[salsadip]

I am happy that we have Snapchat and iMessage as competitors to the Facebook Apps. I very much dislike their business practices of sucking up all the data they can get their hands on e.g. during the acquisition of WhatsApp where they had to promise to European [1] regulators to not combine the user data with facebook‘s and then did it anyway.

Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead.

All in all I know many people who really dislike FB and would leave it if they could, but the network effect keeps everybody locked in to WhatsApp at least in Europe/Germany.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...

[0xfaded]

The reliance on facebook where I live now in Denmark is disgusting. I lived in SV for 4 years, and basically any information of importance reached me by word-of-mouth or mailing list. Craigslist is also used and awesome.

Worst is that information meant for public dissemination, like training times or open event details, are now de facto private and require login. I've gone from logging in once every 3 months to once a week. AND messenger on mobile requires mbasic.facebook.com. /rant

[KozmoNau7]

FB Messenger is the standard messaging service in Denmark, nothing else comes close. At least for everyone I know, it has completely replaced anything else they previously used, and ordinary text messages are seen as old-fashioned and obsolete.

I've tried to get people to use Signal instead, but nobody cares enough to make the switch. "Everyone else is on Messenger, and I have an account already" is the most common reasoning.

[dobleboble]

I've seen a shift towards Slack and Discord, which seems good.

[intsunny]

I think part of the problem here is that the UI/UX of Signal (and Telegram) are just not very good.

Both are off-putting experiences and in turn do little to motivate people to switch to them.

[dgellow]

Seriously, Telegram UI/UX isn't good? That's the best user experience I know for a chat application and the main reason why I use it.

[unimpressive]

Yeah, hearing TG's UI/UX described as not good made me do a double take. It's the best UI I've ever seen in a chat app, and I've probably used at least a dozen by now.

[KozmoNau7]

I find the UI/UX of Signal to be good enough that I used it as my default messaging app, even though I only have a few contacts who use(d) Signal.

It took until Oreo/Pie for the stock messaging app to become equally good or better, and by then none of my contacts bothered with using Signal anymore. It's now 0% Signal, 0.1% text messages, 0.1% WhatsApp, 99.8% FB Messenger, which is really depressing.

[dannyw]

You can't export chats on Signal iOS, which sucks.

[marssaxman]

What does it mean to "export chats" and why would you want to do it?

[jefftk]

Open event details should be public without logging in. I help run an event series that has our website link to FB for per-event details, and no account is needed.

[nolok]

> Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead.

I don't see what's sad about that, if the only thing that made SC unique is a feature that was so easily copied into EVERY FB app (messenger, instagram, even FB itself) then SC was anything but unique.

Ultimately execution is what matters, and snapchat had a terrible app (at least on android) forever.

[salsadip]

Snapchat (the app) was the only app which had stories so it was unique by definition. The main problem though is that I’m uncomfortable using Facebook‘s apps because of their disrespect for user’s privacy and data.

Also, Snapchat’s app has a unique feel (and works performant enough at least on iOS) which makes it more pleasurable to use than lets say WhatsApp which is the most popular in Europe

[oblio]

> Ultimately execution is what matters, and snapchat had a terrible app (at least on android) forever.

Take this with a grain of salt, but:

https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel-only...

[meowface]

The same feature is now also on YouTube, for some reason. I guess short video clips are just what the youth are into these days (Vine, TikTok, stories).

I wonder if they're regretting not taking the 30 billion Google was offering. Ephemeral image/video/message sharing has become a pretty oversaturated market since their popularization of it, and there isn't really that much more innovation that can be done in that area, I think. And it doesn't seem like they're trying other kinds of things beyond ephemeral communication. They may be in a Foursquare-like situation, except Foursquare actually did manage to pivot from a gimmick to more of a sustainable business (as far as I can tell).

[nolok]

> I wonder if they're regretting not taking the 30 billion Google was offering.

I know this was Google's "we need to turn into a social thing, G+ all the way" era and everything but good god, 30 billion, that figure was insane. Even if you go with "but major social app are worth a lot" just comparing it with how much was paid for whatsapp and instagram makes it even crazier.

[meowface]

I think the only thing even more insane than that is the creator of an app that lets you set a timeout when you send images and videos thinking $30 billion was a lowball insult and that they're clearly worth far more.

