17 ms·

Instagram Stories hits 200M users, surpassing Snapchat

330 points by misiti3780 10y ago

radiusvector 10y ago
As impressive as it may sound, this is pretty shocking for the state of the industry. An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. Consolidation at this level resembles communism more closely than the kind of free market innovation we should be seeing. http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/
- aaronblohowiak 10y ago
  Remember Microsoft?
- look_lookatme 10y ago
  Snap is a Camera Company, so I am sure that is where they will out-innovate everyone else... in the Camera Company space.
- giarc 10y ago
  I'd agree with the ripped off part (although I'm sure there are companies that did something similar in the past). However, I'm not sure what muscle and money has to do with it. It's not like Instagram/FB were advertising for Stories (at least I didn't see any).
  - radiusvector 10y ago
    Muscle/money is also equivalent to rallying resources to quickly rip off features. Let's not forget that builder (engineering/design/product) resources in small/medium size companies come at a premium.
    - giarc 10y ago
      It doesn't take a large engineering team to add stickers to a picture. I'm being facetious here, but let's be honest, FB/IG/Snap are not building a space shuttle.
- yeukhon 10y ago
  But that's fair. Facebook started out as a startup and it grew over time and eventually become a tech giant. So should Facebook not respond to a business threat from competitors now? Is Snapchat the only one allowed to implement the feature? That's the tone I am hearing. Let's be fair. The product team and the developers working on the Stories product did an amazing job. Also, not every well-established players do well trying to replicate / model after its competitors. Google is known to be one of them, when it comes to her attempt to rip FB apart. Several times more massive than Facebook's size and money pool, but Google failed to make a real den in the market. Facebook is one of the few tech giants today capable of engineering execution that can bring business some values. Disclaimer: I have not seen anyone in my circle using Stories on Facebook yet, but on Instagram plenty. Innovation is competition. Think of the glory 50s - 80s of technical innovations. Something motivates somebody to do something different. Innovation does not necessarily equates to breakthrough. Diversify your product line and product features is innovative. Let's be real fair here.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Yes let's be fair. It's fair to say that Facebook did not threaten coercion on anyone, and simply responded to market demand for a certain type of service. It's also fair to say that Facebook is in a unique position to be able to use it's considerable platform to absorb mind share away from competing platforms. It's also fair to question if this is a good thing for the ecosystem of technology, and more specifically market technology from many different points of view - namely power distribution. The trend here is that no matter what you do in technology, or how successful you become - you'll never beat Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon. So, is that good, neutral, bad? I think probably bad, but I'm not sure. Or maybe the answer is simply that Snapchat is really just a feature that got out of hand and is vastly overpriced.
    - yeukhon 10y ago
      I think it is absolutely fair to question. I thought it was not fair when OP stated big brother throwing fist at smaller company (and Snapchat isn't a startup / small player anymore). > you'll never beat Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon But Facebook is the youngest. Apple did fail and almost vanish until Steve Jobs came back. Microsoft was sucking on its Windows license and losing so top talents, it came back with Azure and better Windows and Office product. Amazon diversified its product in 2005 and continued to do so now it has so much more capital to invest. But Google destroyed Yahoo, MSN and AOL, and other web directory websites out of business. MySpace is sold. Yahoo is sold. Tumblr's ability to make profit is questionable, and will likely fail eventually. Blackberry failed to come back. Sony Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia all sold after Android came along and too late to adopt (from Seamian to Android). Google's first smartphone was a big step up. Wii U sale wasn't good. I can go on with many examples. Sony's digital music products were doing well then Apple's iPod came along. But was Apple's success a pure luck? A pure technical ingenious coincidence? Sony was much bigger than Apple at the time. The business world is funny because the "too big to fail" will eventually fail one day, either through merge or complete bankruptcy. I predict Uber is too big to fail, but it might eventually pull back its main business back to NA. But that's my wild guess. So the question is fair, but I think there's a question on leadership. Why some big company fail and others strive? Pure luck? Luck is 30%, 70% is people. But I share the sentiment that Stories is not as exciting as hearing a robot can talk to me like a normal human. That would be a huge breakthrough, big innovation, and a whole new business venture. Was Facebook's AI messenger great? No, it was a poor experiment.
- sigmar 10y ago
  >An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. >Consolidation at this level resembles communism more closely than the kind of free market innovation we should be seeing. An established player pushing out a smaller startup sounds very much like capitalism, not communism. You could maybe argue it is consolidating into a monopoly, but not that it is communism.
  - radiusvector 10y ago
    'Pushing out' by using superior innovation/market advantages? Or by currying favor with the governments of the world? In effect, creating that monopolistic structure. FB is very clearly in the latter camp. That is communism.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      Communism implies government ownership. Crony capitalism, maybe. They still competed and this time Goliath won; we often forget what makes that story special, that David is not the favorite to win.
    - d3ad1ysp0rk 10y ago
      You don't understand communism.
      - radiusvector 10y ago
        Communism understands you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Totally in agreement here. I think this is actually a much bigger deal than anyone imagines. It shows that even if you create a HUGE new thing, you're probably going to get killed by the big ones. There is no competing anymore - you either assimilate through acquisition or get squeezed to death on the back end because the incumbents have the cash, data and talent. So what the hell is venture supposed to do in this landscape? I'm genuinely curious. If the goal of venture money is to build IPO level companies - not one off acquisitions - then what is the move here? I even remarked as such a few days ago: https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002 https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002
  - meheleventyone 10y ago
    Innovate with something harder to copy or that you can gain genuine protection for? Snapchat seem to already be moving in that direction.
    - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
      Right, except those big companies are WAY ahead of everyone on that too. Their patent portfolios cover literally everything conceivable. It's quite astonishing really. I mean far future stuff like nanodrug delivery methods, brain computer interfaces etc... It's going to take tens or hundreds of millions in "seed" investment in the future to compete with one of these behemoths - and even then they all have venture arms so you better find money that is not associated with one of them - impossible probably.
      - meheleventyone 10y ago
        I don't think it changes really it's just the next huge successes will come from a direction that will blindside the current incumbents. Either that or the model is dead as the ladder gets pulled up behind the winners.
        AndrewKemendo 10y ago
- mbesto 10y ago
  > An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. > http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ These two things aren't the same. The former is complaining about larger companies copying features (where no legislation exists) and the latter is complaining about incurring legislation that impedes competition. So what do you want? Legislation or not? You can't have both. > is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. There are plenty of opportunities for entrepreneurs to create new technologies, but the gold rush for creating the next big social app may indeed be over.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    Here's to hoping new entrepreneurs are motivated by something more than getting rich off the next hot walled social garden, where innovation is a gimmick like self "deleting" messages, 140 characters, or "micro-apps".
    - derefr 10y ago
      I think you're assuming a lot by saying "entrepreneurs" there. It's not like we pump "entrepreneurs" out of some sort of cadet school, and then some of them go on to join the Dark Side. People become entrepreneurs (i.e. found businesses) for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is because they want to get rich quick. Social walled gardens are a good path to that, if you can manage to build one. The people who do so might pretend to be participating in the "hacker ethos"—but they're not members of our community able to be swayed by our social mores. They're just businessmen, of their own kind.
      - mattnewton 10y ago
        Of course, I only mean I wish that people starting new ventures are motivated to create new products that aren't walled social gardens, and hopefully have some better positive externalities of the kind we all hoped the internet would bring in the 90s. I don't care if that happens by social being not a way to get rich anymore, or by a class of entrepreneurs being inspired to make something else, as long as it happens.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  Or maybe, you should not invest in products that could be a feature that could be easily added to an incumbent and companies who focus on these kinds of products tend to fail, just as intended by the free market.
