Instagram daily use surpasses Snapchat | Hacker News Reader

Instagram daily use surpasses Snapchat

techcrunch.com

186 pointsrahulshiv97 comments

What do people think about "minutes per day" as a metric for success?

I think it represents a fundamental misalignment of goals between users and the company. By this metric, the more of your waking life that can be taken, the better.

"Time on site/in app" is a strong indicator of revenue per user for apps that monetize through ads, and a fairly well correlated to time spent across all active users.

I think advertising is a misalignment of goals between user and company, full stop. And if time on site is a way to realize more revenue from advertising, the creators of the platform will engineer ways of increasing time on site, and the further down the brain stem they can get with this objective, the more success they'll find, and they'll spend less effort retaining that.

Large ad-supported online networks do this on a scientific level, and it's hard for engaged users to break free. I quit Facebook on January 1 and there are still multiple times per day that I open a browser tab when bored or frustrated and type 'f' thinking I'll go to Facebook. They're in my brain stem.

Really, anything that is used as a means to improve revenue by exposing users to more ads is misaligned with the users' goals.

"Let's demand technology that serves us, not advertising."

http://www.timewellspent.io/

>"Time on site/in app" is a strong indicator of revenue per user for apps that monetize through ads

Why don't they just report revenue per user though?

The more time users spend in the app, the more ad impressions they can make, the more money they make. That's where the buck stops.

Reminds me of this article by Dustin Curtis: https://dcurt.is/facebooks-predicament

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.

If Google intentionally slowed its search results by 10%, would people not spend more time on the site? Perhaps even to the tune of 10%? But would people suddenly love Google 10% more?

As a more explicit example, Facebook used to allow you to type a friend's name into the search bar on desktop, and a card would come down (with other possible people too you could select/down-arrow to) so when you hit enter you would go straight to that friend's page. Now, all search queries take you to a search page, where you can then click on your friend's name. That extra page load and click multiplied a few times a day probably keeps me on Facebook an extra minute or so every day, which I'm sure was used during the feature testing to justify its greatness. Instead, it noticeably and nearly daily negatively impacts my life.

Just a small reaction to your premise that slower search results would lead to more time spent on site:

> https://doi.org/10.1145/2600428.2609627

> Impact of Response Latency on User Behavior in Web Search

> Query response latency. :

> In [18], the authors exposed a commercial search engine’s users to response time delays of varying magnitude and observed the impact of different levels of delay on users’ long-term search behavior. They observed that the users who were exposed to higher time delays issued fewer queries than they usually do. Interestingly, the effects were shown to be persistent in the long-term even after the response latency had returned to the original levels.

I think that to increase user time on their website, search providers do well to try and improve search result latency.

Thanks, in the back of my mind I thought this might not be the best example, as I vaguely remembered reading a similar study from Facebook where slowing their users pages down resulted in less time spent on the site. I think the second example holds more clearly, though, and the general point that keeping users on your site longer doesn't mean you're actually adding additional value to their life.

Anecdotally speaking, lots of applications intentionally slow down the user interactions as part of their UI.

Page / tab transitions and unnecessary animations are very in vogue.

Also consider the "pagination" model, Amazon and Google still use pages for their search results when they could do infinite scrolling a bit faster.

I'm convinced that Facebook's algorithmic newsfeed is deliberately filled with things they know I'm not interested in because the time it takes me to scroll past them increases "engagement".

EDIT: And creates more ad slots, obviously

Like how milk is always in the entrance-opposite corner of the grocery store

And also likely uses psychological techniques to keep you checking as much as possible e.g. behaviorism.

Liking and use aren't necessarily correlated unless two things have the same purpose, and even then, not always. For example, I love Venmo but may only use it a few times a week.

Snapchat and Instagram share some of the same purposes, but most use them for very different things. This article is Facebook trying to say "Look we beat Snapchat at another thing!" in order to leverage their network effect power. What likely happened is they optimized their app to do exactly this with the goal of this press release (and ad revenue as well likely). None of this actually speaks to the app experience of either inherently.

Despite both having app use times over 30 minutes, the reasons for each are entirely different. Instagram is because you are scrolling on a feed. Snapchat is because you're messaging people or taking pictures to send.

See "Hooked" by Nir Eyal which is all about how to get people addicted to your product. Hence time glued to app metrics.

Related/more recent: "Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked" by Adam Alter back in March | https://amzn.com/dp/B01HNJIK70

As mentioned here: The relationship between social media use and well-being | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14082130

Well, I guess we have different a different understanding of addiction. Building a great habit-forming app (what Hooked is about) is slightly different than selling crack-cocaine.

