I don't use Snap products, but from my totally uninformed, unengaged vantage point it seems to me that Snap is valuable because they present a different set of

I don't use Snap products, but from my totally uninformed, unengaged vantage point it seems to me that Snap is valuable because they present a different set of values to their users then Facebook, Google, etc. Their first product wanted to challenge the permanence of our digital stuff. (Forget the underlying technology.) The glasses are about challenging this kind of Google/Apple model of the person as some elegant cyborg from the Jetsons. They offered a toy for, like, just goofing off. I imagine users like it because it's not crammed with ads and spam yet. $24B is about half of what it costs to build high speed rail from LA to SF, or a third of what it might cost for a manned mission to Mars. Compared to what it probably costs to operate and develop, $24B sounds redonkulous. Compared to those other projects, it's hard to see what Snap has that's so rare. Maybe the better comparisons are Nike (market cap $95B) and Coca-Cola ($182B). Snap is using near-commodity economic inputs and outputs to express a point of view and build a brand. All of this is speculation from my deep crater of ignorance.