4 ms·
Given the popularity of various photo/video manipulation applications on mobile, I'm surprised by Facebook's decision here. If Prisma had gotten a bump in tract
by wwalser 10y ago
Given the popularity of various photo/video manipulation applications on mobile, I'm surprised by Facebook's decision here. If Prisma had gotten a bump in traction with this, every other video/photo app would be immediately clamoring to add FB Live Streaming to their product. In a year, sending live video to FB would be as common a feature as sending photos to Instagram.
Who gives a shit about cannibalizing live video filters, a feature that had no need for existing other than to create parity with Snapchat's filters, when you could give your pet platform, live video which drives massive ad-revenue, the appearance of ubiquity?
- pedalpete 10y agoThis is a very good point, and shows some small thinking on facebook's part. Let's also not forget that regularly, when Facebook/Google/etc launch a feature which is competing with an existing start-up, the start-up often wins (somebody please give me examples here, I'm struggling to come up with any, but I'm quite sure they exist). Should facebook care if a 3rd party is implementing a feature on their platform vs them supplying it themselves? Facebook's business model is to get data and sell ads. I don't see how this Prisma's live video would affect either of those things negatively.
- rak00n 10y agoSnapchat. Facebook launched a number of equivalent features. None of them got traction.