There is copying and then there is copying well. Almost every companies copies in some form or fashion - you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't - but f

There is copying and then there is copying well. Almost every companies copies in some form or fashion - you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't - but few really do it well. I would argue that Instagram did it very well and you can see it in the success. The product is well designed, extremely polished, is far more stable, is more engaging (for me), and more complete in my opinion. I don't think your intended criticism has any value in the real world. It's a tired argument and deeply flawed. I think the reverse argument is a stronger one. That is to say that SnapChat's core innovations that got them this far were closer to a commodity than is ideal for a business like theirs. This is something that SnapChat acknowledges in their own S1. What I think investors didn't see or expect is: * The extent to which the SnapChat feature-set was a commodity in a world where several other similar friendship and interest graphs exist. * The speed and potency with which competitors like Facebook would attempt to compete. I think Facebook's strategy was far more successful than people were prepared for and that's reflected somewhat in the SnapChat stock price swings and analyst sentiment swings.