5 ms·
> It implies that the company is building a database that could be used to reconstruct an enormous network diagram. It's actually fun and trivial to do this yo
by jmduke 13y ago
> It implies that the company is building a database that could be used to reconstruct an enormous network diagram.
It's actually fun and trivial to do this yourself with a spider: go to http://www.snapchat.com/username http://www.snapchat.com/username, mark 'best friendships' as followthroughs. A fun thing you notice pretty quickly is that the 'best friend' designation isn't one-to-one, prolific snappers will appear often in peoples' friends lists.
I think a SnapChat API is likely on the way, and once they figure out a way to market this stuff to advertisers (hey, ten seconds of undivided attention towards an ad is probably worth more than thirty seconds of ignoring a commercial) they're going to have a whole new host of problems.
- bennyg 13y agoThat's the day I stop using it. If I get a few second ad every 4 or 5 snaps then I won't continue my usage of the app. I understand that good things that require monetary value to continue operating at scale need to have a way to make money, but advertising should be a last-resort option. We haven't even seen for-pay snaps yet (more seconds, more options like random clip-art to add in, etc). Advertising kills the product 9 times out of 10.
- dave5104 13y agoI'm on the opposite end there. I would never pay money for extra snap options. I'd much rather see ads if choosing between the two.
- bennyg 13y agoThose two aren't all the options though. 1.) Pay for SnapPro 2.) Sit through advertisements 3.) Let people who want to pay for SnapPro pay, while you don't because you don't want to pay for it. Therefore no ads, and Snapchat is making money. Option 3 is the best for consumers. Option 3 is possible if the price-point dictates that enough people will pay for it to remain alive and well. Not everyone will pay. But when is that not always the case?
- moheeb 13y agoYou've been brainwashed. The best option for consumers is for it to be free, with no ads.
- Groxx 13y agobecause it's best for consumers when things they like go away?
- bennyg 13y agoExactly my point. Option 3 is free for everyone with optional purchases for those that want it. The parent of my comment would rather see ads than purchase Pro. But those aren't mutually exclusive. He/She can still not see ads and not purchase pro while Snapchat makes money.
- dave5104 13y agoI certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
- jerf 13y agoNo, it's not. That ends with no service existing at all. Money has to come from somewhere for the service.
- ansible 13y agoDoes this really need to be a centralized service though? Isn't this the sort of thing that could be implemented as a peer-to-peer networking service?
- jerf 13y agoThat doesn't get away from the issue of payment, it just moves it around. I think it does so in a way with a lot of positives, but there's the whole P2P bootstrapping problem in the way, both in terms of creating the code that even works and then actually bringing the network online, and unfortunately it seems that's a pretty big negative in practice.
- schraeds 13y agoMost people just want to see funny pictures of their friends, privacy and advertising concerns aside. Ride yo high horse outta here!!