7 ms·

I think snapchat's timeout feature is a novelty that attracted users, but people ultimately just want to send private messages to their friends. Not everything

by kevando 13y ago

I think snapchat's timeout feature is a novelty that attracted users, but people ultimately just want to send private messages to their friends. Not everything needs to be broadcasted, and that's part of the OG instagram userbase - people that wanted an alternative to the facebook feed. What's wrong with texting though? My friends and I have been texting and group texting images and short video for years. Why do people like having an app for this?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
emhart 13y ago
Image editing within the same application that sends the message is a real benefit vs. just sms-ing an image.
leokun 13y ago
Not having to manage and deal with all the images people send you all the time is not a novelty. Smartphones all assume that every picture you have on your phone is a prize that you want to save forever. Snapchat gives people a way to send pictures that just avoid all that.
- kevando 13y ago
  See that's what I'm saying. Someone texts you a photo, it doesn't go into your photo list. It stays in your text convo. I'm all for data management and removing clutter, but I can think of 500 items to clear out before I consider private photo messages from my closest friends.
  - leokun 13y ago
    I don't know what kind of smartphone you are using but every photo someone texts me ends up in my Android gallery.
    - aneisf 13y ago
      iOS doesn't save images people send you automatically. It will save pictures you send to others on your Camera Roll though.
      - terhechte 13y ago
        WhatsApp on iOS does that. Every Picture I receive is automatically saved.
        melvinmt 13y ago
        You can simply turn this off in the settings ("Save Incoming Media": OFF).
    - kevando 13y ago
      I didn't know Android did that. If you're texting tons of photos I can see it getting out of control
DanBC 13y ago
> Why do people like having an app for this? Cost. International availability.
- kevando 13y ago
  Good point. My plan offers unlimited text and 98% of my friends are in the US so I often forget this.
antihero 13y ago
MMS is horrendous and the picture quality is poor, plus you can't view it off of one's mobile.
- Bud 13y ago
  Huh? MMS itself is completely irrelevant to the quality of the photo you send over it. If your phone's camera is good, the photo quality will be good also.
  - jdminhbg 13y ago
    I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant -- MMSes are heavily compressed by every phone OS I've ever used. Wikipedia lists a "recommended limit" of 300 kB[1], and Verizon's developer site lists a hard limit of 1.2 MB[2]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service [2]: http://developer.verizon.com/content/vdc/en/verizon-tools-apis/verizon_apis/network-api/faqs/faq-multimedia-messaging-system-mms.html http://developer.verizon.com/content/vdc/en/verizon-tools-ap...
  - mcb3k 13y ago
    According to Wikipedia[1], "300 kB is the current recommended size used by networks due to some limitations on the WAP gateway side". While that is listed as "Citation Needed", other links from the the same search query lists sizes varying from 600KB to 1.2MB. A quick look at the files sizes at the images I've taken shows that most of my images are over 1000KB. So, there is some kind of re-sizing that needs to occur over SMS. Instagram and other similar services don't necessarily require such re-sizing, or possibly get around it by having you crop the image yourself, so the relative quality of the remaining portion remains higher quality as opposed to shrinking the entire image to fit the size restrictions. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Challenges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Ch...
marksbren 13y ago
Snapchat's timeout feature is not just a novelty, is it allowing for a whole different type of digital communication. The sender does not have to worry about where their image might show up. It frees people to take goofy photos and act more naturally (as opposed to all the posed, staged shots on Instagram and Facebook).
- angryasian 13y ago
  I don't know why this misconception keeps getting propogated. If the motivation to save pictures is there then a person will save the pictures. I have to believe it's the fad. I mean poke had this same feature yet it never took off
  - triptychs 13y ago
    > If the motivation to save pictures is there then a person will save the pictures. Considering most "snaps" are sent between friends and family these days, it's important to understand that friends aren't fucking each other over to save pictures of cats with finger-painted mustaches. Of course, if someone is dead-set on saving a picture from Snapchat then it's possible... but Snapchat isn't about sending dick pics anymore. I believe it's outgrown that, the same way when Vine started with was essentially an amateur porn broadcasting app. For the general public, Snapchat images appear and then they go poof, but I agree with you... it's hard to stop dicks from being dicks no matter how you send your photos. But the one objective fact about the situation is that Snapchat is still the most convenient way to send photos and videos that are reasonably guaranteed to virtually disappear. Saving them out of Snapchat secretly isn't a priority nor is it trivial for 99% of people using the service.
    - angryasian 13y ago
      the point is that assumption should always be made that anything you share on any service will be saved our available. I have to believe it's more the fad and brand vs this false sense of security
  - cdcarter 13y ago
workbench 13y ago
> What's wrong with texting though? Facebook doesn't make money out of it
iambateman 13y ago
Snapchat is the best way to have a quick conversation with someone that is photo-based. That is particularly useful for seeing someone's emotions outside of being face-to-face. Text is dry. Snapchat lets me quickly message someone what I'm feeling. It has almost nothing to do with disappearing messages.
- Alex_Jiang 13y ago
  I agree with this. At the risk of sounding nebulous, snapchat 'feels' different. It feels personal like the handwritten notes you pass in classrooms. A text is more like someone handing a a slip of paper with a typed message. An email is like someone handing you an 8.5x11 piece of paper. Snapchat lets you be really gestural, for instance I draw on >95% of my snaps. In instances where I want to add text I draw it on with my finger. The last snap I sent was to my girlfriend, it was an image of our dog with a ripped up shoe, I scrawled "How mad are you?" on it.
raverbashing 13y ago
"What's wrong with texting though?" Cost
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  Who is still paying for text messaging?
  - herval 13y ago
    pretty much everyone outside the US, afaik...
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Honestly I had no idea. I have TMO in the US, and haven't paid for texting (unlimited) in years.
      - raverbashing 13y ago
        Well, "not paying" would be more accurate. If you're paying for unlimited text it's not free. Other places may have a fee for SMS but the monthly payment is still much lower than in the US And yes, I'd rather have my phone, and pay less per month then get a phone "for free" but shell out $100 per month
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        I pay $50/month for unlimited calling, text, and data (5GB LTE speeds, then 2G) on T-Mobile. I pay outright for the phone (had a GalaxyNexus, moved to iPhone 5s). Its really not a bad deal. Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer for 13 years.
        raverbashing 13y ago