- zone411 10y ago
  I agree that it seems unfair but maybe the lesson is that the innovation needs to be more than a feature that doesn't present any technical difficulties for larger players to copy?
- bdrool 10y ago
  Same reason why so many people hated Microsoft in the 90s.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Given how well the Snapchat guys have done, I'm curious as to how you can say there's not a great incentive.
- theptip 10y ago
  To me the thing that is shocking is that a buggy app with crap UX and only the network effect as their moat against competition could be valued at $29B. If you build a product that can be cloned trivially, you should expect others to clone it. If you are relying on the network effect to beat off competitors, you'd better not have competitors with a bigger network. The question is, can Snapchat use their newly obtained war chest to make a counterplay that differentiates them from Facebook/Insta. If I had cash to gamble I'd short Snapchat and bet no, but we'll see.
- cbhl 10y ago
  > An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up / blatantly ripped off by an established player If you're getting "ripped off by an established player", then you know you've made it. The challenge then is making sure you have a strategy for co-existing with the incumbent (e.g. being more nimble, expanding the market), being acquired by the incumbent, or building a moat (e.g. expanding into a vertical that the incumbent can't touch; innovating faster than the incumbent can copy you).
- roymurdock 10y ago
  I think you're being a tad dramatic here... Facebook offered to acquire Snapchat for $3B cash in 2014. [1] Snapchat declined the offer, then went on to have a successful IPO with NO VOTING RIGHTS for common shareholders (a first). Snapchat is a successful company, Evan Spiegel is a billionaire, and any entrepreneur would gladly follow in his footsteps. What happens now between Snapchat and Facebook is largely irrelevant, the original Snapchat team found a wildly successful exit. Sure, it might suck for the majority of Snapchat's employees if the company goes under due to competition from Facebook, but the lesson for entrepreneurs is pretty clear. Also, one company copying another's product with no government or legal protections would occur under a purely capitalist system. A move towards communism would entail the US gov. stepping in a nationalizing Facebook/Snapchat...which is way off base here... [1] http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#mSz0PSOLuiqd http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition...
  - guelo 10y ago
    Which highlights a fundemantal problem with capitalism: it tends towards giant monopolies as industries mature. Capitalism only works with a strong government righting the ship. But even that eventually fails when the government gets captured by the most powerful companies.
- josephruscio 10y ago
  Facebook attempted to buy Snapchat for $3B 3 years ago (http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#LXuxODhmqiqU http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition...). Entrepreneurs should be plenty encouraged by that. Snapchat made the decision to compete with Facebook.
- jforman 10y ago
  Startups need moats to fend off existing market bigwigs, story at 10... (this dynamic dates back to the first startup...MSFT ate up an entire ecosystem of startups for a generation)
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  Free market competition between two large corporations is communism now? I think you're very, very, VERY confused about what communism is.
0xCMP 10y ago
Wow, this is brutal. I wonder how Snap is going to make it out of this.
CorduroyBottom 10y ago
What Instagram is doing is borderline illegal. Facebook sat in stasis for years without innovating their products. Now they are using their incumbent position to steal every single snapchat feature with impunity. Of course that's par for the course in tech. Where the giant companies throw their weight around to crush competition. Will there be an antitrust suit?
- multibit 10y ago
  Even if Snap wins a lawsuit like that, it's hard to imagine a judgement requiring Instagram to remove the copied features.
  - John23832 10y ago
    A judgement would never make them remove the features. The judgement (if reached) would award Snapchat rights (generally for a long term, up to or including perpetuity) that Facebook would then have to pay for. The removal may could come from the fact the Facebook would do that math and see that paying for the rights isn't worth it (their math would never really say that... they would pay).
- martinko 10y ago
  There is nothing immoral about what they are doing. Why should snapchat have a monopoly on functionality?
  - CorduroyBottom 10y ago
    Facebook is the one with a monopoly. They're clearly abusing their privileged position to stifle competition. It also sets a very poor precedent for entrepreneurial people.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      So your argument is that monopolies are illegal? hahaha go back to wikipedia you're regurgitating some media version of a Microsoft case that you never read yourself
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
faitswulff 10y ago
Where does the "no patents in software" position stand in relation to this story? Does it refer purely software (AKA Oracle v Google) or is it also design and experiences like stories?
mbloom1915 10y ago
this is why snap is not a good stock purchase until the inevitable tech dip comes -- say another 6-12 mo will be ripe to buy?
- lucasmullens 10y ago
  "inevitable tech dip" A dip in stock is inevitable? Sounds like you should be shorting the stock if you somehow know better than investors.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Axsuul 10y ago
I believe both platforms will thrive because they target different audiences. Most people seem to prefer Instagram for their "professional" persona while keeping Snapchat for their "real" self. This is credit to Snapchat's "silly and fun" interface and brand in comparison to Instagram's more minimalistic one. Furthermore, Instagram will always have some pull due to its network effects.
ronilan 10y ago
In an alternate universe Instagram never got bought by Facebook, so Snap never had room to grow. But, then again, in same alternate universe YouTube never got bought by Google, so Facebook never had room to grow. Think alternate universes don't make sense? Does this one does?
lucideer 10y ago
I wonder how much of this is Instagram stealing Snapchat's userbase and how much is it simply converting its existing userbase over to using Snapchat's new innovative features. If Instagram has more users than Snapchat, saying "Instagram's Snapchat feature has more users than Snapchat" isn't really as significant as it sounds, and doesn't necessarily represent any erosion of their userbase or threaten their growth. Of course their userbases are not mutually exclusive, but I do get the impression there's a rough demographic separation.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  It does call into question the value of Snapchat if competitors can execute seemingly just as well on the platform. Owning Facebook seems like a cheaper and safer bet than Snap.
maxwellito 10y ago
It's not completely surprising. They did an amazing job to deploy this feature. It's directly available (perfect to attract new users) and it works like a charm. I used Snapchat and I loved it, but UX is a pain. It's incredibly heavy and slow, even on a good phone. It's the reason I uninstalled it twice and won't reinstall it. While on Instagram, the user experience is good. Probably leaving the camera on with effects is not a good choice. PS: please WhatsApp, remove stories. It's not the place for it.
trevor-e 10y ago
I think this is well deserved. Instagram Story's experience to me is way nicer and more complete since it integrates perfectly with their core photo sharing product. After I'm done viewing snaps I have on Snapchat, what else is there left to do? With Instagram, I can look at my photo feed and go to people's profiles, and all of the back-navigation works perfectly. Meanwhile, Snapchat's app is slow, buggy, and doesn't even take nice pictures. Other than the more gimmicky features, such as face filters which will inevitably come to Instagram, the product feels way behind.
- kevinmannix 10y ago
  I've always been amazed by the product adaptability of Snapchat in spite of the apps technical shortcomings, so much so that I believed the buginess of their app may have only applied to myself. In a world where Amazon loses X% of dollars from milliseconds of latency, the poor performance and bugs of Snapchat apparently do not matter to most users which is quite surprising.
  - wlesieutre 10y ago
    Are you on Android? I switched back from Android to iOS a while back, and my impression is that their android app is the much crappier version.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      My bet is that Apple's review procedure blocks a lot of "alternative" things Snapchat did
    - ungzd 10y ago
      BTW, the same with Instagram. When I used Android version, most videos were unplayable or freezing in the middle. When pressing photo shutter button actual taking of photo occured 5-10 seconds later so it was a challenge just to take photo (builtin photo app worked well). And it was on older Nexus, not on some random chinese phone.
kermire 10y ago
Instagram stories are more accessible than Snapchat stories. Snapchat has one of the most bizarre UIs I've ever seen in my life. I was so confused when I opened it the first time. Main screen defaults to the camera instead of showing the stories. That's probably because it's a camera app more than a social media one. Previously there were only icons, now there's a bit of text to describe things. That's good but it's just not a very interesting product anymore.
- devdas 10y ago
  Or maybe you are just not the target audience for the app.
  - NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
    hah.. I can so relate to both of you
- padobson 10y ago
  I hate it too, but the UI is about discovery. Facebook stopped being cool when they stopped focusing on colleges and opened up to everyone. There's nothing wrong with that, boring companies tend to make more money than cool ones. But Snapchat wants their content to stay cool. Snapchat's UI was designed specifically to keep those who are not tech savvy from deeply using the service, which in theory would lead to better content as those who take the time to really understand the product make use of all the features.
