This kind of thing will be the death of Venmo, and makes me wonder why they haven't moved faster. An app that already has your social network will have more success adding friend payments than your friend payments app trying to add a social network.
OTOH, a payment app can grow pretty organically. It doesn't matter that I'm not "friends" with my friend Joe on Venmo if I don't need to send him money.
Is there really that much interest in paying friends electronically? I have just never had much reason for paying friends or accepting payment from them.
Seems like this is more about paying strangers, including possibly retailers.
Seems like this might impose on Clinkle quite a bit? Who is going to download clinkle when they can do the same thing from snapchat?
Seems neat to me, and pretty unexpected. One scary thing is just how bad a lot of passwords are for mobile applications. I'm sure it is even easier to brute force passwords on mobile and send a snapcash to yourself
I was surprised to come here and see all the positives for Venmo. I have zero interest in a payment service that is going to hold my money until I request a cash out. Here in the midwest, I've been able to convince suburban parents to use Square Cash via the email cc feature. It's about as painless as it can get, particularly when they still send checks around to each other all the time.
I'm interested to see if people start using this over venmo. Everyone already has snapchat, so the only thing users have to do now is put in their credit/debit card.
Square loses something like 25 cents per Square Cash transaction [1], and now they want more transactions? I wonder if Snapchat is paying those fees, and if so how they think they're going to make that money back from their users.
Yeah, it's odd. Competitors like Venmo rely on not putting the money directly into the recipients bank account until they cash out. So they can make a little interest money off that directly, and more importantly, any transactions that come off of someone's balance are free since they are just moving money around inside their computers.
> "After you enter your debit card, it’s securely stored by Square, who will swiftly process your payment and send cash directly to your friend’s bank account."
That first comma makes that sentence so hard to read..
Maybe I'm crazy (and admittedly a little old) but I like the separation of my social and financial software "zones". I know there are tremendous reasons to incorporate this directly into a social product but I just can't shake that feeling.
Am I alone in this or does everyone here on HN embrace this with arms wide open for actual use (vs experimenting or playing around with new products)?
I don't think people who desire this separation are the target audience of this update. It seems to be a pretty solid business move for both parties. Snapchat has a feature that is (at least in my experience) commonly used between friends just like their app is, and Square continues to build it's user base and trust as a mobile payment system. Win-win.
I've been using square cash for a while and I've been quite pleased with it. Now, assuming I can use square cash to send money to people with Snapcash, it'll be even easier to convince others to adopt this payment method, making it even more useful.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want my online banking in Snapchat. But sending money to friends is a very different action - it's inherently public, for one.
Public? It is a private transaction between two parties. This is why I don't understand Venmo's interface that tells me about transactions that I'm not involved in. I always set my payments to private, admittedly it does make for an interesting feed to browse for those who transact publicly.
Plenty of people will feel the same way, but I suspect the proportion is much lower among people under 25. Pretty soon people will probably use software that integrates social and finanicial so often they won't even think of it as anything special.
I think their long term objective is to make it in a separate app. Snapchat doesn't have any logs (it's against its principles) and you would want to have some kind of logs if you're sending money. But launch a product through your already successful product and make it something apart when it gets traction.
I think the primary challenge is convincing users that it's secure. Snapchat has a relatively poor reputation in security (whether that's deserved or not), and everyone I know just uses Venmo. Venmo has Facebook integration, so if you're Facebook friends, it's really easy to send money.
It seems like integrating into a platform that's supposed to be ethereal is a weird fit, but who knows -- maybe it'll catch on.
Most of these users never used Paypal so if one of their friends tells them they can send money over Snapchat they probably won't think two seconds about it.
They also aren't currently sending each other money. I hate to be a naysayer to what I think is a pretty cool product, but Snapchat's terrible security reputation is well-deserved. But also this isn't very much differentiated from sending money with Gmail, Square, etc.
