[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.