majani 10y ago
The biggest question about Facebook has been whether they can stay relevant in the face of an onslaught of cooler apps in the future. The biggest test of this so far was Snapchat and they've managed to ethically out compete them with flying colors. Credit where credit is due, kudos to Facebook and the doubts about future relevance should be put to bed now.
- damnfinecoffee 10y ago
  meh, making what is essentially a complete clone of snapchat within Instagram hardly seems like "ethically out-competing them" in my opinion. They took the ideas directly from Snapchat and just stuck them in an app that already has a huge sticky userbase, relying on the convenience factor to get people to use it. Totally made up and arbitrary example but it would be like if Starbucks started serving some widely popular menu item based on a recipe from a competing chain. They already have a huge loyal customer base that's coming into their stores all the time, so it's more convenient for these people to get this new item at Starbucks since they're going there anyway, but Starbucks didn't come up with the idea or recipe, they just saw that it was popular elsewhere and knew they could leverage the convenience factor to get people to buy it from their stores (which people were already coming to) instead of going to a second store for it. That's not really ethical competition.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    What's wrong with Starbucks doing that? Mcdonald's tried to capture the morning coffee crowd multiple times and failed. It's not dirty, it's how competition works. It's offering the same product more conveniently or otherwise improved- that's not far off a textbook definition of competition.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - dkrich 10y ago
    Why not? At the risk of sounding like a hand-wringing capitalist, at the end of the day, isn't the purpose of a business to charge money in exchange for providing a good or service that is useful to a customer? If Starbucks can greater serve the needs of their customers by providing a new item (regardless of where they got the idea from), then why shouldn't they? Some might argue that they are actually doing their customers a disservice by not providing it and making them go elsewhere.
delecti 10y ago
As a user of both Instagram and Snapchat, this doesn't surprise me. The UX for the Instagram stories functionality is pleasantly at the top of the normal UI, but Snapchat's UX is really quite hostile, and even though I'm very familiar with it, it continue to be unpleasant to use. Add in that Instagram's typical user base is much more broad (Snapchat tends to be most popular with young tweens, whereas Instagram's user base is just about everybody), and you have one actively hostile interface in an already small market against a much more friendly interface in an almost unrestricted market.
ybrah 10y ago
I like stories on instagram because its not intrusive, unlike messenger, facebook, and whatsapp. The reason I still use snapchat and pretty much boycott stories that get handed out by facebook is because it feels like they're using dark UI practices to force it down my throat. Why does messenger open up my camera when I launch it? Why does it ask me to put pictures that I send my friends on my public story? Why do peoples stories take half of my messenger screen? It's really intrusive, and incredibly annoying.
- cerved 10y ago
  STORIES! STORIES! EVERYWHERE STORIES NOW EVEN THOUGH NO-ONE IS USING THEM
nostrademons 10y ago
Would be interesting to see the demographics on those users. My understanding is that if you're under 25, you use SnapChat, and if you're over 25, you can't figure out how the hell to use SnapChat. Instagram Stories may've exploded into the demographic that doesn't use SnapChat. This is possibly supported by the comments here about Instagram's UI being a lot nicer; most of us on HN are in the demographic above SnapChat users. If this is the case, it's not as damning for SnapChat as it seems, at least until some younger, hotter social app bumps them off the pedestal in a few years. Young users get older, but older users don't get any younger. My understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want you to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to avoid the "My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem.
- component 10y ago
  > My understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want you to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to avoid the "My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem. Couldn't agree more It's evident by most of the comments here Instagram / Facebook / WhatsApp will not get that < 25 demography I doubt Instagram counts this as success. They didn't get any new users - that was the main goal when mimicking Snapchat
  - itake 10y ago
    In Argentina, IG is wayyy more popular than SC, especially in the < 25 demography. < 25 may not use FB, but they definitely use IG & whatsapp.
    - freddie_mercury 10y ago
      Same here in Vietnam -- population 95 million. I know tons of people under 25 using Instagram. I've never met anyone here using Snapchat. No WhatsApp usage at all. Viber, Zalo, and WeChat all the way.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    In the Middle East, most people have both an Instagram and a Snapchat account. From what I've seen, they are equally popular with both young and older users.
thinbeige 10y ago
Why I still prefer Snapchat: 1. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With Instagram I need one or two touches. 2. Different DNA, different circles 3. Pics to one or several people is way better and faster than on Instagram. Only because they share the stories features doesn't mean they are interchangeable. They are still different products. Even if Instagram has more MAUs on the stories feature Instagram's DNA gets dilluted with the integration of the story feature. Random, inflationary and non-glossy media wasn't part of Instagrams previous shiny DNA and experience.
- fernandotakai 10y ago
  > 1. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With Instagram I need one or two touches. i prefer taking pictures with the usual camera app on my phone (double table the home button -> done) and then post on stories/instagram. that way i have the pic itself full size + other people can see it.
quxbar 10y ago
For the record, both myself and my partner 'used' stories this month, only to say 'yuck, can I turn this off?' But hey, you gotta show off those metrics.
iamdave 10y ago
I'm not the target audience, clearly. I'll get notifications from Instagram "So and so posted a story!" and I'll swipe left to clear it off my notification screen without ever even thinking about it again. Snapchat stories, the only ones I watch (and it's a rarity that I'll even watch them at all) are sports updates. So. That being said: just curious what the appeal is for others. What is it you like about stories, what about the feature-other than it ostensibly being a video-is so engaging about these things?
- cerved 10y ago
  It's not the video, it's about the community. You send a small video to your friends that you make in 5s with some silly shit. I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life' photos of Instagram. My guess is that it's as much a move to force people into a feed where they are forced to interact more with ads since IG ads don't perform well as show investors they compete with Snapchat. I don't see an exodus of Snapchat users to Instagram.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
    >> I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life' photos of Instagram. That's the whole point. With Instagram Stories, you can now do both. My public feed that stick has nice curated pictures, while my Stories have goofy every-day, even mundane stuff that will disappear in 24 hrs. It is the perfect duality.
    - kneel 10y ago
      Snapchat really focuses on personal interaction, it's hard to grok unless you really understand the full features of both apps and have used them quite a bit. Streaks, friend trophies, snapscores, read receipts, the scarcity factor of the media, these all seem like small features but they're a major appeal on the platform. Instagram is more public facing and has the same boasty/gaudy problems that fb/twitter has. Instagram can replicate the features of snapchat but it's really trying to do too much, it's cluttered and overburdened. Not to mention the advertisements, fake personas, novelty accounts and hidden shills.
plorg 10y ago
On the other hand, Facebook's thirsty attempt at pushing the same feature in all of their apps is both fragmented and ham-handed. It seems to have landed with a thud - I have seen exactly one contact post a Story in either the Facebook or Messenger apps. They've now started posting greyed-out profile pictures of frequent contacts to make the space seem popular, seemingly encouraging the user to use the feature to contact those people. It seems sad, frankly.
- superquest 10y ago
  +1 on greyed out icons of frequent contacts. Cringed and closed app a few times due to this.
- helloindia 10y ago
  In my friend circle, there is a bet going on, who is desperate enough to post a story on FB.
niftich 10y ago
Instagram is a social network where the best effect occurs when your account is public: you get social validation from a large audience liking your content on its merits, the sum of all your content forms a persistent feed, and your followers form a closer inner core with whom the nature of interaction is more immediate. This tends to be most rewarding for people who can attract a large number of likes; this number of likes is displayed to anyone who can see the content. Snapchat is the inverse, where the content is aimed at one's followers, but one can submit notable content to be featured in the company-curated Discover section (about major events, for example). There is no public aggregation, there is no public display of likes. The two platforms are still differentiated by their design philosophies, and in North America there is significant overlap in the userbase. The danger, of course, is that once Instagram has cloned enough of Snapchat's functionality, the same users won't need to switch to Snapchat anymore to get the close-knit experience. Similarly, Snapchat may feel pressured to up its parity with Instagram in turn, by adding public features that are very different from its current model. In either case, the networks will have iterated themselves into equivalence [1], making the exact provider irrelevant and making pure network effects be the the deciding factor more often that not -- which gives an advantage to larger players. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804
