4 ms·

I would argue that Snapchat's ephemeral nature is quite a bit different than Facebook/Twitter/Instagram (it also makes it easier and cheaper to scale). Snapchat

by jonknee 10y ago

I would argue that Snapchat's ephemeral nature is quite a bit different than Facebook/Twitter/Instagram (it also makes it easier and cheaper to scale). Snapchat is similar to TV in a lot of ways and is going down a similar brand based advertising path.

cloudjacker 10y ago
We get that. We also get that they are shooting themselves in the foot like all social networks before it. If they want to IPO and buy data centers and acquire a bunch of other burgeoning social networks while creating new features in the core product in a desperate attempt to "increase engagement" driving people away faster, then thats the exact route they are going on and we've seen this story already. From a consumer perspective, I and others hope they find a way to buck the trend. The real answer for them, and all these companies, is that they don't really need their engineers, designers and product team anymore. In the mean time, consumers will have to put up with the inevitable bloatware.
Jordrok 10y ago
Only on a superficial level. How often do you really find yourself looking up your friends' five year old Facebook posts? On Twitter, the UI actively fights back even when you want to look at old tweets. Anything that drops off of the front page of the timeline is as good as gone, Snapchat just formalizes it. And for what it's worth, TV is becoming less and less TV-like every day, now that we have Netflix and on-demand everything.
- flycaliguy 10y ago
  I agree as far as likes, status updates and so on go. For photos though, especially profile pictures, Facebook serves as a timeline of somebody's life. I've been going to school with young people lately and I'm blown away that their profile picture album can trace back to childhood. It's freaky, I'm grateful to have been able to slide through my youth without public photographic evidence.
- jonknee 10y ago
  I don't use Facebook, but I frequently look back at old Instagram posts. Before Snapchat every photo service let you look at old photos (and indeed, that was half the point!).

by jonknee 10y ago

cloudjacker 10y ago

We get that. We also get that they are shooting themselves in the foot like all social networks before it. If they want to IPO and buy data centers and acquire a bunch of other burgeoning social networks while creating new features in the core product in a desperate attempt to "increase engagement" driving people away faster, then thats the exact route they are going on and we've seen this story already. From a consumer perspective, I and others hope they find a way to buck the trend. The real answer for them, and all these companies, is that they don't really need their engineers, designers and product team anymore. In the mean time, consumers will have to put up with the inevitable bloatware.

Jordrok 10y ago

Only on a superficial level. How often do you really find yourself looking up your friends' five year old Facebook posts? On Twitter, the UI actively fights back even when you want to look at old tweets. Anything that drops off of the front page of the timeline is as good as gone, Snapchat just formalizes it. And for what it's worth, TV is becoming less and less TV-like every day, now that we have Netflix and on-demand everything.

flycaliguy 10y ago
I agree as far as likes, status updates and so on go. For photos though, especially profile pictures, Facebook serves as a timeline of somebody's life. I've been going to school with young people lately and I'm blown away that their profile picture album can trace back to childhood. It's freaky, I'm grateful to have been able to slide through my youth without public photographic evidence.
jonknee 10y ago
I don't use Facebook, but I frequently look back at old Instagram posts. Before Snapchat every photo service let you look at old photos (and indeed, that was half the point!).