who is "we"?
you are NOTHING.
51–60 of 129 posts
who is "we"?
you are NOTHING.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the day I stop using it. If I get a few second ad every 4 or 5 snaps then I won't continue my usage of the app. I understand that good things that require monetary value to continue operating at scale need to have a way to make money, but advertising should be a last-resort option. We haven't even seen for-pay snaps yet (more seconds, more options like random clip-art to add in, etc). Advertising kills the pro…
I'm on the opposite end there. I would never pay money for extra snap options. I'd much rather see ads if choosing between the two.
1.) Pay for SnapPro 2.) Sit through advertisements 3.) Let people who want to pay for SnapPro pay, while you don't because you don't want to pay for it. Therefore no ads, and Snapchat is making money.
Option 3 is the best for consumers. Option 3 is possible if the price-point dictates that enough people will pay for it to remain alive and well. Not everyone will pay. But when is that not always the case?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been there for a while? I know classmates who have been mortified when they find out that who they Snapchat with is public.
Today lots of posts on privacy... To those saying that if you have nothing to hide you should not have a problem with this, you are missing some points, and situations... For example, sometimes you do things that are controversial, but not necessarily wrong, or "sketchy", and you don't want the negative attention. For example, regarding the Verizon call list: What if people discover you have made lots of calls to KKK…
Not that I'm pro verizon, just that is a very poor example.
If you want to check out an alternative, our nCryptedCloud iOS has a secure camera that would encrypt the image (in memory) before it even gets to the device. Once encrypted, you manage access rights. You revoke access to anyone in the future that even if they have the image, without the privilege, the file is useless. You could also send a quick share (time-controlled SnapChat style) with anyone--pdf files too! It's…
Once you give someone the ability to see or hear something, there is no guaranteed way to take it back.
I say this because: "You revoke access to anyone in the future that even if they have the image, without the privilege, the file is useless"
I find Snapchat's charter fascinating. I say this as the author of a competing, and much less successful, product called Privy ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appidio.pr... ). I wrote Privy with a very simple use case in mind. It was for sending messages that you never want to resurface. Privacy, of course, was paramount. After reading a few interviews with the Snapchat guys, I was amused that the…
I do not know much about privy, but as a competitor - why do you feel snapchat was more successful?
If you want to check out an alternative, our nCryptedCloud iOS has a secure camera that would encrypt the image (in memory) before it even gets to the device. Once encrypted, you manage access rights. You revoke access to anyone in the future that even if they have the image, without the privilege, the file is useless. You could also send a quick share (time-controlled SnapChat style) with anyone--pdf files too! It's…
All seems very pointless when you can 1) Take a screenshot, or 2) take a photo of it. Once you give someone the ability to see or hear something, there is no guaranteed way to take it back. I say this because: "You revoke access to anyone in the future that even if they have the image, without the privilege, the file is useless"
In the same respect, you can't really stop people from taking screenshots or take a photo of... a photo. What we do is we put a watermark of the recipient in the image. This way, if that image get released anywhere, you knew who was the culprit and you can take further actions.
No box is ever impenetrable, then the next best thing is to know when, what, why, whom of the penetration. I hope that helps. It is a difficult problem to solve, however, we have to do something!
Thank you for your thoughts.
-V.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm on the opposite end there. I would never pay money for extra snap options. I'd much rather see ads if choosing between the two.
Those two aren't all the options though. 1.) Pay for SnapPro 2.) Sit through advertisements 3.) Let people who want to pay for SnapPro pay, while you don't because you don't want to pay for it. Therefore no ads, and Snapchat is making money. Option 3 is the best for consumers. Option 3 is possible if the price-point dictates that enough people will pay for it to remain alive and well. Not everyone will pay. But when…
If you are surprised a "free" service is collecting data, please lookup the word 'gullible' in the dictionary. Nothing is free kids.