Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamnemecek | Hacker News Reader

They have captured an important segment of the market (12-2x years olds). I also think that people In this age group find it a ton more engaging than the alternatives.

View on HN

FB really made it when the captured the old people. The issue is the the 12-20 years are quite mercurial. 15 years ago it was AIM,MSN, Yahoo chat, then myspace, then facebook. Now its snap chat and instagram. Its hard to keep the market since when you get friend request from Mom or Dad do you really want to be in that social network anymore?

I don't think 12-20 year olds are that mercurial, it's just a small age range, so in 8 years it will be an entirely new group of people. Fifteen years is nearly two full lengths of that duration, so it's no wonder that AIM/MSN/Yahoo aren't in use by the current 12-20 year olds. It's only very recently that I (a 29 year old) finally phased out AIM in favor of other channels. Once you capture a social group, it's fairly stable, there's just a constant stream of new social groups as each year's new 12-20 year olds start going online.

That's the very definition of mercurial. In 8 years it'll be a new cohort with new tastes.

The 12-20 demographic is mercurial, but 12-20 year olds are not.

Though really my point was this: it isn't the case that you need to continually re-grab the same users, it is the case that there are continually new users to grab.

If the old users leave, then yes, there are continually new users to regrab.

> The issue is the the 12-20 years are quite mercurial.

I don't think we are mercurial but that we have less experience and therefore are much more willing to try new things. Snapchat is way better as an outlet to post more regular things you are doing to your friends because it is ephemeral.

Why? Because we all look back and see all the stupid stuff we posted when we were younger. The only reason I haven't deleted my facebook to delete all of that old stuff is because Facebook's other offerings are pretty good. While I hardly know anyone that posts regularly to facebook anymore, almost everyone uses facebook messenger and groups to communicate in isolated groups.

Snapchat has been blowing up because it fills that niche of "I want to post more updates about my life without really having to worry about how those updates will be interpreted in the future".

I hope you don't believe that. You never know when someone saved something.

Have you never made a joke before that some random person might not like and get offended by it and try and attack you for it? Have you never said something that you have looked back upon and regretted saying it (whether you were just young and immature or just not thinking clearly)?

Do you also not do those things over common communication channels outside of talking face to face?

I'm genuinely curious because I literally don't know anyone under 30 that has never done anything that they did not want recorded in history forever.

It's not that I have posted anything on facebook/instagram/snapchat... that is really that bad/embarrassing. If it were all posted on the front page of the NYT I would probably go through life just as normally (albeit, quite a bit embarrassed by it). I would just prefer to minimize that risk.

That's where snapchat fills the niche. It allows me to speak more freely with others with less fear that everything I say and do will be pulled up years later completely out of context.

Sure, but what precisely are they planning to spend $4B on?

My 2 cents, with no inside information:

1) They're losing a ton of money. They barely have any revenue, and have over 1,000 employees, many of which are high paid engineers. They also have large technical overhead costs. My guess is they want to sock away 3-4 years of cash since they don't want to go back to the market too often.

2) M&A. Perhaps they buy some technology companies. Or Twitter? Or who knows?

3) They may be cashing out certain earlier investors.

When companies IPO, they have to release a significant amount of equity no matter what.

> They barely have any revenue

At this second? Sure, but they're project for pretty explosive growth (~ $1 billion in 2017):

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Snapchat-Ad-Revenues-Reach...

Snapchat buy Twitter!? They might need more than 4b$

Not at the rate Twitter is headed downwards. :-) Also, it could be a combo of cash and equity.

Considering Snapchat revealed Spectacles, which in my mind was an unexpected hardware development, they could use funding for side projects and expansion. Hopefully, they don't become like Twitter and waste all that money for so little gain.

I'm pretty sure that they will write these off evetually. To me they feel very similar to Google glass insofar the customer bases being somewhat similar, maybe spectacles' being somewhat younger.

Google Glass and Spectacles are not even close to the same customer base. Google glass was a luxury beta product for techies with lots of disposable income. Spectacles are targeted towards 15-25yr olds. Google Glass users wanted to use the "future" of technology where as spectacles users want to Snap and share more.

I'm surprised their hasn't been nearly the same adverse reaction to spectacles as there was to glass. Maybe we haven't seen it yet as they haven't been released, but people hated the potential of Google Glass sharing pictures and videos of people without them knowing. Maybe we've changed as a culture enough in these few years.

Good observations. The difference with Spectacles is playfulness and fun: kids goofing off for the camera on a beach vs normcore cyborg narrating on a bluetooth headset.

A potential weakness of Spectacles as a product is that it augments only non-selfie, "extraverted" photography. So it doesn't engage the selfie obsessed side of the userbase as much as the phone-based AR filters do.

I haven't been a fan of Snapchat, but now I'm curious to see how users react to this product.

But do the majority of 15 - 25 Snapchat users have $130 to spend on these? I'm asking because I don't know. Also sunglasses seem to get forgotten/lost somewhat regularly no?

Designer sunglasses can easily cost more than $130 and some 15-25 year old people do find the money to spend on them.

So the real question is more has Snapchat and its functionality built enough of a cachet to be valued as highly as something like a Ray Ban.

I do wonder about whether people will find the video-recording-and-sharing aspect creepy. It might help a bit that people don't associate Snapchat as "instantly on the web forever" compared to other services. We'll see.

IMO, Google glasses were an obtrusive form of eyewear with limited AR capabilities—with a price tag of $1500. Spectacles are $130.

You are right they are quite a bit cheaper but they are just as obtrusive. I think that glasses (esp. dioptric) are fundamentally a part of your identity and I think that most people fundamentally hate associating themselves with a company not to come across as a 'fanboys'. Like wearing the snapchat glasses projects a certain type of persona which I think most people might prefer not to project.

I think that they should be marketed as "cool glasses (that also record video)" as opposed to "video recording glasses". "Video recording glasses" are a gimmick, "cool glasses (that also record video)" could be timeless.

My initial impression upon seeing the spectacles was that they had two cameras. They don't, but the impression points to a key design choice that was, IMHO, fatally absent from Google glass: attempted symmetry.

I think that people will be more likely to wear the spectacles for this reason--they can actually pass for a pair of somewhat ostentatious sunglasses to an unknowing observer because of their near-symmetry, vs. Google glass, the mere shape of which screamed "BORG!"

Have you heard of Raybans?

The merger of fashion and technology is possible, considering the existing fanboyism of some products and design of smart watches.

Building a war chest to purchase the next company or act quickly. You need to have the cash on hand, and that can't happen overnight. They need not spend the money today.

That's typically a bad reason to give to an investor.

They don't have to spend it. Just having that warchest is of great consequence.

Is it that important? That age group isn't known for it's disposable income.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com