Personally I'm not a chronic pessimist, but my view on Snapchat is the same as Twitter, and look at what is happening with them. They are only worth their Mark

Personally I'm not a chronic pessimist, but my view on Snapchat is the same as Twitter, and look at what is happening with them. They are only worth their Market Cap in the sense that investors literally bought-in that much because of a hypothetical upside based on scale. What happened when they tried to sell the company? The realization sets in that the company just isn't worth that much money, nor can anyone foresee how it could be in the near future. It is a self-sustaining situation with these companies. Nobody wants to write off that big of a loss, so the valuation is sustained. Many others are sustained on the inflated belief that the market for Ad views is adjusted for the prevelance of fraud. How many times has it been shown that click, view and user bots are used in staggering numbers. The companies making all the money have little incentive to correct this. But of course Ads clearly work in many situations. I'm just saying these bloated valuations based on ad revenue have not been adjusted for the fraud reckoning. Google struck gold because the underlying utility of the search engine is so unquestionably powerful and ubiquitously necessary to the idea of the internet that it guarantees a truly awe-inspiring user base. The value proposition of getting that service for free makes viewing Ads a second thought - it is a reasonable deal for the user. What do people need from Snapchat that will keep them there? Sharing pictures and text messages is rapidly, and I mean rapidly, approaching a commodity service on par with landline telephones. Anyways, the blanket optimists are subject to the same odds. If you believe everything is going to succeed, inevitably you will be correct. Everyone has confirmation bias.