by kevando 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

emhart 13y ago

Image editing within the same application that sends the message is a real benefit vs. just sms-ing an image.

leokun 13y ago

Not having to manage and deal with all the images people send you all the time is not a novelty. Smartphones all assume that every picture you have on your phone is a prize that you want to save forever. Snapchat gives people a way to send pictures that just avoid all that.

kevando 13y ago
See that's what I'm saying. Someone texts you a photo, it doesn't go into your photo list. It stays in your text convo. I'm all for data management and removing clutter, but I can think of 500 items to clear out before I consider private photo messages from my closest friends.
- leokun 13y ago
  I don't know what kind of smartphone you are using but every photo someone texts me ends up in my Android gallery.
  - aneisf 13y ago
    iOS doesn't save images people send you automatically. It will save pictures you send to others on your Camera Roll though.
    - terhechte 13y ago
      WhatsApp on iOS does that. Every Picture I receive is automatically saved.
      - melvinmt 13y ago
        You can simply turn this off in the settings ("Save Incoming Media": OFF).
  - kevando 13y ago
    I didn't know Android did that. If you're texting tons of photos I can see it getting out of control

DanBC 13y ago

> Why do people like having an app for this? Cost. International availability.

kevando 13y ago
Good point. My plan offers unlimited text and 98% of my friends are in the US so I often forget this.

antihero 13y ago

MMS is horrendous and the picture quality is poor, plus you can't view it off of one's mobile.

