It's for fun, obviously, not everything has to have a utilitarian purpose... People take compromising photos, make ugly faces, etc., with the knowledge that the photo will only be seen for 3 seconds.
The app detects if you take a screen shot and notifies the sender. So, if someone abuses the trust you have given them in sending them a photo, you know.
I'm not sure how this app works, but Snapchat takes certain precautions to make screenshotting more difficult (the most obvious one being that you have to hold your finger on the screen or the image disappears, but I think there are also some technical safeguards as well). And as someone else pointed out, it tells the sender if the receiver screenshotted, which allows you to in formally determine whether or not you trust this person in the future.
The level to which this is a clone of Snapchat is kind of astounding. Did FB ever try to buy them, or are they trying to destroy competition before they have to pay big bucks like they did for Instagram?
It's all business, so I suppose all's fair, but it hardly paints Facebook as a hub of innovation.
I responded to this on the other post regarding the Poke app on the homepage:
Sure, it's like SnapChat, but isn't that always the dynamic in this industry: the Feature Qua Product (simplicity, focus) vs. Feature Qua Feature (integration)? Some folks, like those who use Buffer, for example, simply prefer tightly-focused, standalone apps while others prefer ones that do more, that integrate many features into a (sometimes) cohesive product a la HootSuite.
Personal note: while I'd have been tempted to compare them to Apple or Google in the past, Facebook's turning out to be a lot more like Microsoft for the web, appropriating features or buying companies to Do Everything, even if they're not the best in each vertical.
I agree- I'm not faulting the reasons for doing so, but it doesn't mean I have to approve of it. I just feel for the developers that were tasked with cloning an app.
Before starting a startup, you take into consideration the chance that a tech giant might implement your idea better, faster, and stronger than you. It's a risk that Snapchat took, and clearly it woke someone up.
From Facebook's point of view, why pay money for an app which can be developed 12 days? The only reasons they would acquire Snapchat are for the team and the users.
The users of Snapchat are likely to already have a facebook, so they likely don't care too much about the users. They will paint it as being more convenient for the users, which is true, but it's also true that the nature of capitalism is anticompetitive.
> why pay money for an app which can be developed 12 days
It sort of shows. I installed the app just to play around with the backend of it, and it's fairly easy to get stuck in a loop with no back buttons. There's also bits of the app that don't make sense, like the differentiation between the different types of received "pokes".
"Each message expires after a specific time you've set, either 1, 3, 5 or 10 seconds. When time runs out, the message disappears from the app."
Sure it disappears from the app, but the message probably stays on Facebook's servers for the rest of your life. Then someday in the future Facebook will probably change their privacy settings suddenly (on purpose or accidentally) and all your messages will appear on your timeline for everyone to see.
While that's true, the fact is that the data stays forever.
If you copy the direct CDN url of a photo on Facebook and then "delete" it, you can keep returning to that URL to see if it is still active. I've one saved from 2009 that still loads, despite having being "deleted" for almost three years now.
The last time Blake Ross cloned an app for Zuck was when Facebook Answers came out to compete with Quora. I guess Zuck feels like Snapchat is a threat? I wonder if he tried to buy them.
Blake Ross Clones usually scare people, but they never work out. I don't think Snapchat has much to fear.
When is that site which is a collection of Poke mesaage screenshots going to show up? Can't be that long. I can also see this user reaction: "what! I thought there was no way to save a poke message. facebook you lied to me."
Typically these complaints wouldn't matter as much but because of the sensitive nature of communication this app is designed to facilitate, it could matter much more.
Is there any use-case besides sexting that necessitates:
1. Sending photos that automatically disappear in seconds;
2. Requires user input to view;
3. Prevent screenshots, strong efforts to prevent saving photos?
43 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 85.3 ms ] threadPeople are dumb.
I think it's a good move to copy snapchat, as it gives fb users a way to be "sure" they don't leave any crappy content online
It's all business, so I suppose all's fair, but it hardly paints Facebook as a hub of innovation.
Sure, it's like SnapChat, but isn't that always the dynamic in this industry: the Feature Qua Product (simplicity, focus) vs. Feature Qua Feature (integration)? Some folks, like those who use Buffer, for example, simply prefer tightly-focused, standalone apps while others prefer ones that do more, that integrate many features into a (sometimes) cohesive product a la HootSuite. Personal note: while I'd have been tempted to compare them to Apple or Google in the past, Facebook's turning out to be a lot more like Microsoft for the web, appropriating features or buying companies to Do Everything, even if they're not the best in each vertical.
From Facebook's point of view, why pay money for an app which can be developed 12 days? The only reasons they would acquire Snapchat are for the team and the users.
The users of Snapchat are likely to already have a facebook, so they likely don't care too much about the users. They will paint it as being more convenient for the users, which is true, but it's also true that the nature of capitalism is anticompetitive.
http://proletariat.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/the-myth-of-capi...
In the case of Instagram, Facebook had more reasons to acquire, but I still don't think that one was really worth 1.2 billion.
It sort of shows. I installed the app just to play around with the backend of it, and it's fairly easy to get stuck in a loop with no back buttons. There's also bits of the app that don't make sense, like the differentiation between the different types of received "pokes".
[1] https://www.facebook.com/blake/posts/448334501889024
Sure it disappears from the app, but the message probably stays on Facebook's servers for the rest of your life. Then someday in the future Facebook will probably change their privacy settings suddenly (on purpose or accidentally) and all your messages will appear on your timeline for everyone to see.
If you copy the direct CDN url of a photo on Facebook and then "delete" it, you can keep returning to that URL to see if it is still active. I've one saved from 2009 that still loads, despite having being "deleted" for almost three years now.
Blake Ross Clones usually scare people, but they never work out. I don't think Snapchat has much to fear.
Typically these complaints wouldn't matter as much but because of the sensitive nature of communication this app is designed to facilitate, it could matter much more.
1. Sending photos that automatically disappear in seconds; 2. Requires user input to view; 3. Prevent screenshots, strong efforts to prevent saving photos?