> A less charitable way would be the CEO is shooting from the hip and doesn't have a clue what the company needs.
- He continued backing the redesign long after it was clear the public hated it
- He continued to push spectacles and insist they were a "camera" company, long after the market showed there was no demand from it.
- In the last 5 years he's gone from insisting that snap is a "social media company", to "a camera company", to "the fastest way for people to connect".
In my mind, he seems like he's pretty out of touch with what the public wants from Snapchat and is just bouncing from one idea to another hoping to get lucky again.
I feel like he was a college kid who built an app that he wanted, but as he's aged he no longer identifies with Snap's user base. He's trying to push his idea of what Snap should be (because that worked originally) as opposed to asking users what they want.
He is simply refusing to accept that water is wet -- SNAP is a cam show company. The one that is very successful in that market without even trying - it does not provide payments, subscription management, or fine grained permissions. If they are to add those three they would squash their competitors like a bug and probably eat the OTT market as well.
- He continued backing the redesign long after it was clear the public hated it
- He continued to push spectacles and insist they were a "camera" company, long after the market showed there was no demand from it.
- In the last 5 years he's gone from insisting that snap is a "social media company", to "a camera company", to "the fastest way for people to connect".
In my mind, he seems like he's pretty out of touch with what the public wants from Snapchat and is just bouncing from one idea to another hoping to get lucky again.
I feel like he was a college kid who built an app that he wanted, but as he's aged he no longer identifies with Snap's user base. He's trying to push his idea of what Snap should be (because that worked originally) as opposed to asking users what they want.