69 karma · joined January 9, 2018
This is particularly saddening for me because I remember back in 2011/12 (around that time) I desperately wanted an Iphone so that I could do one thing - download Snapchat. I wanted a totally new/expensive phone to do one single thing - use Snapchat. Sure I was 19, and it was slightly known as the sexting app but man oh man, there was this sort of aura of mystery surrounding it. It was literally the "coolest" app in my peer group (hell, in my age group at the time). It was soooo difficult to search for people, so you had to know their user before you could add them. It was as if the app was so public (sharing pictures that could be screenshot), yet so private (you tended to only add people you knew, and the porn accounts).
It's slightly funny to watch Evan Speigel still think that he knows whats best for Snapchat (e.g., the UI changes, monetization). He makes his changes now and tells the users to shutup and deal with it (bad idea). Now that I'm older, everyone I know still uses the app, but not nearly as much, and it's not nearly as "cool" or fun. It seems to be just another app on our phones now - not "the" app.
But in some ways I understand Snapchat's changes. Those servers, engineers, creatives, and yellow bikes cost money. You can't pay for an office lease in Venice Beach with "cool" points. However, with that said, I do think Snapchat went overboard with the monetization efforts. They followed in the footsteps of Google, Facebook, etc - not knowing that they were so much cooler and so much more fun than anyone else. And in trying to monetize, they ruined the experience, and thus the app. The "scale" thing [gives Reid Hoffman a side eye] doesn't always have to apply to everything. Sometimes just having an amazing app that does what it does is ok - the partnerships, click bait, and "publishers" be damned.
RIP Snapchat. The only app I've ever bought a brand new to device for.
I definitely think we will look back on my generation (Generation Y) as the guinea pigs for this whole "connected social world" thing. So far it's been too much, too fast, and we have done an abysmal job handling it.
> "EDIT: just checked. Downvote was mine. Sorry for this comment claiming I didn't."
XD (slightly funny to read those sequentially)
Well there it is. You couldn't have an objective discussion about this, even if you wanted to. You (and your family) have already gone through the process. So of course you're extremely hopeful/optimistic that this works out with no problems ;)
> "maximize shareholder value"
> "utilizing its assets to their full revenue potential."
That's quite literally all that needs to be said here. How people fail to see the downside(s) to a large, multi-national, for-profit, shareholder-value-maximizing corporation, having access to (quite literally) their most sensitive information is simply beyond me. What do people expect GSK to say? "We plan to immediately redistribute this data to generate revenue - oh, and we do plan to do some research as well." GSK is not a charity. They do not run on merit, or "doing good things". They run on making - money. Any revenues from any type of wonder drugs developed via this 23&M partnership will be so far down the line (years, if they even come up with any winners). So in the mean time you can bet that they plan to get their ROI from this _investment_ via some type less than morally reputable activity.
This idea is complete bologna in my opinion. People aren't trying to fight the existence of ads (e.g., movie trailers, magazines, sports ads on ESPN, maybe even the off native ad) -- people are fighting the invasive, predatory, and downright deceitful nature of the current online advertising model.
> "As a consumer, I would much prefer ads that are carefully tailed to my interests"
Don't we all want this? But when getting ads tailored to my interest comes with the price tag of having these exchanges/platforms follow me around for the rest of my internet life (or until I delete their cookies) -- the cost doesn't seem to be worth the benefit (to many, but obviously not all)
> "As a business owner, I would much rather pay $10-12 per click on one of my ads that is highly targeted to demographics, income,"
Of course. You've just exposed your vested interest in this topic. So it's not surprising that your personal opinion aligns with your business interests.
>>> first = {"a": 1}
>>> second = {"b": 2}
>>> merged = {**x, **y}
>>> print(merged)
{"a": 1, "b": 2}- Regular blog.twitter.com/engineering reader
Exactly. Unless the business model is built around collecting and reselling user data, then (without anymore context) it sounds like this should be a (slight) refactor, not an entire redesign.
But if I was a little less technically adept, I'd go with Wordpress[2]
[1] http://flask.pocoo.org/ [2] https://codex.wordpress.org/New_To_WordPress_-_Where_to_Star...