sekou 10y ago
I remember reading Instagram blog posts and having a sense that engineering the product well was something they held to high importance. Since then they've been acquired by Facebook but their team still seems driven by those kinds of values.
justintbassett 10y ago
MAU isn't a great metric, I'd prefer to see both platforms' DAU
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I'm sure most people would disagree but Snapchat was done the moment they released stories. I say this despite the fact that stories was what really brought stratospheric growth to snapchat, because i'm taking into account opportunity cost. They could have focused on making their core (1-1 messaging) better but they decided to become a broadcast media company, starting with stories and then those brand videos. This has always been risky. Even at its peak when you look at what was happening on Snapchat stories, a lot of these microcelebrities on snapchat would use stories as a way to get more likes or follows on their instagram. They say stuff like "Hey i just posted a new photo on instagram, please like it!" etc. This was convenient for them because these needy behaviors go away on snapchat stories. The moment snapchat decided to become 1:many, they became a serious threat to Facebook in pretty obvious ways, so it was no brainer that Facebook jumped to do something about it. And at the same time, you can't compete with Facebook on 1:many broadcast. They should have focused on 1:1 and fought on their own turf. Sure it would have been harder to figure out the viral growth, but it was already doing well so I'm sure they could have figured out some way without jumping into Facebook's playground.
- hamami 10y ago
  I believe Snapchat founders also agree with you, which is why they rushed to IPO as soon as Instagram and Facebook released stories. In a few months when the lockout period expires and employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up..
  - bigtimeidiot 10y ago
    >employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up You expect the employees to start dumping their stock at fire-sale prices? Otherwise, how do prices tumble in a market? The buyer and seller have to agree on price.
    - hamami 10y ago
      I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced, so I don't agree with your comments that it's fire sale prices, but only time will tell :) Note that I don't own any long or short position on the stock.
techaddict009 10y ago
Because Snapchat is only for rich people: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-speigel-said-app-is-only-for-rich-people-former-employee-alleges/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-spe...
codathroway 10y ago
The hacker news title is incorrect. The metric is DAUs not MAUS. dang can you please correct? I believe the article was changed after being published.
mmanfrin 10y ago
Facebook's vassalization of Instagram was brilliant, in retrospect. Facebook is free to pursue its imperial ambitions while Instagram follows the much quicker and looser edge/leader features demanded by the market of Snap/IG/etc.
snackai 10y ago
Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook"), nothing. They really have to come up with something there. When Facebook had their IPO everyone argued about them having no revenue, but they still had user growth, when Snap started they already had no user growth. This combined with no revenue... Wall Street does not approve!
- Helmet 10y ago
  "Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook")..." That's exactly the point. Snapchat has absolutely no interest in associating themselves with Facebook. Snapchat caters to a entirely different demographic, and being anti-Facebook is a large part of the appeal.
snaplove 10y ago
1.Does this compare SNAPchat US/UK users with INSTA US/UK users? 2. INSTA has users across the world and in countries where their unit economics is a loss. 3. Nobody makes ad profit from India/Brazil/Vietnam. SNAP wants to redefine how valuation is done. 4. Having billion users is a wrong metric altogether when most users doesn't generate revenue. And yes, companies will always promise they will generate revenue in 10 years or some BS.
- WikipediasBad 10y ago
  Relevant username. But your #4 is silly, SNAP stock's valuation is exactly so high because of "that BS" that you are complaining about other companies doing.
snaplove 10y ago
1.Does this compare SNAPchat US/UK users with INSTA US/UK users? 2. INSTA has users across the world and in countries where their unit economics is a loss. 3. Nobody makes ad profit from India/Brazil/Vietnam. SNAP wants to redefine how valuation is done. 4. Having billion users is a wrong metric altogether when most users doesn't generate revenue. And yes, companies will always promise they will generate revenue in 10 years or some BS.
crazypyro 10y ago
As a young 20 something, Snapchat stories is still dominant among my social circle and other social circles I encounter. No one I know uses Instagram stories heavily. I even have a few friends with Spectacles. Snapchat's app is absolutely shit on anything except an iPhone though and even casual users I know mention this.
notadoc 10y ago
I can't think of a bull case for Snapchat, but admittedly I am not the target demographic.
vhost- 10y ago
I decided to download snapchat and try it a couple months ago to see what all the fuss was about. I might be a black sheep here, but it was really confusing. I had no idea how to use it. And I've been building software for 15 years too. I can completely understand Instagram, so I was happy they added stories. It's really easy to use and the functionality seems intuitive.
- pdelbarba 10y ago
  There's an argument that the success of Snapchat was in part because of it's confusing interface. By adding a barrier to entry that younger generations were willing to accept but older ones might not, it kept the older generations (parents) off and kept the decidedly edgy platform popular with it's core, unlike Facebook where you're socially obligated to 'friend' your parents.
tomphoolery 10y ago
what is "MAU"?
- justusw 10y ago
  Monthly Active Users
m3kw9 10y ago
The UI is excellent, you can pause, go back and the cues are great to capture attention
Graphon1 10y ago
Pinning stickers! I am so glad the USA is still leading in innovation. Thank you to all the hard workers who devoted their time to solving this problem as opposed to working on some vague or diffuse health-related issue. The world is so much better now that we can pin stickers on instagram gifs.
- fiblye 10y ago
  Same goes for fast food workers. Serving up cheap meals instead of curing cancer. Really, guys? That's the best you can do? But surprise, not everyone wants to jump into the medical field and the field certainly isn't hiring every damn person out there. Not everyone has to or wants to work the same job or towards the same goal, and that's okay.
- tomhoward 10y ago
  This is not just a tiresome sneer, but a myopic one. Leave aside that interpersonal communication is one of the most fundamental of human needs, and thus any new medium or mechanism that enables people to do that more effectively and enjoyably is valuable. What matters more is that many of the the technologies that have been developed by companies like Google and Facebook, in order to (sneer) get people to click on more ads, or (sneer) let teenagers share duckfaced, princess-filtered selfies with their friends, have been open-sourced and can now be freely used by researchers working in medicine, climate science, energy, cleantech, particle physics, etc. I'll bet the medical researchers who are using TensorFlow to improve cancer detection [1], or the CERN researchers who use Cassandra to store and process data gathered in the ATLAS experiment [2], aren't sneering when they see Google and Facebook doing things that make themselves more popular and commercially successful. [1] https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-faster-cancer-recognition-and-diagnosis.html https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-fa... [2] https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912 https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912
Network2020 10y ago
Long-time lurker here... I don't understand how Facebook cloning Snapchat is any different from Chinese startups cloning various American apps. Why is cloning frowned-upon only when the Chinese do it?
johnnydoe9 10y ago
Snapchat clearly went out of their way to ignore Android users, Instagram works so much better.
kneel 10y ago
I'd be really interested to see how many of those 200M users are actually people. Instagram novelty/celeb/art/bs accounts are all over the place, it's fairly lucrative to push products on the hot trend of the day and the whole platform is pretty spammy. Snapchat doesn't really have this problem, you don't interact with people you don't know unless you seek them out. There is no easy way to add randoms on snapchat, users tend to be actual users.
2_listerine_pls 10y ago
How are these claims verified?
scirocco 10y ago
Will Snapchat ever start selling to enterprise? Taking their existing AR technology and apply to, let's say aircraft technicians. Snapchat + Boeing partnership?
sandergansen 10y ago
What do you think is going to be Snapchat's next move?
ojr 10y ago
for whats its worth a lot of cool people/influencers are still using Snapchat over Instagram, Kardashians, DJ Khaled, etc, this metric doesn't reflect my reality, I wouldn't sell any $SNAP shares, I'm more likely to buy after a dip when metrics like these are presented to the public, once people see revenue the price will pick up again
samfisher83 10y ago
Mark bought Instagram for 1 billion and now it's probably worth maybe 25. That was a pretty genius move by him.
s0me0ne 10y ago
I'm hoping snapchat wins, its easy for FB with tons of money to just copy another company

