is a reason peop

What about snapchat is useless? Or is this just typical "damn kids these days" speak? The app is an incredible form of communication, and there is a reason people prefer it to other mediums.

ulfw 10y ago
What's incredible and different about it at the tune of 20 Billion USD?
- seizethecheese 10y ago
  A large and growing network of users.
  - gjolund 10y ago
    Users who already have a presence on half a dozen other networks.
gjolund 10y ago
What exactly are people communicating? If snapchat shutdown tomorrow would anyone actually care, or would they immediately shift to the next best platform? Compared to say a public utility, car manufacturer, global shipping company, etc. There are real problems in the world, and snapchat doesn't solve any of them. There are real companies trying to solve these problems, and snapchat is worth more than most of them. Our obsession with "incredible forms of communication" is in reality just a VC fueled gold rush capitalizing on the current flavor of the week.
- qq66 10y ago
  > If snapchat shutdown tomorrow would anyone actually care, or would they immediately shift to the next best platform? You can say this about a lot of great companies. Toyota shuts down tomorrow, I buy a Honda instead. Sure, I wanted the Toyota, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. UPS shuts down tomorrow, I use FedEx. Apple shuts down, I use Android. Starbucks shuts down, I go to Peet's.
  - gjolund 10y ago
    Those companies employ hundreds of thousands of people and entire supply chains. Snapchat employ's next to no one in comparison and is worth more than entire industries.
    - canttestthis 10y ago
      You're good at moving the goalposts in a debate.
      - gjolund 10y ago
        If you have something to contribute I would like to hear it.
    - argonaut 10y ago
      Yep. That's why they're actually even worse off. All else equal, the more employees a company employs, the worse of an investment it is, because costs are greater.
      - gjolund 10y ago
        As a business they might be less profitable, but as a society we benefit more from their existence.
        argonaut 10y ago
        Now you're just moving the goalposts. VCs are out to maximize profit. If startups were funded by the government you would have a basis for complaining about how societal benefit is not being maximized.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  What problem is HBO solving, other than entertaining people? How is Snapchat any different? At a minimum, it's entertaining. At best it's "connecting people" and so on.
  - gjolund 10y ago
    I love that you hand wave "connecting people". These people are already connected, they can communicate on Twitter, FB, SMS, email, phone, skype, gchat, facetime, whatsapp, line, vine, periscope etc etc. Snapchat is just the current prom queen. Everyone wants to be her date, but in 10 years she will be working at Dairy Queen.
    - dsacco 10y ago
      It's clear from your comments throughout this thread that you're biased against Snapchat. Regardless of whether or not Snapchat's long-term prospects are strong, you're not debating this well. First you compared Snapchat to a completely different industry (automotive) to imply it has an inflated valuation (as though tangible products and heavy manufacturing somehow make a company more legitimate). When a commenter replied with an excellent rebuttal in favor of Snapchat's market position, you instead made the argument that Snapchat does not contribute long-term value to society. When the parent commenter criticized this viewpoint by drawing a connection to HBO and countering that not all businesses need to change the world, you claimed that people don't need to be any more connected than they were before Snapchat, since they had things like Facebook, Twitter and texting. Why build different things? Why not just be content with the communication platforms we have now? How about we just don't develop things people clearly desire because, "eh, fuck it, they've got general ways to talk to each other already." Finally you circled back around to being incredulous that a company with only 200 people could be worth more than entire industries and "supply chains." Of all the market analyses available, like margin comparisons or growth potential, you chose to zero in on the number of literal employees as some sort of indication of impact. How long are you going to move the goal posts? You're one of the most active commenters in this thread but your rhetoric, particularly the bit involving the automotive industry, reminds me very strongly of the way in which people who are too set in their worldview can't fathom the value of new and different technology. Judging by the political valence of your "VC gold rush" comment, I assume this is where your bias comes from. That and the automotive comparisons lead me to believe you're deeply uncomfortable with the idea that a small number of relatively wealthy, skilled elite can completely dwarf industries built by the comparatively unskilled masses all the while enjoying cushier jobs, better social status and wild employability (to put it as starkly as I can). Follow this thinking deeply enough and it could even be expressed as simply as, "It's not fair." But that's leverage for you. If you want to really debate about the future value of Snapchat, why not add some real nuance to the discussion and talk about its advertising platform's advantages (or disadvantages) compared to Google and Facebook?
Fricken 10y ago
It's not useless, it's a nice, basic tool that's clearly a hit with users. But it can never be that simple, can it? We got to grow! monetize! have another fundraising round! justify it all with increasingly complex features of progressively marginal utility that further dilute the core funcionality that made it so popular in the first place. Imagine if HN were to succumb to this disease, it would be a travesty.
cardine 10y ago
I don't necessarily think Snapchat is useless but I can't for the life of me understand why they need $1.8B or how they could ever efficiently use it considering how technologically simple the app is.
chrischen 10y ago
Snapchat is useful, but so is paper. Billions of people use paper every single day.
freebs 10y ago
I agree. No other social network gives me experiences of my friends worlds every day.

