3 ms·
>...it works for a while until you get too big. Then you can't pay for it and you have to start inject ads... In a rather serendipitious stroke Snapchat don't
by leonroy 10y ago
>...it works for a while until you get too big. Then you can't pay for it and you have to start inject ads...
In a rather serendipitious stroke Snapchat don't have to maintain armies of servers to hold years of user data (unlike Facebook or Twitter). I think this will help them a lot in the long run in keeping their costs low and advertising to a minimum.
This topic actually reminds me of that great Gavin Belson rant in Silicon Valley:
Gavin Belson: "Data creation is exploding. With all the selfies and useless files people refuse to delete on the Cloud - 92% of the world's data was created in the last two years alone. At the current rate, the world's data storage capacity will be overtaken by next Spring. It will be nothing short of a catastrophe: data shortages, data rationing, data black markets... Datageddon!"
- toyg 10y agoI don't think so. I'm sure anything older than a year on FB goes on some sort of extra-slow storage, which is likely why their search is crap and will forever be crap. The real expense for FB is likely to be in guaranteeing realtime sync between dozens of platforms and gazillions of clients. All that JS and PHP has to be coded up and served somehow... Same for Twitter -- everyone remembers the "whale" when they were struggling with infrastructure pains, then they massively invested to sort that out... and ended up chasing profits to pay for it all, of course. Snapchat will soon get there as well.