[salsadip]

Quote? From what I read it wasn’t about the money for the founders but they thought they had something unique going for them which they wanted to have control over instead of selling. At least that’s what they said when Facebook made multiple offers

[meowface]

I was definitely heavily hyperbolizing and assuming. I have no idea what their actual thought process or response was. I just think you probably have to be pretty arrogant to deny 30 billion from Google for your gimmick fad app, even if you really don't care about making money. It seems arrogant to think that that business could really grow beyond such a valuation. Why not take the 30 billion and spend it on a new company you want to make, or something? Is the Snap brand truly that powerful to them? Even if you're totally happy living modestly, you can do a lot with that money.

It might be hindsight bias on my part, though. The hype at the time was very high, and maybe it was actually rational for them to think they had serious longevity. But still, I'm not really seeking money, and I don't see how I could've turned down that offer.

For Zuckerberg, it made more sense to reject early offers, because he could see the mega-monopoly in the distance. I don't see how Snap could think they could make a monopoly out of their app. For one, the app's not really even a social network.

It was a good idea and good execution, but like so many startup founders, I think the success of the app may have gone to their heads. Users aren't buying into the Snap brand / ecosystem / network, they just like to send ephemeral photos and videos to their friends with minimal friction. This is not a new paradigm in itself; it's a feature. Like many startups, Snap is a cool new feature dressing itself up as a serious corporation, and features only remain new for so long.

One could say the same of Instagram, but the difference is they managed to get the social network stuff right, so they could sustain exponential growth. Maybe Snap could've done the same if they were more willing to branch off from their original feature earlier on in their company's existence. I'm not totally sure why Snap failed to evolve from a sexting app to a social network, but it was clearly their plan, and it flopped.

[holler]

on the one hand I agree that there’s nothing nefarious about copying a public feature of a competitor, while on the other hand I question if the massive monopolistic network effects of FB prevent new startups from having a chance to scale to a point of being able to adequately compete.

[rubber_duck]

Also Telegram (unless I missed the type of apps you're comparing ? I really only use messaging aspect of all of these)

[nolok]

I think he meant app that was a competitor on features but ALSO with a significant user base amongst the non-tech non-domain-specific population.

I think Line, WeChat and a few others like that could qualify too, although they all seem very regional.

[dgellow]

Telegram reported 200 million active monthly users 1 year ago. It's not at the WhatsApp or Facebook messenger level, for sure, but that's clearly a significant user base.

https://telegram.org/blog/200-million

[salsadip]

Right. I just don’t really use telegram that’s why I didn’t mention it, although of course it is a good app! It is just doing exactly what WhatsApp is doing (feature wise) minus the big user base, which is it‘s downfall

[noragami]

It's miles ahead of WhatsApp feature wise, except for properly implemented end-to-end encryption, of course. WhatsApp is a joke, I still don't understand why it became so popular.

[donatzsky]

WhatsApp became popular by being one of the first and by being available absolutely everywhere.

[madeofpalk]

The thing about these sorts of apps is that if your network doesn't use it, then its _not_ good.

[skyyler]

Telegram is really, really, really, really popular with furries.

I haven't encountered another group of people who so ardently use Telegram.

[andygates]

It's reasonably well-separated from IRL identity, so long as you use a burner number and not your IRL number.

[gwm83]

I don't think I've ever used an app that was less intuitive and less user friendly than snap. That's probably why.

[mrweasel]

The Snapchat UI is exceedingly weird. The navigation make no sense, and you can easily get lost in a feature you didn't know existed. Why don't they fix it?

[nexuist]

Snapchat is not any better. Given their financials I am sure they are selling my data to anyone who is willing to pay for it.

[cobookman]

Source to back that up? From my understanding Snap's entire spiel is user privacy

[pbhjpbhj]

He's offering his opinion, how can there be any source?

He basically said it's based only on financials. Perhaps better to say why you feel he should change his opinion, just need on Snap's spiel?

Between the two I'm more inclined to believe "industry practice + financials" than "marketing spiel".

Do you (or above else) have anything better to go on?

[jefftk]

    s/spiel/shtick/

[moocowtruck]

so when they do these sponsored filters, say the taco bell one? I wonder what metadata they send to taco bell saying hey look all these people used the your filter.. I mean I doubt it's just a number, taco bell would want some uniqueness? If would be nice if snapchat published the metadata fields so users can see what they expose by using sponsor filters n such? This is my basic understanding though I don't know that much abotu snapchat