21–30 of 99 posts
When I post to Snapchat, I used to get several dozen views from friends. Now I'm lucky if I get ten.
Snapchat just needs to allow you find and add friends more easily. That's what's holding them back.
Metrics exposed by instagram is a pure scam aka growth hacking by fb engineers as their comp is aligned towards that. Snapchat: Stories are not autoplay. You touch and see the story you're interested in and the view closes. You have to scroll and open another story. Instagram: Stories are autoplay. You click once and it's a slideshow. So you can assume metric here are orders of magnitude higher than what it should be…
Why would Snap not want to grow the number of users?
Sorry that's not true. Facebook generated revenue of ~25 million for 2016 in India. Supporting 100s of millions of users content for 25M dollars. I'm sorry this is a lossy business but good thing to keep increasing number of users to pump up the stock price and keep engineers motivated.
Snapchat won't go to countries like India, SE asia which are densely populated as it doesn't really make sense to them. 1. Poor app experience as users have cheap android phones in which fb app won't even work properly. 2. Hosting cost/Advertiser cost might not be great.
These two points make sure, investing in developing countries to get more users is nothing more of a Stock Play and a joke.
My celebrity and personal Snapchat stories have started dwindling. My stories are about 1/3-1/4 of what they were six months ago. When I post to Snapchat, I used to get several dozen views from friends. Now I'm lucky if I get ten. Snapchat just needs to allow you find and add friends more easily. That's what's holding them back.
Not really. There is a balance which needs to be achieved. I have around > 500 friends in Facebook/Instagram but i don't really care much about what he/she shared every day.
Having lots of people makes the social media experience better in first few years but not long-term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. It's not like users are forced to use these applications. If users like Instagram more than Snapchat, they're bound to use it longer (which the article seems to imply). Hence, the metric.
See "Hooked" by Nir Eyal which is all about how to get people addicted to your product. Hence time glued to app metrics.
I would argue one is morally acceptable (building the app) and the other isn't (selling crack-cocaine).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Snap not want to grow the number of users?
Apparently, Evan Spiegel has said they do not want to expand to poor countries like India and Spain. And he doesn't care so much about the Android version. http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel-only-...
Metrics exposed by instagram is a pure scam aka growth hacking by fb engineers as their comp is aligned towards that. Snapchat: Stories are not autoplay. You touch and see the story you're interested in and the view closes. You have to scroll and open another story. Instagram: Stories are autoplay. You click once and it's a slideshow. So you can assume metric here are orders of magnitude higher than what it should be…
If autoplay means people watch more stories, then so be it. I don't understand what you're trying to say or suggest here.
Also fun fact: Snapchat used to have auto-play before they redesigned their app.
> Instagram: Stories at the top of the app is a very bad user experience. If an users spends more time in story, he spends less time in scrolling instagram feed. (Nobody in Instagram wants to talk about that).
Classic example of HN hubris. You have no numbers but yet are so quick to make such a bold claim. Do you really think Instagram doesn't know what the feed engagement numbers are before and after adding stories at the top? Do you honestly in your heart believe that this number wasn't very closely tracked and tested over and over again with different designs, prototypes, and user research?
If so, I think that's an incredibly naive notion and anyone who's worked at one of these high growth consumer internet companies can attest to that.
> Snapchat: People post whenever they feel like posting. Instagram: People post when they feel something is of very high quality.
This isn't remotely true even from a pure eye-test perspective. Instagram's stories cover Snapchat's usecase pretty well.
I've been a user of both products and many of my friend groups use one of these products at least. I have a lot of personal experiences and industry knowledge to draw from but I prefer to talk numbers (which speak for themselves quite honestly).
> Snapchat: Doesn't want to grow the number of users as it doesn't matter to company's revenue. FB makes 75-80% of revenue with just it's 10-20% of users which snapchat already own.
This is just silly. Of course Snap wants to grow its userbase. Perhaps they're not concerned with growth rate in the near future but you can sure as hell bet that the market is closely watching. To believe otherwise is naive.
I mean just look at analyst expectation quarter over quarter for companies in a similar category (see: Twitter). The market wants to see consistent growth. Their whole value is predicated on growth and engagement. There are pretty simple levers that Snapchat can pull to grow its business and all of those levers fall under two categories: Growth and Engagement.
Just look at their massive Google Cloud deal to see if they care about growth or not. They pre-committed billions over the course of a couple of years for cloud services alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Snap not want to grow the number of users?
Apparently, Evan Spiegel has said they do not want to expand to poor countries like India and Spain. And he doesn't care so much about the Android version. http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel-only-...
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/app-for-all-says-snapchat-aft...