I would argue one is morally acceptable (building the app) and the other isn't (selling crack-cocaine).

When thousands of very intelligent and highly motivated people dedicate their lives to creating applications that exploit human cognitive and social systems for advertising money, it's something to be concerned about.

Attention is a zero sum resource, and humans can be manipulated into spending their time in ways that are not in their best interest.

Edit: Tristan Harris has written interestingly on this topic:

http://www.tristanharris.com/2016/05/how-technology-hijacks-...

I would argue that the app is morally ambiguous unless you know what habits it teaches the user.

What if it teaches users the habit of selling crack cocaine? (stupid example, but you get the point)

Actually you're right. I think that's a fair point. It probably needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

In that vein of thought, maybe OP had a point. Snapchat/Instagram seems to feed our narcissistic egos more than anything, so maybe it's not as morally inert as I had thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdynfVNbJ5E

PS: Despite being recorded "with a potato", to borrow the first comment, very relevant to basically all social media and moral good. And Bo Burnham is an amazing watch generally anyways, PSA. All of his specials are gold.

What do you think the pay-to-win mobile apps qualify as? Specifically, the games engineered as Skinner boxes?

> It's not like users are forced to use these applications.

Nowadays, everything in this line of business is designed to be addictive.

timewellspent.io

I loath that it's a thing. But in this context I'm not sure it's comparing apples to apples.

Comparison aside, I do think social media platforms have a negative net value to society due in no small part to optimising only for this kind of metric. Everything is designed to be addictive. We know addiction isn't healthy but it's cool because users can choose to not get addicted to this thing which is designed especially to take advantages of human weaknesses.

insta and snapchat aren't productivity apps, they're essentially time wasters. so yeah, minutes per day is a decent metric for success.

when Google Sheets starts bragging about their minutes per day metric then i'll start getting worried.

I'd argue that snapchat is much closer to a productivity app than instagram. Snapchat makes picture (and now regular) messaging faster and more fire&forget. Instagram is just other feed for the user to slog through.

Have you seen SnapChat stories? Its basically a daily feed of a persons snaps/ snap videos. I think its much closer to instagram "feed"

1) It's TechCrunch, so when you say "people", your talking about tech journalists.

2) Minutes per day is highly correlative to the amount of inventory of ads that you can display to users. More time spent on platform = more money you can potentially extract. Given that time is limited, there is only a finite amount available to competing platforms, so it is actually an interesting metric to track (it combines both opportunity of TAM and individual revenue opportunity).

3) There's no misalignment when you don't pay for something you use. This should obvious to you or anyone else that uses free online services by now.

I'm not sure what you mean by point 3 -- it sounds like the reason for that misalignment, not the absence of one.

More ads to show to u. It is pretty reasonable metric to gauge your attention.

I think it should be combined with some type of valuation. Like minutes per day divided by the profit of the average user.

The whole point of Snapchat is that it's not about sitting down, taking a high quality photo, editing it, etc. It's a messaging app meant for quick replies. You send someone something and they reply back. That's fundamentally different from Instagram's model of user interaction. It's like comparing time spent in iMessage to time spent on YouTube: it doesn't make sense.

Nope.

Now the point of snapchat is to binge watch videos of other people.

Snapchat sells ads the same way the media company does. So their KPI is time spent, like how a broadcast company determines ad rates.

Their strategy is to detach the accountability of clicks or performance.

You spend six figures with Snap to impress your brands to the same demo (Gen Z) that used to tune in to MTV (Gen X) and Youtube (Gen Y).

As such, here Instagram is following suit. Vertical scrolling is just manual scrubbing.

according to snap execs, sure. according to their users, still messaging friends

> ... (Gen Z) ... (Gen X) ... (Gen Y) ...

Did we just run out of letters to describe generations?

Gen AA is coming soon.

You're looking at the wrong parts of Instagram. Instagram Stories and Direct Messaging (both of those = Snapchat minus discover) have really taken off. I think everyone I know has switched away from Snapchat. The main reason being that they were also already on Instagram and it now does what Snapchat does plus non-ephermeral photo sharing. Why be on both in that case?

Everyone you know at what age? Teenagers continue to use the two products for very distinct uses. Snapchat still has a ton of features (groupchats, geofences, geofilters (+ custom user-made ones), etc.) and is probably the #1 messaging app at most high schools. Instagram stories haven't caught on nearly as much (some people use them, but very differently from Snapchat stories - 1 high quality selfie/arts-y pic that fits the normal Instagram style every day vs. an actual "story" of their day). Asking why someone wouldn't use both is like asking why someone would use both Twitter and Facebook when Facebook can do everything Twitter can.

