2 ms·

How many "messages" do copper telephone wires owned by Verizon carry every day? Does that make those wires worth trillions? How much is "Email" worth? If you c

How many "messages" do copper telephone wires owned by Verizon carry every day? Does that make those wires worth trillions? How much is "Email" worth? If you could "own" Email, but not have any way to monetize the transport of messages, and no way to charge for the service, how much is it worth solely because billions of messages are transmitted with your service daily? Since when are "messages" valuable? Come on, who wants to own a Protocol?

AJ007 13y ago
Snapchat could flash advertisements before and/or after 'snaps'. How big that ad market is would just be a guess with little data to back it up. The big risk for Twitter, Snapchat, and some degree Facebook is the more money they attempt to make off of users, from advertising, the easier it is for someone else to start a less intrusive competitor. The cost of creating, launching, and maintaining a service like this will keep dropping. Facebook purchasing Snapchat is just creepy. They think delete=hide.
- Phlarp 13y ago
  >Facebook purchasing Snapchat is just creepy. They think delete=hide. You really think Snapchat deletes the images? Lets pretend they did, I bet the NSA keeps a copy. laughable.
- code_duck 13y ago
  Well, snapchat thinks delete=rename with .nomedia extension, it turns out.
- crockstar 13y ago
  As someone who works in the advertising space I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that SnapChat will not be able to monetize in the way you describe and make enough money (without pissing off users) to justify the price tag. Unless they've got a very clever model that is more advanced than what you've described or that FB or Twitter have ever used it's a very long shot. Unless the owner has a personal issue with FB and didn't want their money for this reason I do not believe this was a sound business decision. I'd love to be wrong but I don't think I will be in this case.

AJ007 13y ago

Snapchat could flash advertisements before and/or after 'snaps'. How big that ad market is would just be a guess with little data to back it up. The big risk for Twitter, Snapchat, and some degree Facebook is the more money they attempt to make off of users, from advertising, the easier it is for someone else to start a less intrusive competitor. The cost of creating, launching, and maintaining a service like this will keep dropping. Facebook purchasing Snapchat is just creepy. They think delete=hide.

Phlarp 13y ago
>Facebook purchasing Snapchat is just creepy. They think delete=hide. You really think Snapchat deletes the images? Lets pretend they did, I bet the NSA keeps a copy. laughable.
code_duck 13y ago
Well, snapchat thinks delete=rename with .nomedia extension, it turns out.
crockstar 13y ago
As someone who works in the advertising space I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that SnapChat will not be able to monetize in the way you describe and make enough money (without pissing off users) to justify the price tag. Unless they've got a very clever model that is more advanced than what you've described or that FB or Twitter have ever used it's a very long shot. Unless the owner has a personal issue with FB and didn't want their money for this reason I do not believe this was a sound business decision. I'd love to be wrong but I don't think I will be in this case.