330 points by misiti3780 10y ago

As impressive as it may sound, this is pretty shocking for the state of the industry. An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. Consolidation at this level resembles communism more closely than the kind of free market innovation we should be seeing. http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/

aaronblohowiak 10y ago
Remember Microsoft?
look_lookatme 10y ago
Snap is a Camera Company, so I am sure that is where they will out-innovate everyone else... in the Camera Company space.
giarc 10y ago
I'd agree with the ripped off part (although I'm sure there are companies that did something similar in the past). However, I'm not sure what muscle and money has to do with it. It's not like Instagram/FB were advertising for Stories (at least I didn't see any).
- radiusvector 10y ago
  Muscle/money is also equivalent to rallying resources to quickly rip off features. Let's not forget that builder (engineering/design/product) resources in small/medium size companies come at a premium.
  - giarc 10y ago
    It doesn't take a large engineering team to add stickers to a picture. I'm being facetious here, but let's be honest, FB/IG/Snap are not building a space shuttle.
yeukhon 10y ago
But that's fair. Facebook started out as a startup and it grew over time and eventually become a tech giant. So should Facebook not respond to a business threat from competitors now? Is Snapchat the only one allowed to implement the feature? That's the tone I am hearing. Let's be fair. The product team and the developers working on the Stories product did an amazing job. Also, not every well-established players do well trying to replicate / model after its competitors. Google is known to be one of them, when it comes to her attempt to rip FB apart. Several times more massive than Facebook's size and money pool, but Google failed to make a real den in the market. Facebook is one of the few tech giants today capable of engineering execution that can bring business some values. Disclaimer: I have not seen anyone in my circle using Stories on Facebook yet, but on Instagram plenty. Innovation is competition. Think of the glory 50s - 80s of technical innovations. Something motivates somebody to do something different. Innovation does not necessarily equates to breakthrough. Diversify your product line and product features is innovative. Let's be real fair here.
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  Yes let's be fair. It's fair to say that Facebook did not threaten coercion on anyone, and simply responded to market demand for a certain type of service. It's also fair to say that Facebook is in a unique position to be able to use it's considerable platform to absorb mind share away from competing platforms. It's also fair to question if this is a good thing for the ecosystem of technology, and more specifically market technology from many different points of view - namely power distribution. The trend here is that no matter what you do in technology, or how successful you become - you'll never beat Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon. So, is that good, neutral, bad? I think probably bad, but I'm not sure. Or maybe the answer is simply that Snapchat is really just a feature that got out of hand and is vastly overpriced.
  - yeukhon 10y ago
    I think it is absolutely fair to question. I thought it was not fair when OP stated big brother throwing fist at smaller company (and Snapchat isn't a startup / small player anymore). > you'll never beat Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon But Facebook is the youngest. Apple did fail and almost vanish until Steve Jobs came back. Microsoft was sucking on its Windows license and losing so top talents, it came back with Azure and better Windows and Office product. Amazon diversified its product in 2005 and continued to do so now it has so much more capital to invest. But Google destroyed Yahoo, MSN and AOL, and other web directory websites out of business. MySpace is sold. Yahoo is sold. Tumblr's ability to make profit is questionable, and will likely fail eventually. Blackberry failed to come back. Sony Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia all sold after Android came along and too late to adopt (from Seamian to Android). Google's first smartphone was a big step up. Wii U sale wasn't good. I can go on with many examples. Sony's digital music products were doing well then Apple's iPod came along. But was Apple's success a pure luck? A pure technical ingenious coincidence? Sony was much bigger than Apple at the time. The business world is funny because the "too big to fail" will eventually fail one day, either through merge or complete bankruptcy. I predict Uber is too big to fail, but it might eventually pull back its main business back to NA. But that's my wild guess. So the question is fair, but I think there's a question on leadership. Why some big company fail and others strive? Pure luck? Luck is 30%, 70% is people. But I share the sentiment that Stories is not as exciting as hearing a robot can talk to me like a normal human. That would be a huge breakthrough, big innovation, and a whole new business venture. Was Facebook's AI messenger great? No, it was a poor experiment.
sigmar 10y ago
>An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. >Consolidation at this level resembles communism more closely than the kind of free market innovation we should be seeing. An established player pushing out a smaller startup sounds very much like capitalism, not communism. You could maybe argue it is consolidating into a monopoly, but not that it is communism.
- radiusvector 10y ago
  'Pushing out' by using superior innovation/market advantages? Or by currying favor with the governments of the world? In effect, creating that monopolistic structure. FB is very clearly in the latter camp. That is communism.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    Communism implies government ownership. Crony capitalism, maybe. They still competed and this time Goliath won; we often forget what makes that story special, that David is not the favorite to win.
  - d3ad1ysp0rk 10y ago
    You don't understand communism.
    - radiusvector 10y ago
      Communism understands you.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Totally in agreement here. I think this is actually a much bigger deal than anyone imagines. It shows that even if you create a HUGE new thing, you're probably going to get killed by the big ones. There is no competing anymore - you either assimilate through acquisition or get squeezed to death on the back end because the incumbents have the cash, data and talent. So what the hell is venture supposed to do in this landscape? I'm genuinely curious. If the goal of venture money is to build IPO level companies - not one off acquisitions - then what is the move here? I even remarked as such a few days ago: https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002 https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002
- meheleventyone 10y ago
  Innovate with something harder to copy or that you can gain genuine protection for? Snapchat seem to already be moving in that direction.
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    Right, except those big companies are WAY ahead of everyone on that too. Their patent portfolios cover literally everything conceivable. It's quite astonishing really. I mean far future stuff like nanodrug delivery methods, brain computer interfaces etc... It's going to take tens or hundreds of millions in "seed" investment in the future to compete with one of these behemoths - and even then they all have venture arms so you better find money that is not associated with one of them - impossible probably.
    - meheleventyone 10y ago
      I don't think it changes really it's just the next huge successes will come from a direction that will blindside the current incumbents. Either that or the model is dead as the ladder gets pulled up behind the winners.
      - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
mbesto 10y ago
> An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up/ blatantly ripped off by an established player with more muscle, money (and in this case - users) to throw at the problem is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. > http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ http://avc.com/2017/02/the-end-of-the-level-playing-field/ These two things aren't the same. The former is complaining about larger companies copying features (where no legislation exists) and the latter is complaining about incurring legislation that impedes competition. So what do you want? Legislation or not? You can't have both. > is not a great incentive for entrepreneurs. There are plenty of opportunities for entrepreneurs to create new technologies, but the gold rush for creating the next big social app may indeed be over.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  Here's to hoping new entrepreneurs are motivated by something more than getting rich off the next hot walled social garden, where innovation is a gimmick like self "deleting" messages, 140 characters, or "micro-apps".
  - derefr 10y ago
    I think you're assuming a lot by saying "entrepreneurs" there. It's not like we pump "entrepreneurs" out of some sort of cadet school, and then some of them go on to join the Dark Side. People become entrepreneurs (i.e. found businesses) for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is because they want to get rich quick. Social walled gardens are a good path to that, if you can manage to build one. The people who do so might pretend to be participating in the "hacker ethos"—but they're not members of our community able to be swayed by our social mores. They're just businessmen, of their own kind.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      Of course, I only mean I wish that people starting new ventures are motivated to create new products that aren't walled social gardens, and hopefully have some better positive externalities of the kind we all hoped the internet would bring in the 90s. I don't care if that happens by social being not a way to get rich anymore, or by a class of entrepreneurs being inspired to make something else, as long as it happens.
patrickaljord 10y ago
Or maybe, you should not invest in products that could be a feature that could be easily added to an incumbent and companies who focus on these kinds of products tend to fail, just as intended by the free market.
zone411 10y ago
I agree that it seems unfair but maybe the lesson is that the innovation needs to be more than a feature that doesn't present any technical difficulties for larger players to copy?
bdrool 10y ago
Same reason why so many people hated Microsoft in the 90s.
MichaelGG 10y ago
Given how well the Snapchat guys have done, I'm curious as to how you can say there's not a great incentive.
theptip 10y ago
To me the thing that is shocking is that a buggy app with crap UX and only the network effect as their moat against competition could be valued at $29B. If you build a product that can be cloned trivially, you should expect others to clone it. If you are relying on the network effect to beat off competitors, you'd better not have competitors with a bigger network. The question is, can Snapchat use their newly obtained war chest to make a counterplay that differentiates them from Facebook/Insta. If I had cash to gamble I'd short Snapchat and bet no, but we'll see.
cbhl 10y ago
> An innovative, new upshot getting sucked up / blatantly ripped off by an established player If you're getting "ripped off by an established player", then you know you've made it. The challenge then is making sure you have a strategy for co-existing with the incumbent (e.g. being more nimble, expanding the market), being acquired by the incumbent, or building a moat (e.g. expanding into a vertical that the incumbent can't touch; innovating faster than the incumbent can copy you).
roymurdock 10y ago
I think you're being a tad dramatic here... Facebook offered to acquire Snapchat for $3B cash in 2014. [1] Snapchat declined the offer, then went on to have a successful IPO with NO VOTING RIGHTS for common shareholders (a first). Snapchat is a successful company, Evan Spiegel is a billionaire, and any entrepreneur would gladly follow in his footsteps. What happens now between Snapchat and Facebook is largely irrelevant, the original Snapchat team found a wildly successful exit. Sure, it might suck for the majority of Snapchat's employees if the company goes under due to competition from Facebook, but the lesson for entrepreneurs is pretty clear. Also, one company copying another's product with no government or legal protections would occur under a purely capitalist system. A move towards communism would entail the US gov. stepping in a nationalizing Facebook/Snapchat...which is way off base here... [1] http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#mSz0PSOLuiqd http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition...
- guelo 10y ago
  Which highlights a fundemantal problem with capitalism: it tends towards giant monopolies as industries mature. Capitalism only works with a strong government righting the ship. But even that eventually fails when the government gets captured by the most powerful companies.
josephruscio 10y ago
Facebook attempted to buy Snapchat for $3B 3 years ago (http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition-2/#LXuxODhmqiqU http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-facebook-acquisition...). Entrepreneurs should be plenty encouraged by that. Snapchat made the decision to compete with Facebook.
jforman 10y ago
Startups need moats to fend off existing market bigwigs, story at 10... (this dynamic dates back to the first startup...MSFT ate up an entire ecosystem of startups for a generation)
ClassyJacket 10y ago
Free market competition between two large corporations is communism now? I think you're very, very, VERY confused about what communism is.