What about snapchat is useless? Or is this just typical "damn kids these days" speak? The app is an incredible form of communication, and there is a reason people prefer it to other mediums.

ulfw 10y ago

What's incredible and different about it at the tune of 20 Billion USD?

seizethecheese 10y ago
A large and growing network of users.
- gjolund 10y ago
  Users who already have a presence on half a dozen other networks.

gjolund 10y ago

What exactly are people communicating? If snapchat shutdown tomorrow would anyone actually care, or would they immediately shift to the next best platform? Compared to say a public utility, car manufacturer, global shipping company, etc. There are real problems in the world, and snapchat doesn't solve any of them. There are real companies trying to solve these problems, and snapchat is worth more than most of them. Our obsession with "incredible forms of communication" is in reality just a VC fueled gold rush capitalizing on the current flavor of the week.

qq66 10y ago
> If snapchat shutdown tomorrow would anyone actually care, or would they immediately shift to the next best platform? You can say this about a lot of great companies. Toyota shuts down tomorrow, I buy a Honda instead. Sure, I wanted the Toyota, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. UPS shuts down tomorrow, I use FedEx. Apple shuts down, I use Android. Starbucks shuts down, I go to Peet's.
- gjolund 10y ago
  Those companies employ hundreds of thousands of people and entire supply chains. Snapchat employ's next to no one in comparison and is worth more than entire industries.
  - canttestthis 10y ago
    You're good at moving the goalposts in a debate.
    - gjolund 10y ago
      If you have something to contribute I would like to hear it.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    Yep. That's why they're actually even worse off. All else equal, the more employees a company employs, the worse of an investment it is, because costs are greater.
    - gjolund 10y ago
      As a business they might be less profitable, but as a society we benefit more from their existence.
      - argonaut 10y ago
        Now you're just moving the goalposts. VCs are out to maximize profit. If startups were funded by the government you would have a basis for complaining about how societal benefit is not being maximized.
MichaelGG 10y ago
What problem is HBO solving, other than entertaining people? How is Snapchat any different? At a minimum, it's entertaining. At best it's "connecting people" and so on.
- gjolund 10y ago
  I love that you hand wave "connecting people". These people are already connected, they can communicate on Twitter, FB, SMS, email, phone, skype, gchat, facetime, whatsapp, line, vine, periscope etc etc. Snapchat is just the current prom queen. Everyone wants to be her date, but in 10 years she will be working at Dairy Queen.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    It's clear from your comments throughout this thread that you're biased against Snapchat. Regardless of whether or not Snapchat's long-term prospects are strong, you're not debating this well. First you compared Snapchat to a completely different industry (automotive) to imply it has an inflated valuation (as though tangible products and heavy manufacturing somehow make a company more legitimate). When a commenter replied with an excellent rebuttal in favor of Snapchat's market position, you instead made the argument that Snapchat does not contribute long-term value to society. When the parent commenter criticized this viewpoint by drawing a connection to HBO and countering that not all businesses need to change the world, you claimed that people don't need to be any more connected than they were before Snapchat, since they had things like Facebook, Twitter and texting. Why build different things? Why not just be content with the communication platforms we have now? How about we just don't develop things people clearly desire because, "eh, fuck it, they've got general ways to talk to each other already." Finally you circled back around to being incredulous that a company with only 200 people could be worth more than entire industries and "supply chains." Of all the market analyses available, like margin comparisons or growth potential, you chose to zero in on the number of literal employees as some sort of indication of impact. How long are you going to move the goal posts? You're one of the most active commenters in this thread but your rhetoric, particularly the bit involving the automotive industry, reminds me very strongly of the way in which people who are too set in their worldview can't fathom the value of new and different technology. Judging by the political valence of your "VC gold rush" comment, I assume this is where your bias comes from. That and the automotive comparisons lead me to believe you're deeply uncomfortable with the idea that a small number of relatively wealthy, skilled elite can completely dwarf industries built by the comparatively unskilled masses all the while enjoying cushier jobs, better social status and wild employability (to put it as starkly as I can). Follow this thinking deeply enough and it could even be expressed as simply as, "It's not fair." But that's leverage for you. If you want to really debate about the future value of Snapchat, why not add some real nuance to the discussion and talk about its advertising platform's advantages (or disadvantages) compared to Google and Facebook?

Fricken 10y ago

It's not useless, it's a nice, basic tool that's clearly a hit with users. But it can never be that simple, can it? We got to grow! monetize! have another fundraising round! justify it all with increasingly complex features of progressively marginal utility that further dilute the core funcionality that made it so popular in the first place. Imagine if HN were to succumb to this disease, it would be a travesty.

cardine 10y ago

I don't necessarily think Snapchat is useless but I can't for the life of me understand why they need $1.8B or how they could ever efficiently use it considering how technologically simple the app is.

chrischen 10y ago

Snapchat is useful, but so is paper. Billions of people use paper every single day.

freebs 10y ago

I agree. No other social network gives me experiences of my friends worlds every day.