Bud 13y ago
Huh? MMS itself is completely irrelevant to the quality of the photo you send over it. If your phone's camera is good, the photo quality will be good also.
- jdminhbg 13y ago
  I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant -- MMSes are heavily compressed by every phone OS I've ever used. Wikipedia lists a "recommended limit" of 300 kB[1], and Verizon's developer site lists a hard limit of 1.2 MB[2]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service [2]: http://developer.verizon.com/content/vdc/en/verizon-tools-apis/verizon_apis/network-api/faqs/faq-multimedia-messaging-system-mms.html http://developer.verizon.com/content/vdc/en/verizon-tools-ap...
- mcb3k 13y ago
  According to Wikipedia[1], "300 kB is the current recommended size used by networks due to some limitations on the WAP gateway side". While that is listed as "Citation Needed", other links from the the same search query lists sizes varying from 600KB to 1.2MB. A quick look at the files sizes at the images I've taken shows that most of my images are over 1000KB. So, there is some kind of re-sizing that needs to occur over SMS. Instagram and other similar services don't necessarily require such re-sizing, or possibly get around it by having you crop the image yourself, so the relative quality of the remaining portion remains higher quality as opposed to shrinking the entire image to fit the size restrictions. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Challenges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service#Ch...

marksbren 13y ago

Snapchat's timeout feature is not just a novelty, is it allowing for a whole different type of digital communication. The sender does not have to worry about where their image might show up. It frees people to take goofy photos and act more naturally (as opposed to all the posed, staged shots on Instagram and Facebook).

angryasian 13y ago
I don't know why this misconception keeps getting propogated. If the motivation to save pictures is there then a person will save the pictures. I have to believe it's the fad. I mean poke had this same feature yet it never took off
- triptychs 13y ago
  > If the motivation to save pictures is there then a person will save the pictures. Considering most "snaps" are sent between friends and family these days, it's important to understand that friends aren't fucking each other over to save pictures of cats with finger-painted mustaches. Of course, if someone is dead-set on saving a picture from Snapchat then it's possible... but Snapchat isn't about sending dick pics anymore. I believe it's outgrown that, the same way when Vine started with was essentially an amateur porn broadcasting app. For the general public, Snapchat images appear and then they go poof, but I agree with you... it's hard to stop dicks from being dicks no matter how you send your photos. But the one objective fact about the situation is that Snapchat is still the most convenient way to send photos and videos that are reasonably guaranteed to virtually disappear. Saving them out of Snapchat secretly isn't a priority nor is it trivial for 99% of people using the service.
  - angryasian 13y ago
    the point is that assumption should always be made that anything you share on any service will be saved our available. I have to believe it's more the fad and brand vs this false sense of security
- cdcarter 13y ago

workbench 13y ago

> What's wrong with texting though? Facebook doesn't make money out of it

iambateman 13y ago

Snapchat is the best way to have a quick conversation with someone that is photo-based. That is particularly useful for seeing someone's emotions outside of being face-to-face. Text is dry. Snapchat lets me quickly message someone what I'm feeling. It has almost nothing to do with disappearing messages.

Alex_Jiang 13y ago
I agree with this. At the risk of sounding nebulous, snapchat 'feels' different. It feels personal like the handwritten notes you pass in classrooms. A text is more like someone handing a a slip of paper with a typed message. An email is like someone handing you an 8.5x11 piece of paper. Snapchat lets you be really gestural, for instance I draw on >95% of my snaps. In instances where I want to add text I draw it on with my finger. The last snap I sent was to my girlfriend, it was an image of our dog with a ripped up shoe, I scrawled "How mad are you?" on it.

raverbashing 13y ago

"What's wrong with texting though?" Cost

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 13y ago
Who is still paying for text messaging?
- herval 13y ago
  pretty much everyone outside the US, afaik...
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Honestly I had no idea. I have TMO in the US, and haven't paid for texting (unlimited) in years.
    - raverbashing 13y ago
      Well, "not paying" would be more accurate. If you're paying for unlimited text it's not free. Other places may have a fee for SMS but the monthly payment is still much lower than in the US And yes, I'd rather have my phone, and pay less per month then get a phone "for free" but shell out $100 per month
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        I pay $50/month for unlimited calling, text, and data (5GB LTE speeds, then 2G) on T-Mobile. I pay outright for the phone (had a GalaxyNexus, moved to iPhone 5s). Its really not a bad deal. Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer for 13 years.
        raverbashing 13y ago