I think the point is that they ARE sending eachother money, just in less efficient ways. Looking at how people use snapchat it isn't as much about ephemeral as it is about speed. It's much easier to send a picture to someone in snapchat as the flow is better, and it doesn't leave a stupid photo on your phone (and on several cloud backups) that you didn;t want to stick around forever (e.g. check out this awesome car, you don't need a copy of that)
I thought this move was awesome. In my 17-25 year old life my friends and I were constantly owing eachother money for random things. If someone could pay me back right there for no charge that would have been my dream. We debated building an app for it at one point, just to tally who owes who what. It was a big enough issue I carried an excel doc but not enough to go out and search a standalone app for it. If the function is easily integrated into an app I use for something similar, however, I feel like I may pick it up.
Also teenagers aren't using gmail or square, etc. now so if snapchat can take them over before university they have a better chance of winning, imo. I do believe this is a market to be won going forward, at least in that 17-25 demographic (also why bitcoin got me excited, no fees for small transactions is a REQUIREMENT for person to person payments).
> and it doesn't leave a stupid photo on your phone (and on several cloud backups) that you didn;t want to stick around forever (e.g. check out this awesome car, you don't need a copy of that)
You should probably research Snapchat's history and behaviors.
the OP's argument sounds more like one of convenience though -- I don't really care if there's a cached copy of my awesome car picture somewhere.. I just don't want to see it in my main photo app.
I assume any "no fees" clause means that they're not taking fees at this time. It doesn't mean "no fees anywhere in the system". So there very likely is a 3% fee to the user, just not from snapchat.
Even if the users of snapchat were particularly concerned with the security of this feature, they alleviated that concern in the post by stating that all of the financial security will be handled by Square which is building it's reputation of security in mobile payments.
Fair, but even without the information of who/what Square is beforehand, you can look them up. I'd be more likely to trust them than Snapchat simply because they've been around and have multiple payment solutions out already. And even if you can't be motivated to do a few quick searches, you could likely make some assumptions that snapchat didn't pick up some random company off the street to handle their finances.
I'd like to see a venn diagram of Snapchat users, people who actually know who Square are, and people who don't trust snapchat's security. I'm willing to bet that people who wouldn't trust snapchat would also know enough about security to have heard of, and (possibly) trust Square.
almost every major internet company has security issues nowadays. In my opinion, they should be judged on what the ultimate consequences to the users ended up being.
50% of snapchat users are under 18 [1]. which this video seems to clearly target (production style is fun, quirky, light hearted, even the actors are young). Yet they require a debit card and the use to be 18+. I guess they are hoping their young users stick with it for a few more years.
In fairness, the other 50% of Snapchat users is quite a large number of people.
I'm assuming their VC-backers are hoping to see traction without waiting for the underage half of the user base to grow up, and are really hoping it doesn't become the fun, friction-free and ephemeral way for that demographic to send their friends funds from their parents' bank account.
I actually thought the video was a bit too old for their primary users. The whole glitz and glam of a over produced Vegas style show probably doesn't connect well with 18 year olds. They also had a large abacus, do 18 year olds even know what an abacus is?
....Because that's not possible today with current technology?
edit: I seriously don't understand how you immediately jump to that being the new functionality when sending payments today is as simple as logging into paypal or any numerous other payments sites.... Not to mention the age requirement of 18? This comment is just fear mongering.
Setting up a PayPal account and setting up an age-locked account that requires an associated bank account (in the form of a debit card) appears to be more effort on the SnapChat payments side, at least to me. The only reason for this fear (which really should be associated with any social media micro-payments system) being touted here is because of the reputation of SnapChat as an app for sending nude pictures. The same exact concerns exist in other places and have been dealt with by a large number of companies at this point.
My point was any company that deals with a large amount of user submitted media will eventually end up having to have an abuse team that monitors user submissions for illegal activity. I don't see how the Snapchat's situation is unique from the problem of identifying illegal material, other than the fact that there is now a monetary way of receiving payment (which has existed and still exists today). In fact, Snapchat could even attempt to claim less liability if the material is never stored on their servers, compared to a file sharing or image hosting site that actually contains the illegal material. In this sense, they would only be liable if they knowingly allowed this trade to take place on their network, similar to an ISP, in my view.
