21–30 of 50 posts
Snaps speed? How about you actually use the camera on android phones?? snapchat doesn't even USE the camera on Android phones. Instead, it takes a screenshot of the screen, resulting ina terrible quality. It's really embarrassing that they're still doing this for a company this big...
Plus what with people not being able to zoom in, what's the problem?
Snaps speed? How about you actually use the camera on android phones?? snapchat doesn't even USE the camera on Android phones. Instead, it takes a screenshot of the screen, resulting ina terrible quality. It's really embarrassing that they're still doing this for a company this big...
Wait, can you explain this to me?
Snaps speed? How about you actually use the camera on android phones?? snapchat doesn't even USE the camera on Android phones. Instead, it takes a screenshot of the screen, resulting ina terrible quality. It's really embarrassing that they're still doing this for a company this big...
I'm pretty sure I can answer that question (because using a camera as a camera gets you a better picture, because some other phones that will view your photo will have higher resolution, etc), but I do appreciate a clever hack. I'd love to know the actual reasoning behind this. Maybe there was some weird permissions issue between displaying what the camera sees and "taking photos" that affected some users at some point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, can you explain this to me?
Snapchat "takes a picture" by just grabbing a frame from the viewfinder instead of, you know, using the proper API. This could have made sense back when Android imaging situation was more of a mess, but the current API obviates the need for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat "takes a picture" by just grabbing a frame from the viewfinder instead of, you know, using the proper API. This could have made sense back when Android imaging situation was more of a mess, but the current API obviates the need for this.
It's likely just a case of "it it ain't broken, there's no budget"
Snaps speed? How about you actually use the camera on android phones?? snapchat doesn't even USE the camera on Android phones. Instead, it takes a screenshot of the screen, resulting ina terrible quality. It's really embarrassing that they're still doing this for a company this big...
On the one hand, this seems objectively bonkers, but on the other hand, I can kind of see how it'd make sense. If everybody using Snap uses a phone, and all the phones have more or less similar resolutions, and Snap doesn't allow any sort of zooming, then really the pixels on the original screen are exactly what you need, so why bother taking a new, different picture? I'm pretty sure I can answer that question (becau…
My bet is on that it's simply faster to take a screenshot of the viewfinder of the camera than using the camera to take a photo. Open up the camera already has some delay, taking photos introduces more delay before you get the actual bytes to do the processing. Taking a screenshot tends to be instant though, so in order to take photos the fastest, you can take a screenshot of the viewport.
Although this wouldn't work for videos, which I'm sure they are using the actual camera to do, instead of taking ~25/30 screenshots per second.
I know its not the case, but when HTTP2 was being developed it felt like they were only thinking about users with strong wifi and zero packet loss. My company had a number of reps at the W3C, whenever I raised concerns with them I was told that I was being an old sysadmin, and that tcp doesn't work the way I think it does. They were convinced that multiplexing down a single TCP pipe was better than having a pool of connections.
They were also convinced that the average size of webpages wasn't going to grow, despite lots of evidence to the contrary.
I'm still not entirely convinced that quic is the way forward either. However I haven't spent enough time looking at it to form a proper opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand Snapchat has more daily active users than Twitter and also a user base growing much faster.
wow that's surprising, and it looks like its a by a good amount of people. I feel like snapchat is thought of as a dying company and twitter seems to be known by everyone. Though I get the feeling most people don't think twitter is a place for them to participate in, them being regular people.
Given they are a $100B dollar company, they are far from 'dying'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, can you explain this to me?
Snapchat "takes a picture" by just grabbing a frame from the viewfinder instead of, you know, using the proper API. This could have made sense back when Android imaging situation was more of a mess, but the current API obviates the need for this.
That said they should have just implemented both solutions and let the user pick.