0xCMP 10y ago

Wow, this is brutal. I wonder how Snap is going to make it out of this.

CorduroyBottom 10y ago

What Instagram is doing is borderline illegal. Facebook sat in stasis for years without innovating their products. Now they are using their incumbent position to steal every single snapchat feature with impunity. Of course that's par for the course in tech. Where the giant companies throw their weight around to crush competition. Will there be an antitrust suit?

multibit 10y ago
Even if Snap wins a lawsuit like that, it's hard to imagine a judgement requiring Instagram to remove the copied features.
- John23832 10y ago
  A judgement would never make them remove the features. The judgement (if reached) would award Snapchat rights (generally for a long term, up to or including perpetuity) that Facebook would then have to pay for. The removal may could come from the fact the Facebook would do that math and see that paying for the rights isn't worth it (their math would never really say that... they would pay).
martinko 10y ago
There is nothing immoral about what they are doing. Why should snapchat have a monopoly on functionality?
- CorduroyBottom 10y ago
  Facebook is the one with a monopoly. They're clearly abusing their privileged position to stifle competition. It also sets a very poor precedent for entrepreneurial people.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    So your argument is that monopolies are illegal? hahaha go back to wikipedia you're regurgitating some media version of a Microsoft case that you never read yourself

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

faitswulff 10y ago

Where does the "no patents in software" position stand in relation to this story? Does it refer purely software (AKA Oracle v Google) or is it also design and experiences like stories?

mbloom1915 10y ago

this is why snap is not a good stock purchase until the inevitable tech dip comes -- say another 6-12 mo will be ripe to buy?

lucasmullens 10y ago
"inevitable tech dip" A dip in stock is inevitable? Sounds like you should be shorting the stock if you somehow know better than investors.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Axsuul 10y ago

I believe both platforms will thrive because they target different audiences. Most people seem to prefer Instagram for their "professional" persona while keeping Snapchat for their "real" self. This is credit to Snapchat's "silly and fun" interface and brand in comparison to Instagram's more minimalistic one. Furthermore, Instagram will always have some pull due to its network effects.

ronilan 10y ago

In an alternate universe Instagram never got bought by Facebook, so Snap never had room to grow. But, then again, in same alternate universe YouTube never got bought by Google, so Facebook never had room to grow. Think alternate universes don't make sense? Does this one does?

lucideer 10y ago

I wonder how much of this is Instagram stealing Snapchat's userbase and how much is it simply converting its existing userbase over to using Snapchat's new innovative features. If Instagram has more users than Snapchat, saying "Instagram's Snapchat feature has more users than Snapchat" isn't really as significant as it sounds, and doesn't necessarily represent any erosion of their userbase or threaten their growth. Of course their userbases are not mutually exclusive, but I do get the impression there's a rough demographic separation.

mattnewton 10y ago
It does call into question the value of Snapchat if competitors can execute seemingly just as well on the platform. Owning Facebook seems like a cheaper and safer bet than Snap.

maxwellito 10y ago

It's not completely surprising. They did an amazing job to deploy this feature. It's directly available (perfect to attract new users) and it works like a charm. I used Snapchat and I loved it, but UX is a pain. It's incredibly heavy and slow, even on a good phone. It's the reason I uninstalled it twice and won't reinstall it. While on Instagram, the user experience is good. Probably leaving the camera on with effects is not a good choice. PS: please WhatsApp, remove stories. It's not the place for it.

trevor-e 10y ago

I think this is well deserved. Instagram Story's experience to me is way nicer and more complete since it integrates perfectly with their core photo sharing product. After I'm done viewing snaps I have on Snapchat, what else is there left to do? With Instagram, I can look at my photo feed and go to people's profiles, and all of the back-navigation works perfectly. Meanwhile, Snapchat's app is slow, buggy, and doesn't even take nice pictures. Other than the more gimmicky features, such as face filters which will inevitably come to Instagram, the product feels way behind.

kevinmannix 10y ago
I've always been amazed by the product adaptability of Snapchat in spite of the apps technical shortcomings, so much so that I believed the buginess of their app may have only applied to myself. In a world where Amazon loses X% of dollars from milliseconds of latency, the poor performance and bugs of Snapchat apparently do not matter to most users which is quite surprising.
- wlesieutre 10y ago
  Are you on Android? I switched back from Android to iOS a while back, and my impression is that their android app is the much crappier version.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    My bet is that Apple's review procedure blocks a lot of "alternative" things Snapchat did
  - ungzd 10y ago
    BTW, the same with Instagram. When I used Android version, most videos were unplayable or freezing in the middle. When pressing photo shutter button actual taking of photo occured 5-10 seconds later so it was a challenge just to take photo (builtin photo app worked well). And it was on older Nexus, not on some random chinese phone.

kermire 10y ago

Instagram stories are more accessible than Snapchat stories. Snapchat has one of the most bizarre UIs I've ever seen in my life. I was so confused when I opened it the first time. Main screen defaults to the camera instead of showing the stories. That's probably because it's a camera app more than a social media one. Previously there were only icons, now there's a bit of text to describe things. That's good but it's just not a very interesting product anymore.

devdas 10y ago
Or maybe you are just not the target audience for the app.
- NOSHSHNACKERS 10y ago
  hah.. I can so relate to both of you
padobson 10y ago
I hate it too, but the UI is about discovery. Facebook stopped being cool when they stopped focusing on colleges and opened up to everyone. There's nothing wrong with that, boring companies tend to make more money than cool ones. But Snapchat wants their content to stay cool. Snapchat's UI was designed specifically to keep those who are not tech savvy from deeply using the service, which in theory would lead to better content as those who take the time to really understand the product make use of all the features.