...Not that anything is wrong with exchanging nudes for money.
But I do expect some scrutiny due to the oh-so-popular puritanism Americans hold in public life towards sex (both democrats and republicans) yet largely ignore in private.
Yeah, except there is no proof that there is any exchange of goods taking place in the overwhelming majority of these.
Do you think teenage girls and boys are really going to start selling their nudes? Just on a shallow examination of this possibility, it seems exceedingly unlikely to ever be a problem on a scale larger than a handful of cases. The social aspects of trying to sell "nude" pictures of yourself would be utterly taboo. The only market would be for people that you don't know, yet then the risk increases dramatically. There are already 100s of sites where they can do exactly this (pretending to be 18), yet its not happening, at least on the scale that the fear represents.
This happens already today not only with Snapchat, as well as on the multitude of cam services out there. (The taboo you mention makes the problem worse, as it can quickly escalate to blackmail.) Is it likely to get worse with integrated payments? I would guess yes.
I didn't say there'd be an epidemic of underage people selling nude selfies. I said I think this is going to get interesting. By that I meant that there will likely be some overlap between the child porn stuff and the new payments system.
If you think the age requirement is even remotely effective, you're fooling yourself.
I'm not suggesting that it will be frequently misused -- but even one mishap could seriously harm their business. Law enforcement takes child pornography more seriously than just about any other offense, and money on the table makes it even more serious.
Its age requirement + debit card. I think that is a fairly effective blocker. At the very least, it'll almost completely stop any chance of children under 15-16 from joining the program and sending/receiving money. There will always be chances of abuse with any platform that allows sharing. I just don't understand how this announcement is anymore scary than other social media adding into social payments, except for the typical stereotype of Snapchat only being used for nude pictures.
If you are speaking about adults selling pictures of abused children back and forth, this'll be no different (even less secure) than current technologies that pedophiles use to avoid detection.
> Its age requirement + debit card. I think that is a fairly effective blocker. At the very least, it'll almost completely stop any chance of children under 15-16 from joining the program and sending/receiving money.
Can under-16s not get debit cards in the US? I know they can get them here in the UK, I got one when I was 14, IIRC.
An anecdote: at least when I was growing up, I didn't notice anyone under 18 with a debit card; most people used cash for purchases or borrowed credit cards from their parents when they wanted to go shopping on the weekend.
That said, I don't know if there are regulations here in the US concerning debit card age requirements, but from a cursory glance of a few US banks, it looks like children under 18 are allowed to get a checking account (and hence, a debit card) provided that they get a joint account with their parents. Perhaps the policy is different for teenagers who wish to separate finances from their parents for whatever reasons, but those are edge cases.
Yep, I got a debit card when I was about 13. I distinctly remember going to the bank with my mom to open a checking account, and explaining to the teller that I needed a debit card because I wanted to sign up for an account with this new company called Paypal.
I believe you need the account to be co-owned by a parent until you are 16. I know that when I was under 14 with a paper route and needed a checking account (early 2000's), I needed my mother to be on the account as well. While that doesn't prevent shit in terms of underage users here, at least parents who know and watch out for this can check and know that their kid is using it.
How old are you geezers? Do any of you actually use Snapchat/know people who use it? If you did you would know that nobody actually uses it to send nudes because if people get nude photos they would actually like to keep them because surprise surprise - there isn't much you can get done in 10 seconds. The whole sexting thing is a load of drivel concocted by the media because like any good story, it strikes fear into the heart of middle america.
The actual reason it got popular, which a lot of other people in this thread have mentioned as well, is because it was much faster than MMS because the photos were low quality(and at the time I don't think Apple had introduced iMessage), and the photos didn't stick around on your phone after they'd been sent, so it was perfect for sending silly/mundane things that don't need to be preserved.
