5 ms·

I'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 ago
Those 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 ago
  You've been brainwashed. The best option for consumers is for it to be free, with no ads.
  - Groxx 13y ago
    because it's best for consumers when things they like go away?
  - bennyg 13y ago
    Exactly 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 ago
      I certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
  - jerf 13y ago
    No, it's not. That ends with no service existing at all. Money has to come from somewhere for the service.
    - ansible 13y ago
      Does 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 ago
        That 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.
        Karunamon 13y ago
        It just "moves it around" to the point where the cost is so spread out as to be effectively zero. What's the average cost of a volunteer-run peer to peer file sharing network?
        jerf 13y ago
        How many computers running P2P software does it take to write the software? You can only talk about the "all but 0" marginal cost when you can produce a piece of software that really does have an all-but-0 marginal cost. And, therefore, doesn't require the computer running it to be always on, or run on a dedicated VM, etc. Sure, such a thing may be possible, but you have to produce it first. Unfortunately.
        btown 13y ago
        The cost comes in the labor of the organization that needs to bootstrap and maintain the network of volunteers - this includes marketing to them that it's safe and worthwhile to load software onto their computer. For instance, SETI@home has a budget in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php . Who would donate to Snapchat@home when it's just as easy to get Snapchat+ads on your phone?
  - criley 13y ago
    You've been brainwashed. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All services cost. Who will pay for your free service? Venture capital only lasts so long. The best option for consumers is one that meets their needs for as long as they need it, not one that exceeds their needs for six months until the doors close...

bennyg 13y ago

Those 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 ago
You've been brainwashed. The best option for consumers is for it to be free, with no ads.
- Groxx 13y ago
  because it's best for consumers when things they like go away?
- bennyg 13y ago
  Exactly 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 ago
    I certainly wouldn't complain about option 3... but I'd be very weary of whether that would be /enough/ for Snapchat.
- jerf 13y ago
  No, it's not. That ends with no service existing at all. Money has to come from somewhere for the service.
  - ansible 13y ago
    Does 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 ago
      That 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.
      - Karunamon 13y ago
        It just "moves it around" to the point where the cost is so spread out as to be effectively zero. What's the average cost of a volunteer-run peer to peer file sharing network?
        jerf 13y ago
        How many computers running P2P software does it take to write the software? You can only talk about the "all but 0" marginal cost when you can produce a piece of software that really does have an all-but-0 marginal cost. And, therefore, doesn't require the computer running it to be always on, or run on a dedicated VM, etc. Sure, such a thing may be possible, but you have to produce it first. Unfortunately.
        btown 13y ago
        The cost comes in the labor of the organization that needs to bootstrap and maintain the network of volunteers - this includes marketing to them that it's safe and worthwhile to load software onto their computer. For instance, SETI@home has a budget in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_budget.php . Who would donate to Snapchat@home when it's just as easy to get Snapchat+ads on your phone?
- criley 13y ago
  You've been brainwashed. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All services cost. Who will pay for your free service? Venture capital only lasts so long. The best option for consumers is one that meets their needs for as long as they need it, not one that exceeds their needs for six months until the doors close...