majani 10y ago

The biggest question about Facebook has been whether they can stay relevant in the face of an onslaught of cooler apps in the future. The biggest test of this so far was Snapchat and they've managed to ethically out compete them with flying colors. Credit where credit is due, kudos to Facebook and the doubts about future relevance should be put to bed now.

damnfinecoffee 10y ago
meh, making what is essentially a complete clone of snapchat within Instagram hardly seems like "ethically out-competing them" in my opinion. They took the ideas directly from Snapchat and just stuck them in an app that already has a huge sticky userbase, relying on the convenience factor to get people to use it. Totally made up and arbitrary example but it would be like if Starbucks started serving some widely popular menu item based on a recipe from a competing chain. They already have a huge loyal customer base that's coming into their stores all the time, so it's more convenient for these people to get this new item at Starbucks since they're going there anyway, but Starbucks didn't come up with the idea or recipe, they just saw that it was popular elsewhere and knew they could leverage the convenience factor to get people to buy it from their stores (which people were already coming to) instead of going to a second store for it. That's not really ethical competition.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  What's wrong with Starbucks doing that? Mcdonald's tried to capture the morning coffee crowd multiple times and failed. It's not dirty, it's how competition works. It's offering the same product more conveniently or otherwise improved- that's not far off a textbook definition of competition.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dkrich 10y ago
  Why not? At the risk of sounding like a hand-wringing capitalist, at the end of the day, isn't the purpose of a business to charge money in exchange for providing a good or service that is useful to a customer? If Starbucks can greater serve the needs of their customers by providing a new item (regardless of where they got the idea from), then why shouldn't they? Some might argue that they are actually doing their customers a disservice by not providing it and making them go elsewhere.

delecti 10y ago

As a user of both Instagram and Snapchat, this doesn't surprise me. The UX for the Instagram stories functionality is pleasantly at the top of the normal UI, but Snapchat's UX is really quite hostile, and even though I'm very familiar with it, it continue to be unpleasant to use. Add in that Instagram's typical user base is much more broad (Snapchat tends to be most popular with young tweens, whereas Instagram's user base is just about everybody), and you have one actively hostile interface in an already small market against a much more friendly interface in an almost unrestricted market.

ybrah 10y ago

I like stories on instagram because its not intrusive, unlike messenger, facebook, and whatsapp. The reason I still use snapchat and pretty much boycott stories that get handed out by facebook is because it feels like they're using dark UI practices to force it down my throat. Why does messenger open up my camera when I launch it? Why does it ask me to put pictures that I send my friends on my public story? Why do peoples stories take half of my messenger screen? It's really intrusive, and incredibly annoying.

cerved 10y ago
STORIES! STORIES! EVERYWHERE STORIES NOW EVEN THOUGH NO-ONE IS USING THEM

nostrademons 10y ago

Would be interesting to see the demographics on those users. My understanding is that if you're under 25, you use SnapChat, and if you're over 25, you can't figure out how the hell to use SnapChat. Instagram Stories may've exploded into the demographic that doesn't use SnapChat. This is possibly supported by the comments here about Instagram's UI being a lot nicer; most of us on HN are in the demographic above SnapChat users. If this is the case, it's not as damning for SnapChat as it seems, at least until some younger, hotter social app bumps them off the pedestal in a few years. Young users get older, but older users don't get any younger. My understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want you to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to avoid the "My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem.

component 10y ago
> My understanding is that SnapChat's inscrutable UI is deliberate: they want you to have to be shown how to use SnapChat by someone already on it, to avoid the "My grandmother's on Facebook, how uncool is that?" problem. Couldn't agree more It's evident by most of the comments here Instagram / Facebook / WhatsApp will not get that < 25 demography I doubt Instagram counts this as success. They didn't get any new users - that was the main goal when mimicking Snapchat
- itake 10y ago
  In Argentina, IG is wayyy more popular than SC, especially in the < 25 demography. < 25 may not use FB, but they definitely use IG & whatsapp.
  - freddie_mercury 10y ago
    Same here in Vietnam -- population 95 million. I know tons of people under 25 using Instagram. I've never met anyone here using Snapchat. No WhatsApp usage at all. Viber, Zalo, and WeChat all the way.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  In the Middle East, most people have both an Instagram and a Snapchat account. From what I've seen, they are equally popular with both young and older users.

thinbeige 10y ago

Why I still prefer Snapchat: 1. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With Instagram I need one or two touches. 2. Different DNA, different circles 3. Pics to one or several people is way better and faster than on Instagram. Only because they share the stories features doesn't mean they are interchangeable. They are still different products. Even if Instagram has more MAUs on the stories feature Instagram's DNA gets dilluted with the integration of the story feature. Random, inflationary and non-glossy media wasn't part of Instagrams previous shiny DNA and experience.

fernandotakai 10y ago
> 1. After launching the app I am right in the take-a-picture mode. With Instagram I need one or two touches. i prefer taking pictures with the usual camera app on my phone (double table the home button -> done) and then post on stories/instagram. that way i have the pic itself full size + other people can see it.

quxbar 10y ago

For the record, both myself and my partner 'used' stories this month, only to say 'yuck, can I turn this off?' But hey, you gotta show off those metrics.

iamdave 10y ago

I'm not the target audience, clearly. I'll get notifications from Instagram "So and so posted a story!" and I'll swipe left to clear it off my notification screen without ever even thinking about it again. Snapchat stories, the only ones I watch (and it's a rarity that I'll even watch them at all) are sports updates. So. That being said: just curious what the appeal is for others. What is it you like about stories, what about the feature-other than it ostensibly being a video-is so engaging about these things?

cerved 10y ago
It's not the video, it's about the community. You send a small video to your friends that you make in 5s with some silly shit. I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life' photos of Instagram. My guess is that it's as much a move to force people into a feed where they are forced to interact more with ads since IG ads don't perform well as show investors they compete with Snapchat. I don't see an exodus of Snapchat users to Instagram.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
  >> I don't see how this fits with the 'hey world, look at my perfect life' photos of Instagram. That's the whole point. With Instagram Stories, you can now do both. My public feed that stick has nice curated pictures, while my Stories have goofy every-day, even mundane stuff that will disappear in 24 hrs. It is the perfect duality.
  - kneel 10y ago
    Snapchat really focuses on personal interaction, it's hard to grok unless you really understand the full features of both apps and have used them quite a bit. Streaks, friend trophies, snapscores, read receipts, the scarcity factor of the media, these all seem like small features but they're a major appeal on the platform. Instagram is more public facing and has the same boasty/gaudy problems that fb/twitter has. Instagram can replicate the features of snapchat but it's really trying to do too much, it's cluttered and overburdened. Not to mention the advertisements, fake personas, novelty accounts and hidden shills.

plorg 10y ago

On the other hand, Facebook's thirsty attempt at pushing the same feature in all of their apps is both fragmented and ham-handed. It seems to have landed with a thud - I have seen exactly one contact post a Story in either the Facebook or Messenger apps. They've now started posting greyed-out profile pictures of frequent contacts to make the space seem popular, seemingly encouraging the user to use the feature to contact those people. It seems sad, frankly.

superquest 10y ago
+1 on greyed out icons of frequent contacts. Cringed and closed app a few times due to this.
helloindia 10y ago
In my friend circle, there is a bet going on, who is desperate enough to post a story on FB.

niftich 10y ago

Instagram is a social network where the best effect occurs when your account is public: you get social validation from a large audience liking your content on its merits, the sum of all your content forms a persistent feed, and your followers form a closer inner core with whom the nature of interaction is more immediate. This tends to be most rewarding for people who can attract a large number of likes; this number of likes is displayed to anyone who can see the content. Snapchat is the inverse, where the content is aimed at one's followers, but one can submit notable content to be featured in the company-curated Discover section (about major events, for example). There is no public aggregation, there is no public display of likes. The two platforms are still differentiated by their design philosophies, and in North America there is significant overlap in the userbase. The danger, of course, is that once Instagram has cloned enough of Snapchat's functionality, the same users won't need to switch to Snapchat anymore to get the close-knit experience. Similarly, Snapchat may feel pressured to up its parity with Instagram in turn, by adding public features that are very different from its current model. In either case, the networks will have iterated themselves into equivalence [1], making the exact provider irrelevant and making pure network effects be the the deciding factor more often that not -- which gives an advantage to larger players. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13168804

sekou 10y ago

I remember reading Instagram blog posts and having a sense that engineering the product well was something they held to high importance. Since then they've been acquired by Facebook but their team still seems driven by those kinds of values.