I use a lot of different methods to send money to friends. Venmo is by far the easiest, but I still commonly have to ask people to sign up for Venmo.
Snapchat has tons of users. If this is just a new feature built-in, it's pretty easy to tell someone to link their debit card vs. signing up for Venmo and linking their bank account. Plus, the ability to send friends money w/ a picture attachment is kind of fun I guess.
I have been a long time user of Venmo and have tried to get a number of my friends on it but most of my friends consider entering their routing/account numbers (if they even know what those are...) into an app and waiting a couple days too much work. They even consider Square Cash too much of a hassle but I can see all of those same friends using Snapcash without issue. I consider Venmo to be the best in this space currently (But come on! Allow using debit cards to receive money already!) and I don't mind the 1-3 day delay in cashing out but I will still enter my debit card in snapchat cause at the end of the day I'm going to use the service that allows me to pay and get paid by the highest number of friends.
I never found that to be an issue getting friends to sign up for Venmo. You don't need to enter any info to accept cash. It was getting them to realize this was cash and not some magic points (because they dont know what venmo is). Snapchat should kill it here because people already understand and trust (for the most part) Snapchat and this is just a new feature - not an entirely new service to learn.
Recently I have been taking the approach of "I sent you $15 for XYZ on Venmo if you want it you need to signup" because it's one of the few ways I can get them to do it. I hate to hold their money hostage like that but if I don't there isn't a great way for me to give them money other than paying for them up to what I owe them the next time we hang out (which I am bound to forget).
I agree, I feel like Snapchat/cash will kill in this space due to ease of use.
Whats that old jwz quote: "Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can."
I think there is a corollary too, though I cannot attribute it: "Every social media site attempts to expand until it becomes a bank. Those companies which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can."
Ah yes, I definitely want this company with a super-insecure app to handle my money. If they fix Snapchat's API vulnerabilities (from 2013!) maybe I'd consider it.
Square uses the CVC number on the back of the card as a pin for this currently. It's not the most secure way to handle it imo, but it does stop the general user from picking up a phone and stealing all their money from snapchat (if this feature carries over to snapcash).
Even if you've posted a skeptical comment, do you doubt that one day sending money in a chat app will be totally normal?
When it's there it could be the foundation of hundreds of new business models and applications, and the reason a few household names went the way of Myspace...
206 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 260 ms ] threadThat's a pretty fair fight.
I would expect similar functionality in other messaging apps soon.
Seems like this is more about paying strangers, including possibly retailers.
"For now, Snapcash is available to Snapchatters in the United States who have a debit card and are 18 or older."
Seems neat to me, and pretty unexpected. One scary thing is just how bad a lot of passwords are for mobile applications. I'm sure it is even easier to brute force passwords on mobile and send a snapcash to yourself
—"I'd like to, uh… "pay with clinkle."
—"Excuse me?"
—"Uh, pay with… clinkle?"
—"Do you need the key to the restroom?"
—"Pay… with… clinkle"
Let me stop you right there...
However, this same group of people uses Snapchat as well.
[1] http://qz.com/248572/squares-search-for-a-viable-business-mo...
That first comma makes that sentence so hard to read..
Am I alone in this or does everyone here on HN embrace this with arms wide open for actual use (vs experimenting or playing around with new products)?
I've been using square cash for a while and I've been quite pleased with it. Now, assuming I can use square cash to send money to people with Snapcash, it'll be even easier to convince others to adopt this payment method, making it even more useful.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want my online banking in Snapchat. But sending money to friends is a very different action - it's inherently public, for one.
It seems like integrating into a platform that's supposed to be ethereal is a weird fit, but who knows -- maybe it'll catch on.
I thought this move was awesome. In my 17-25 year old life my friends and I were constantly owing eachother money for random things. If someone could pay me back right there for no charge that would have been my dream. We debated building an app for it at one point, just to tally who owes who what. It was a big enough issue I carried an excel doc but not enough to go out and search a standalone app for it. If the function is easily integrated into an app I use for something similar, however, I feel like I may pick it up.
