
Zuckerberg's Snapchat Envy Isn’t Disappearing - T-A
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-14/zuckerberg-s-snapchat-envy-isn-t-disappearing.html
======
zaidf
So can someone explain to me the long term value of Snapchat? I've been on
Facebook since 2005 and recently tried snapchat after a lot of nagging from
someone. It lasted few minutes before we were back on iMessage.

For me it boils down to this: if I lose my Facebook account, I feel like I'm
losing a 10 year record of my life; if I lose my snapchat account, what do I
lose?

In my view, until snapchat succeeds at getting people to share things with
permanency, it's just another chat app with a ton of traction until folks
disappear to the next IM app. Snapchat seems like less fb and more ICQ, AIM
Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger etc.

~~~
notastartup
I use to have a active facebook account with hundreds of friends but when I
discovered there was a way to permanently delete it, I took the option.

I haven't looked back since.

------
hitchhiker999
Serious question: It's just kids who use this stuff right? I assume most
people over the age of 25 are pretty much completely bored with / have no use
for this kind of thing. Or am I wrong?

~~~
gnur
I'm 25+ (25 and 7 months) and I just started using snap chat with some people
I know.

The biggest selling point is that nothing is permanent, or at least it has the
illusion that nothing is permanent, you don't have to think too much about
sending an embarrassing picture because it's gone in 1-10 seconds, which is
great for just having fun with someone. I'm not even talking about sexting,
just random chats.

It's completely against anything I have done so far (any picture I take is
stored in at least 5 different locations) that it is almost scary.

------
jacques_chester
I believe I will start a new VC fund.

The sole organising principle is to invest in companies which scare or annoy
Mark Zuckerberg.

~~~
notastartup
Even better is if it ends up transfering Facebook billions of dollars over to
your account when your startup gets acquired!

------
ulfw
Paranoia. Otherwise I can't explain paying $19,000,000,000 for a messaging app
either.

------
notastartup
I wonder how these hard to measure metrics really translate into more sales,
more cash flow, especially when majority of Snapchat users are creditcard less
adolescents and starving undergraduates.

Maybe as Google is attempting to cover all aspects of search, Facebook is
doing the same when it comes to social networking, but unlike search which has
a very narrow definition of expected outcome and objective that translates
into shifting the user's attention to relevant ads (I google to get specific
information, might be interested in relevant ads that provide more of it),
social networking is a lot more uncertain, lot of more elusive goals (I chat
on fb or look up someone on FB for laying, friendship) that is resistant to
anything that will take the attention away from the social engagement...in
large the giant user base is useless while the cost of maintaining such large
infrastructure behind it outgrows the actual revenues....it makes very little
sense as to why FB would go out of their way to support social networks that
serves no other purpose than use up their resources but shareholders seem to
think that "there's no way they will screw up monetization, it will happen
eventually and match Google to justify the inflated valuation one day" with
little analysis on cash. Unless the rules of business have changed that they
can purely live on investors hopes of a rosy future rather than net positive
cash flow indicate a bubble.

