The battery swap is not the 30 minute charge time, it's an actual charge of your own battery (the swap is a lot faster than 30 minutes). I don't think battery swap is currently available at these charge locations?
Yes, I'm willing to believe it's worth nothing. I'm actually willing to believe it's worth less than nothing; that the cost of running a service processing that much data for free may be higher than the service is truly worth.
I'm not saying that's the case here, but it really is not hard to imagine. It's quite obviously possible when you're giving away physical things for free. The only difference here is that free software is a hell of a lot cheaper than free cupcakes, but the cost still isn't zero.
How many "messages" do copper telephone wires owned by Verizon carry every day? Does that make those wires worth trillions?
How much is "Email" worth? If you could "own" Email, but not have any way to monetize the transport of messages, and no way to charge for the service, how much is it worth solely because billions of messages are transmitted with your service daily?
Since when are "messages" valuable? Come on, who wants to own a Protocol?
Snapchat could flash advertisements before and/or after 'snaps'. How big that ad market is would just be a guess with little data to back it up.
The big risk for Twitter, Snapchat, and some degree Facebook is the more money they attempt to make off of users, from advertising, the easier it is for someone else to start a less intrusive competitor. The cost of creating, launching, and maintaining a service like this will keep dropping.
Facebook purchasing Snapchat is just creepy. They think delete=hide.
As someone who works in the advertising space I can tell you with a great deal of confidence that SnapChat will not be able to monetize in the way you describe and make enough money (without pissing off users) to justify the price tag.
Unless they've got a very clever model that is more advanced than what you've described or that FB or Twitter have ever used it's a very long shot. Unless the owner has a personal issue with FB and didn't want their money for this reason I do not believe this was a sound business decision.
I'd love to be wrong but I don't think I will be in this case.
Yes, you are entitled to believe it's worth nothing. But the only problem is that, the market has decided it's worth anywhere from $0 to $3 billion.
Facebook is not paying for the software. A very good hacker can put together a snapchat app in an afternoon. Facebook is paying for the traction and the fact that the people who are using both services are not exclusive set of people. therefore, the more a user spend time on snapchat, the less she spends on Facebook.
As already mentioned, this is not about how much they are making now, it's about how much they could potentially make in the future. Facebook knows this better than you and I because they've been there.
Any dollar that SnapChat makes in the future is potentially a dollar facebook would have lost and that is what they are trying to protect.
FB can throw $10b at snapChat and some people (me not included) will still find sense in it. Look, if on March, 2006, a 'crazy' billion said he has envisioned that twitter is the next big thing and threw $5b for a 99% stake, everyone would have called him shit crazy but in just 7 years, he would have made a cool $16b on his investment.
No matter what you think about how silly the service is, its ability to be monetized is where the value lies.. In a logical world, an investment in coca-cola shouldn't be considered a safe one at all, but here we are!
Question: If you were to have a CS grad from Stanford offer you 50% of all of his income for the rest of his life. How much would you pay in one lump sum? $100? $1 million? Probably more… Point is, you would agree the number is not zero.
He doesn't have a job yet (and never had a job before), but by any measure everyone that knows him says he's extremely talented. And now he's even getting huge job offers from Google and Facebook.
Would you say that you wouldn't make that investment? Is he worthless cause he has an upcoming rent payment due and also has to feed himself?
It would be an extremely risky bet which I would never make. There's no guarantee that the grad wouldn't take your money and live the rest of his life as a heroin addict -- lots of smart people don't live up to their potential. Also, he might get hit by a bus tomorrow.
Similarly, lots of companies run by smart people don't live up to their potentials, or are not lucky enough to be popular long enough to make billions of dollars.
Definitely not, because at that valuation the offer is suspiciously too cheap - in fact it's so cheap it's unlikely he'll pay out because the first thing he'll do is hire a lawyer to get out of that contract.
You're nitpicking. It's a hypotethical. He's trying to show how something that is not profitable right now might still have positive value.
The point of the question is whether you expect the person to earn enough that getting 50% of their life income would be worth 100, 1k, 10k etc. today, not 'how likely that person is to actually keep the deal'.
But that's exactly relevant to the point - the issue is that the details of the arrangement matter, which is relevant to the wider point: how are we expecting profit to be made? Gesticulating to size doesn't actually monetize something.
I would actually argue that there are more top tier Stanford CS grads than there are startups with Snapchat's engagement numbers. The value of the student should be discounted more than the value of snapchat from a competition standpoint.
In either case the point was to illustrate that, all risks considered, snapchat is still worth a lot of money. I have yet to see anyone (HN commenters, tech press) argue about what their valuation should be, which seems like the reasonable follow up to "It should not be $3 billion".
We can agree that its not zero, then what basis can we use to agree that $3 billion is inaccurate?
What's the user experience around using the local contact store?
It seems to me Google Maps would have to preemptively request permission to access local contacts because it wouldn't know in advance if a particular search should match a contact. And some people might be confused by the unexpected request and not understand why contact search isn't working later (or be confused if they disabled Google Maps' contact access because they didn't make the connection).
I can certainly see how, from Google's perspective, it seems cleaner to use the contact store they know they have access to and is presumably the same one they'd use on other platforms - promoting consistency. Is that ideal for every user? Clearly not. But, in the spirit of the original article, it is probably the way to get contact search working with minimum friction for most users.
Right now, when you tap the search field, Google Maps shows me a message saying that I should log into my google account if I want to use contacts etc.; and my contacts are not synced with my google account anyway, so it would either fail silently to find them, or it would try to sync them - which would require asking for permission to access my local contacts anyway.
If it used local contacts and I had denied it access when it asked on the first startup, it could instead display a message saying so, offering a button to click to request access to contacts again. It would be strictly less complicated for the user.
I guess I'm wrong about that then :). My assumption was based on the fact that when I traveled into areas with no data coverage, I distinctively remember Google Maps having great difficulty with cached map data, while Apple Maps didn't.
(In the hotel prior to driving I would load both maps and directions in both apps, "click through" the directions to give the apps a chance to cache the data, and then go on my way - if I dicked around in Google Maps it tended to just not show anything, or a very very fuzzy view of where I was, whereas Apple tended to show a low-precision (but clear) view of where I was.)
I was wondering if there would be any answers about this. Without that feature, it's a one way tool: all changes must be made here, the compiled product can't be usefully edited.
I imagine it would be pretty challenging to parse an existing website into something usable, but it would definitely make the tool a lot more useful (not to say it won't still be useful to lots of people).
IIRC from the video, at Macaw's core is an embedded webkit engine so they might not have to do any parsing at all but instead interface said engine. That being said, I'm not quite sure how difficult it would be to go from having it parsed to making something that can work with the parsed code since it might have a structure that would have to be further parsed to extract the meaning of the code.
I doubt they intended something like this to be possible, but what remains to see is whether or not they'll be OK with it. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple disabled :hover and other interactive CSS features within Mail.app in a future update.
It's a shame that 280 Slides is no longer online, because I'd love to be able to challenge your performance assertion.
Back when we released it, in 2008, browsers were a hell of a lot slower than they are now. And even then, 280 Slides launched faster than PowerPoint or Keynote on our machines, and had comparable runtime performance with manipulating objects on the slide. Of course, we did not have many of the most resource intensive Keynote features like 3D animations, but I don't think that's what you meant.