Also teenagers aren't using gmail or square, etc. now so if snapchat can take them over before university they have a better chance of winning, imo. I do believe this is a market to be won going forward, at least in that 17-25 demographic (also why bitcoin got me excited, no fees for small transactions is a REQUIREMENT for person to person payments).
You should probably research Snapchat's history and behaviors.
Lucky for Snapchat their users and potential investors don't care about security in the slightest.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/the-snappening-is-not-your-faul...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/27/snapchat-ignored-secu...
http://gibsonsec.org/snapchat/index.html
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/04/dasher-teams-up-with-venmo-...
At least Dasher has a solid team behind it (former director of mobile at Gilt et al). Not sure how I feel about Snapchat given their security record.
Signed, Paym user
[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/315398/snapchat-user-age-...
I'm assuming their VC-backers are hoping to see traction without waiting for the underage half of the user base to grow up, and are really hoping it doesn't become the fun, friction-free and ephemeral way for that demographic to send their friends funds from their parents' bank account.
edit: I seriously don't understand how you immediately jump to that being the new functionality when sending payments today is as simple as logging into paypal or any numerous other payments sites.... Not to mention the age requirement of 18? This comment is just fear mongering.
I can, however, see someone asking for cash through the very same app that they're using to send nude pictures.
I agree with the GP, this is gonna get interesting.
Can you identify a similar set of circumstances where this has been successful for more than a brief period?
But I do expect some scrutiny due to the oh-so-popular puritanism Americans hold in public life towards sex (both democrats and republicans) yet largely ignore in private.
Do you think teenage girls and boys are really going to start selling their nudes? Just on a shallow examination of this possibility, it seems exceedingly unlikely to ever be a problem on a scale larger than a handful of cases. The social aspects of trying to sell "nude" pictures of yourself would be utterly taboo. The only market would be for people that you don't know, yet then the risk increases dramatically. There are already 100s of sites where they can do exactly this (pretending to be 18), yet its not happening, at least on the scale that the fear represents.
All it takes is a "handful" (or less) when child porn is the subject. I wouldn't go anywhere near money transactions given the risks.
I'm not suggesting that it will be frequently misused -- but even one mishap could seriously harm their business. Law enforcement takes child pornography more seriously than just about any other offense, and money on the table makes it even more serious.
If you are speaking about adults selling pictures of abused children back and forth, this'll be no different (even less secure) than current technologies that pedophiles use to avoid detection.
Can under-16s not get debit cards in the US? I know they can get them here in the UK, I got one when I was 14, IIRC.
That said, I don't know if there are regulations here in the US concerning debit card age requirements, but from a cursory glance of a few US banks, it looks like children under 18 are allowed to get a checking account (and hence, a debit card) provided that they get a joint account with their parents. Perhaps the policy is different for teenagers who wish to separate finances from their parents for whatever reasons, but those are edge cases.
The actual reason it got popular, which a lot of other people in this thread have mentioned as well, is because it was much faster than MMS because the photos were low quality(and at the time I don't think Apple had introduced iMessage), and the photos didn't stick around on your phone after they'd been sent, so it was perfect for sending silly/mundane things that don't need to be preserved.
Snapchat has tons of users. If this is just a new feature built-in, it's pretty easy to tell someone to link their debit card vs. signing up for Venmo and linking their bank account. Plus, the ability to send friends money w/ a picture attachment is kind of fun I guess.
I agree, I feel like Snapchat/cash will kill in this space due to ease of use.
Capital.
I think there is a corollary too, though I cannot attribute it: "Every social media site attempts to expand until it becomes a bank. Those companies which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can."
Then they discover how much support effort goes into stopping, or untangling frauds, scams, and robberies.
Otherwise anybody could steal money from you as long as they can get into your phone and open snapchat.
Just like the countless comments here, years ago, expecting Twitter to die because it won't make money.
When it's there it could be the foundation of hundreds of new business models and applications, and the reason a few household names went the way of Myspace...