4 ms·

I feel like this is becoming a small scale "war" between facebook and Snapchat. First, Instagram copies some features of Snapchat; now Snapchat copies a feature

I feel like this is becoming a small scale "war" between facebook and Snapchat. First, Instagram copies some features of Snapchat; now Snapchat copies a feature of Whatsapp. While I do see the usability of the group feature, this is starting to look a bit ridiculous.

gressquel 10y ago
I think this is a highly needed feature. and I can see how this is a frontal attack on fb messenger... and it is great.
niftich 10y ago
It's not small-scale at all: millions of users' attention and retention is at stake in the coveted 18-35 market, and younger. Ever since Snapchat turned down Facebook's offer to be bought out (for a cool $3 billion, inexplicably to many at the time), this feud has been on.
kevando 10y ago
What feature did they copy from WhatsApp?
parthdesai 10y ago
Having groups was the most common use case and is not a copy imho. Even all my non-tech friends have wanted groups since day 1 so that they don't have to manually select same set of people to send snaps to. You want to send some snaps just group A, another to group B and so on. It's a no brainer, unlike Instagram stories.
kerbalspacepro 10y ago
This feature is a "Whatsapp" feature the same way "curved corners" is an Apple feature (it's not).
Jordrok 10y ago
There's definitely a cutthroat competition going on between Facebook and Snapchat, but even more generally I think it's that any app which is primarily designed for communication will eventually feel pressure from their users to expand and branch out until it converges on a certain set of fundamental features. Every app claims to be different and to change the way that people communicate, but really, the people themselves and the fundamental urges that drive communication stay the same. There's a long history of specialized communication apps gradually expanding as time goes on: - At first, Snapchat was all about disappearing photos sent directly to a single person. Then they added 24 hour long stories which can be seen by multiple people. Then they added one on one text chat. Now they're adding group chat. - Instagram was originally for small, square resolution photos with an artsy filter. Then they bumped the photo resolution and allowed non-square photos. Then they added videos. Then they added a text DM system. Then they added group chats. - First Twitter was for short, public, text only messages. Then they added photos and videos. Then they added private messages. etc, etc... (my ordering on some of those might be wrong, but you get the idea) It almost seems inevitable that whatever specific thing that differentiates a communication platform will gradually be eroded away until it resembles all the others.
- niftich 10y ago
  I also observed this phenomenon when I wrote [1]: Facebook (and Instagram) and Snapchat have both transformed from their original incarnations, in ways that have improved the companies' valuation, but have not always improved the experience of users. It seems every single social network is trending towards feature parity with each other (...) Some (important) differences remain, but from an observer time-travelling forward from 2012, the social networks of today would appear nearly interchangeable. And [2]: (...) I can't help but feel that value is paradoxically lost (for the user) once everyone iterates themselves into equivalence. Network effect advantages become almost irrelevant when everyone maintains an equally split presence. And if value is lost for the user, their platform loyalty will plummet. Facebook and Snapchat will begin to be perceived as a 'utility' (something that has already happened to Twitter), meaning, we as a society all expect these functions of social networking and messaging to be fulfilled by a provider, but the exact provider is no longer relevant. Pressures to maintain a positive balance sheet will lead to a proliferation of ads. This will leave room for new upstarts to target a niche they can serve better than the incumbents, and lure engagement away. They will use VC money to fund their effort and offer ad-free, carefully-focused refuges away from the big networks. But the incumbents have so much money, they will all get bought out in the end (...) I see analogues to the churn of free image hosts -- new one starts up because all the old ones are full of ads; introduces ads a few years later because they can't pay the bills. The cycle continues. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083820 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083903

gressquel 10y ago

I think this is a highly needed feature. and I can see how this is a frontal attack on fb messenger... and it is great.

niftich 10y ago

It's not small-scale at all: millions of users' attention and retention is at stake in the coveted 18-35 market, and younger. Ever since Snapchat turned down Facebook's offer to be bought out (for a cool $3 billion, inexplicably to many at the time), this feud has been on.

kevando 10y ago

What feature did they copy from WhatsApp?

parthdesai 10y ago

Having groups was the most common use case and is not a copy imho. Even all my non-tech friends have wanted groups since day 1 so that they don't have to manually select same set of people to send snaps to. You want to send some snaps just group A, another to group B and so on. It's a no brainer, unlike Instagram stories.

kerbalspacepro 10y ago

This feature is a "Whatsapp" feature the same way "curved corners" is an Apple feature (it's not).

Jordrok 10y ago

There's definitely a cutthroat competition going on between Facebook and Snapchat, but even more generally I think it's that any app which is primarily designed for communication will eventually feel pressure from their users to expand and branch out until it converges on a certain set of fundamental features. Every app claims to be different and to change the way that people communicate, but really, the people themselves and the fundamental urges that drive communication stay the same. There's a long history of specialized communication apps gradually expanding as time goes on: - At first, Snapchat was all about disappearing photos sent directly to a single person. Then they added 24 hour long stories which can be seen by multiple people. Then they added one on one text chat. Now they're adding group chat. - Instagram was originally for small, square resolution photos with an artsy filter. Then they bumped the photo resolution and allowed non-square photos. Then they added videos. Then they added a text DM system. Then they added group chats. - First Twitter was for short, public, text only messages. Then they added photos and videos. Then they added private messages. etc, etc... (my ordering on some of those might be wrong, but you get the idea) It almost seems inevitable that whatever specific thing that differentiates a communication platform will gradually be eroded away until it resembles all the others.

niftich 10y ago
I also observed this phenomenon when I wrote [1]: Facebook (and Instagram) and Snapchat have both transformed from their original incarnations, in ways that have improved the companies' valuation, but have not always improved the experience of users. It seems every single social network is trending towards feature parity with each other (...) Some (important) differences remain, but from an observer time-travelling forward from 2012, the social networks of today would appear nearly interchangeable. And [2]: (...) I can't help but feel that value is paradoxically lost (for the user) once everyone iterates themselves into equivalence. Network effect advantages become almost irrelevant when everyone maintains an equally split presence. And if value is lost for the user, their platform loyalty will plummet. Facebook and Snapchat will begin to be perceived as a 'utility' (something that has already happened to Twitter), meaning, we as a society all expect these functions of social networking and messaging to be fulfilled by a provider, but the exact provider is no longer relevant. Pressures to maintain a positive balance sheet will lead to a proliferation of ads. This will leave room for new upstarts to target a niche they can serve better than the incumbents, and lure engagement away. They will use VC money to fund their effort and offer ad-free, carefully-focused refuges away from the big networks. But the incumbents have so much money, they will all get bought out in the end (...) I see analogues to the churn of free image hosts -- new one starts up because all the old ones are full of ads; introduces ads a few years later because they can't pay the bills. The cycle continues. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083820 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12083903