Anecdotal, but this was me. Once I realized that I can find and follow more interesting people on Instagram in comparison to Snapchat, I stopped using Snapchat altogether.

That's the point though. Instagram is fundamentally about following, Snapchat is fundamentally about talking to friends. Both let you escape that bubble obviously, but the two remain distinct. If you were using Snapchat mainly as a way to follow people, it's quite clear why you'd switch to Instagram. If you've been using it to communicate with friends, it's a whole lot harder to switch. Snapchat fills the gap of Facebook Messenger - primarily for talking to friends, but also features stories. I don't see anyone telling people to switch from Messenger to Instagram.

I agree that Snapchat and IG are two different use cases. And I find myself annoyed at the constant stream of tech journos pushing the narrative of "there can only be one!". Email and SMS coexist in the same way that Snapchat and IG could coexist. I use each of these apps daily and for different reasons. Snap is probably way overvaluated currently, but that is a separate problem in my mind.

Yeah, the HN narrative comes from the perspective of people who either don't use the app or have only used it lightly (both of which probably mean they aren't in SNAP's target audience). Showing a venn diagram of features with most of them on Instagram's side might convince a HN-er to use Instagram, but regular users don't seem to care in my experience.

Posting on instagram won't take much longer than on snapchat, most of the time to arrange the picture will be spent in the camera app.

When it comes to viewing (which is where ad revenue is generated), both apps have similar customer behaviour.

People regularly send ~20 snaps in a minute. I highly doubt anyone uses Instagram to post/send something that often.

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.

Snapchat: Story introduced a new revenue source without affecting bottomline.

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).

Snapchat: People post whenever they feel like posting. Instagram: People post when they feel something is of very high quality.

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.

> 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.

> If autoplay means people watch more stories, then so be it. I don't understand what you're trying to say or suggest here. If anything, Snapchat should implement autoplay for themselves and see what happens. It's at least worth a test.

They did implement it and rolled it back. I think it has to do with use case. Instagram is very much like Facebook in that it is an addictive feed style. Snapchat is more selection.

> Re: Growth, The Market, Engagement

Last I checked, the biggest lever they have is ad revenue, and how quickly that grows. That is the road to profitability if there is one, isn't it? Their engagement is plenty for advertisers - I don't see a 3 min boost in engagement being reflecting in hoards of advertisers. That could even be reflective of a user experience that scares away more users and ends up being a net ad negative. Growth helps, but they have valuable users already. See below for more. As far as the market, with their IPO and stock terms, I'm not so sure they care much there. The founders and employees got their short term money, as did the company in general.

> Instagram's stories cover Snapchat's use case pretty well.

In my experience, they are completely different. It could be age related perhaps?

Instagram is a profile you curate of moments for you and others to look back on, a feed to follow people and fun accounts, and stories are mostly celebrities.

Snapchat is for a night out or other fun activities, messaging your close friends, and an app to pull out for fun when bored. At least yet, I don't know of any of my friends using Instagram in those ways, though as we know, Facebook has been trying nonstop to get into those with things like Facebook Direct, the Snapchat full clone in Messenger, etc. So far, the only thing that has stuck is stories, and it worked because it was much better for following celebrities and the like, not at the close personal level. The viewers and network effect is what gives IG stories such high user numbers. I doubt the creation rate is there from what I know of my friends. Again, maybe it's different for older demo's.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as numbers go, there are two things keeping Snapchat afloat as a company (forget the speculative stock price here):

1. They have a lot of users that Instagram doesn't. Advertisers love young people, and that's where they are.

2. Instagram/Facebook have yet to crack into the personal messaging aspect like Snapchat has.

I actually hate feed apps and don't use that part of Snapchat at all usually, and if I do, it's in the same way as trending news on Facebook (hey what's going on in the world real quick). I deleted my Instagram pretty quickly and opted for my own personal photo collection. Snapchat is something I use for my close friends - I mainly message about 10 people or less, and view stories of maybe 20. But I use it way more than Messenger, which is used for group chats and acquaintances who don't have my iMessage.

Even with the slow user growth rate, those users aren't going away (yet). Time will tell how that plays out in the future. But the moat that's keeping Snapchat alive right now is young users and close personal communication. If those two pieces go elsewhere, I don't see them surviving. I also don't see those going to anything IG/Facebook/Messenger has put out yet.

> Advertisers love young people, and that's where they are.