justintbassett 10y ago

MAU isn't a great metric, I'd prefer to see both platforms' DAU

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

I'm sure most people would disagree but Snapchat was done the moment they released stories. I say this despite the fact that stories was what really brought stratospheric growth to snapchat, because i'm taking into account opportunity cost. They could have focused on making their core (1-1 messaging) better but they decided to become a broadcast media company, starting with stories and then those brand videos. This has always been risky. Even at its peak when you look at what was happening on Snapchat stories, a lot of these microcelebrities on snapchat would use stories as a way to get more likes or follows on their instagram. They say stuff like "Hey i just posted a new photo on instagram, please like it!" etc. This was convenient for them because these needy behaviors go away on snapchat stories. The moment snapchat decided to become 1:many, they became a serious threat to Facebook in pretty obvious ways, so it was no brainer that Facebook jumped to do something about it. And at the same time, you can't compete with Facebook on 1:many broadcast. They should have focused on 1:1 and fought on their own turf. Sure it would have been harder to figure out the viral growth, but it was already doing well so I'm sure they could have figured out some way without jumping into Facebook's playground.

hamami 10y ago
I believe Snapchat founders also agree with you, which is why they rushed to IPO as soon as Instagram and Facebook released stories. In a few months when the lockout period expires and employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up..
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >employees are able to sell their stocks, I expect to watch the stock tumble to never come back up You expect the employees to start dumping their stock at fire-sale prices? Otherwise, how do prices tumble in a market? The buyer and seller have to agree on price.
  - hamami 10y ago
    I think Snapchat is currently already overpriced, so I don't agree with your comments that it's fire sale prices, but only time will tell :) Note that I don't own any long or short position on the stock.

techaddict009 10y ago

Because Snapchat is only for rich people: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-speigel-said-app-is-only-for-rich-people-former-employee-alleges/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3324753/snapchat-boss-even-spe...

codathroway 10y ago

The hacker news title is incorrect. The metric is DAUs not MAUS. dang can you please correct? I believe the article was changed after being published.

mmanfrin 10y ago

Facebook's vassalization of Instagram was brilliant, in retrospect. Facebook is free to pursue its imperial ambitions while Instagram follows the much quicker and looser edge/leader features demanded by the market of Snap/IG/etc.

snackai 10y ago

Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook"), nothing. They really have to come up with something there. When Facebook had their IPO everyone argued about them having no revenue, but they still had user growth, when Snap started they already had no user growth. This combined with no revenue... Wall Street does not approve!

Helmet 10y ago
"Outside their app snapchat as close to zero visibility. No share buttons on the web, no snap ghosts in commercials (like "add us on facebook")..." That's exactly the point. Snapchat has absolutely no interest in associating themselves with Facebook. Snapchat caters to a entirely different demographic, and being anti-Facebook is a large part of the appeal.

snaplove 10y ago

1.Does this compare SNAPchat US/UK users with INSTA US/UK users? 2. INSTA has users across the world and in countries where their unit economics is a loss. 3. Nobody makes ad profit from India/Brazil/Vietnam. SNAP wants to redefine how valuation is done. 4. Having billion users is a wrong metric altogether when most users doesn't generate revenue. And yes, companies will always promise they will generate revenue in 10 years or some BS.

WikipediasBad 10y ago
Relevant username. But your #4 is silly, SNAP stock's valuation is exactly so high because of "that BS" that you are complaining about other companies doing.

snaplove 10y ago

crazypyro 10y ago

As a young 20 something, Snapchat stories is still dominant among my social circle and other social circles I encounter. No one I know uses Instagram stories heavily. I even have a few friends with Spectacles. Snapchat's app is absolutely shit on anything except an iPhone though and even casual users I know mention this.

notadoc 10y ago

I can't think of a bull case for Snapchat, but admittedly I am not the target demographic.

vhost- 10y ago

I decided to download snapchat and try it a couple months ago to see what all the fuss was about. I might be a black sheep here, but it was really confusing. I had no idea how to use it. And I've been building software for 15 years too. I can completely understand Instagram, so I was happy they added stories. It's really easy to use and the functionality seems intuitive.

pdelbarba 10y ago
There's an argument that the success of Snapchat was in part because of it's confusing interface. By adding a barrier to entry that younger generations were willing to accept but older ones might not, it kept the older generations (parents) off and kept the decidedly edgy platform popular with it's core, unlike Facebook where you're socially obligated to 'friend' your parents.

tomphoolery 10y ago

what is "MAU"?

justusw 10y ago
Monthly Active Users

m3kw9 10y ago

The UI is excellent, you can pause, go back and the cues are great to capture attention

Graphon1 10y ago

Pinning stickers! I am so glad the USA is still leading in innovation. Thank you to all the hard workers who devoted their time to solving this problem as opposed to working on some vague or diffuse health-related issue. The world is so much better now that we can pin stickers on instagram gifs.

fiblye 10y ago
Same goes for fast food workers. Serving up cheap meals instead of curing cancer. Really, guys? That's the best you can do? But surprise, not everyone wants to jump into the medical field and the field certainly isn't hiring every damn person out there. Not everyone has to or wants to work the same job or towards the same goal, and that's okay.
tomhoward 10y ago
This is not just a tiresome sneer, but a myopic one. Leave aside that interpersonal communication is one of the most fundamental of human needs, and thus any new medium or mechanism that enables people to do that more effectively and enjoyably is valuable. What matters more is that many of the the technologies that have been developed by companies like Google and Facebook, in order to (sneer) get people to click on more ads, or (sneer) let teenagers share duckfaced, princess-filtered selfies with their friends, have been open-sourced and can now be freely used by researchers working in medicine, climate science, energy, cleantech, particle physics, etc. I'll bet the medical researchers who are using TensorFlow to improve cancer detection [1], or the CERN researchers who use Cassandra to store and process data gathered in the ATLAS experiment [2], aren't sneering when they see Google and Facebook doing things that make themselves more popular and commercially successful. [1] https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-faster-cancer-recognition-and-diagnosis.html https://blog.altoros.com/tensorflow-and-openpower-driving-fa... [2] https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912 https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1432912

Network2020 10y ago

Long-time lurker here... I don't understand how Facebook cloning Snapchat is any different from Chinese startups cloning various American apps. Why is cloning frowned-upon only when the Chinese do it?

johnnydoe9 10y ago

Snapchat clearly went out of their way to ignore Android users, Instagram works so much better.

kneel 10y ago

I'd be really interested to see how many of those 200M users are actually people. Instagram novelty/celeb/art/bs accounts are all over the place, it's fairly lucrative to push products on the hot trend of the day and the whole platform is pretty spammy. Snapchat doesn't really have this problem, you don't interact with people you don't know unless you seek them out. There is no easy way to add randoms on snapchat, users tend to be actual users.

2_listerine_pls 10y ago

How are these claims verified?

scirocco 10y ago

Will Snapchat ever start selling to enterprise? Taking their existing AR technology and apply to, let's say aircraft technicians. Snapchat + Boeing partnership?

sandergansen 10y ago

What do you think is going to be Snapchat's next move?

ojr 10y ago

for whats its worth a lot of cool people/influencers are still using Snapchat over Instagram, Kardashians, DJ Khaled, etc, this metric doesn't reflect my reality, I wouldn't sell any $SNAP shares, I'm more likely to buy after a dip when metrics like these are presented to the public, once people see revenue the price will pick up again

samfisher83 10y ago

Mark bought Instagram for 1 billion and now it's probably worth maybe 25. That was a pretty genius move by him.

s0me0ne 10y ago

I'm hoping snapchat wins, its easy for FB with tons of money to just copy another company