Not necessarily. Advertisers love people who are young and have money. So 20-35 is much more valuable than 12-16. Not sure where the average age for Snapchat users is, but I can imagine that they have a higher share of users who are too young to generate revenue for advertisers.

Unrelated to that it's just because advertisers are slow to catch up. Generally, advertising is most profitable where the most money is. And that is with older people. Successful online marketing to 60+yrs is much more profitable than to 20-25yr olds.

Their S1 says their largest age group is users aged 18-24, beating out what I would assume is 13-18.

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2017/04/03/snapc...

The above shows the split of users over 18, but isn't helpful is showing how many are age 13-17 and the proportions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/326452/snapchat-age-grou...

According to this, 80% of users are over 18, with over 50% falling into that 18-34 block.

Why would Snap not want to grow the number of users?

Do you think running a social media app which is multimedia heavy for developing countries give you profit?

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.

If you see this thread, you are the only one defending Snap and you yourself have uninstalled Instagram. I personally used both for a while and now I have pretty much stopped using Snapchat in favor of Instagram.

Sure Snapchat is still the more known of the two when it comes to sending photos directly but that's not where money is made. Money is made in stories by having sponsored stories and ads inserted between the stories of the people you follow. Instagram is getting more of this so they can show more ads and make more money. Also, the advertisers you seem to be so sure of being on Snapchat will move their money to Instagram once they know that Instagram has more users and more eyes. Also teenagers don't make any money to spend on things after watching the ads. So I am not sure if that's a positive in favor of Snapchat.

If five people are telling they think this is looking good for Instagram which you have already uninstalled, may be its time to look back at your opinions. But who am I to tell, I don't have any horse in this race. I do own some $FB but not enough to think about this one way or the other.

Please post your demography, age, what your social network looks like. We can discuss from there why you're using instagram instead of snapchat :)

Teenagers don't have money but they have drive purchasing decisions within a family.

"once they know that Instagram has more users and more eyes" >> Advertisers just don't look at raw numbers. They advertise over a target audience. US, age, gender, mobile phone users: 18-24. Snapchat got a generation of users which facebook/instagram is not able to get. FB and instagram is using their demographics which is not at all important to manipulate snapchat stock price.

If advertisers are paying more money just for some random views, then ad industry has some serious issues and it's not called effective advertising.

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-...

Spain qualifies as a poor country? Damn...

The amazing part of Spain being a poor country is that all Arab countries combined have a lower GDP than Spain.

The Bay Area has a larger GDP than the country of Mexico.

> The amazing part of Spain being a poor country is that all Arab countries combined have a lower GDP than Spain.

That's not true.

Spain: $1.23 trillion

Saudi Arabia: $639b, UAE: $371b, Egypt: $332b

Those three combined are larger than Spain's economy.

Then you also have Iraq: $167b, Algeria: $160b Qatar: $156b, Morocco: $103b, Sudan $94b, etc.

Where are you getting those numbers? Bay Area: $758.5B, Mexico $1,046B

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area#Economy https://tradingeconomics.com/mexico/gdp

Snap's target market's unemployment rate is somewhere around 40% in Spain.

I'm in Spain, and I know a lot of local Snapchat users. Not sure what he's on about.

He has denied that allegation.

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/app-for-all-says-snapchat-aft...

You can think of it as Apple vs. Microsoft. You can have every desktop in the world and not make as much cash as Apple.

Except Snapchat is not making real money and less prospects to do so by the day

https://stratechery.com/2017/snaps-apple-strategy/

>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.

Not sure when the last time you used Snapchat was, but this is definitely not true anymore. Stories do autoplay and will continue on to the next person on your friends list.

Fun fact: this is one of the common Snapchat "hidden features", you can select all and auto play by tapping the "circle of triangles" stories icon in the stories screen. If you check stories fairly often it's a great feature.

This isn't exactly surprising. Snapchat is a messaging application, and Instagram is a messaging and picture sharing platform. Obviously users would spend more time browsing images on Insagram than just shooting off some messages to friends in Snapchat.

True, but I doubt Snapchat the company is fine with being "just a messaging application" that unsurprisingly gets used less per day than a key competitor.

Snapchat does have Discover, with "snap stories" from news sites and even stuff they curate themselves.

https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/article/discover-how-to

> with "snap stories" from news sites and even stuff they curate themselves.

That has to be even more depressing if Instagram users are still using the IG app more with the effort SNAP is putting into the content.

The problem is that Snapchat Discover is totally bollocks. I'm a mid-20's guy and 90% of the content I see in it is either about the Kardashians or stuff like '10 things you totally hate about your bra'. There is absolutely zero targeting of that content and unfortunately it's not even neutral 'everyone will like this' content. It's 90% for teenage girls.

Difficult to target when you have no user data and your app fundamental can't integrate it in. They're counting on SnapMaps to be their savior in terms of advertising data.

I see Discover turning into a fix of local discovery options and general nationally curated stories

FB are the best at creating and controlling the narrative. Since the start. They'll push out numbers that always favor them.

when you own all market share it's not hard to "push out numbers" that are favorable.

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.

>>> 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.

I'll be concerned about $SNAP when Instagram is used in lieu of texting.

I wonder how Snapchat's messaging metrics compare to Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp - if I had to guess, both easily squash Snapchat.

Probably very highly dependent on which age group. Pre-teens/teens? Snapchat. 20's? Messenger. 30+? Messenger and WhatsApp.

An app with a decent UX surpasses a shitty one with dreadful UX - who would've thought?

Yeah - I think everyone here just ignores how dreadful the Snapchat app is on Android phones. It's so dreadful that even non-techy users which usually don't care about app quality jumped ship from Snapchat to Instagram. A lot of iPhone users followed because that's where the content is now.

Even on iPhone it's dreadful now. I miss the first few versions of Snapchat when it launched. An UI that at least kinda made sense, no stories nor "discover" garbage, and the list of everyone's top 3 "best friends" was cool.

Dreadful UX was Snapchat's selling point from the beginning, though. Kids love it because the olds can't figure it out.

To be honest their UI used to be nice when they launched, and that hasn't prevented kids for liking it. They made it worse later on for no benefit, and eventually got taken over by Instagram.

I really can't get over how poor I find Snapchat's UI/UX to be, and I don't _think_ it's because I'm old. But I second-guess it.

I believe this is part of their strategy, it requires somebody else who already uses the app to teach you. This keeps the platform exclusive to tech-savvy youth instead of being infested by old people and falling out of favor with those groups like Facebook did.

I think this is part of why most people end up leaving. Instagram is more interesting to check and its ui is significantly better.

Snapchat is very easy and intuitive to use. I'll never understand people saying they can't use the app. Also every US college student right now uses Snapchat for all communication. FB should be scared

Hidden information is the definition of unintuitive. "Easy once you get the hang of it" is the definition of unintuitive.

Snapchat has six main screens: home, west, north, south, east, and east-east. There is no indication that this is true, it has to be (randomly) discovered or taught. That it is easy to swipe left or right, or to remember that the up screen is your profile, has nothing to do with whether or not something is intuitive. Intuitive would be this being obvious.

Touching an app icon to open it is intuitive and easy. Force-touching a keyboard display to open up a cursor slider is easy, but not intuitive.

i feel old (in 30s) when i have problem to distinguish these two services, do I remember correctly that Instagram is just some photo albums for food (not sure what's difference from Google photos) and Snapchat is some chat with stickers for teenagers?

I don't use Twitter, Facebook or pretty much any social media (besides Reddit and HN) and I don't feel like i am missing on something.

At first glance I thought snap had more users than Instagram and that surprised me a lot. If it’s just the amount time users are using the app, I don’t know it should be that surprising if Instagram cloned snap’s feature. Unfortunately for Snap FB has a lot bigger pockets than them and so it’s unlikely they will ever relent.

> What happens, for example, if we recreate the structure of the brain on a computer by interacting silicon chips where you had interacting neurons? Would it be missing anything that’s missing in the mind? I’d like to think that a computer could be conscious. I don't think consciousness is reducible to a pattern of interactions in the brain, but I do think that if one reproduces that pattern of interactions in fine enough detail, one will reproduce consciousness.

Perfectly said. Consciousness is not reducible to a pattern of interaction in the brain because it's a system of brain+world that creates consciousness. The brain learns from the world first, only later it is capable of independent imagination and thinking. A brain never connected to the world would not be conscious. An AI connected to the world (or a simulation) could be conscious of the world it exists in, and of its own existence there.

I do not understand the hype about Snapchat... Doesn't IG do everything and more?

Now, yes. Snapchat was first to market (between the two) with expiring photos and stories.

> If Facebook’s goal was stop Snap in its tracks, it’s largely succeeded with Instagram Stories. Snapchat’s monthly active user growth rate has plummeted from 17.2% per quarter to just 5%...

Does HN think that these two events are even related?

From my experience, the content I get via Instagram Stories is mostly from people I don't know but follow whereas Snapchat is still where most of the interactions with my friends happens. The products have similar features but the audience, especially being public-facing, is totally different in my experience.

there's more ass on instagram, that's why. snapchat needs ass

No shit, Sherlock!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com