Snapchat's Evan Spiegel: Saying no to $3B, and feeling lucky
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
This is pretty much explains the behavior of "The One Percent" and mega-corps.
I hope all of snapchat's employees are equally as rich. Otherwise they just lost out on a huge, life-altering windfall due to some kind insane arrogance. Or I'm very wrong, FB comes back with a bigger offer and Spiegel takes it. I mean, it's just a screenshot/video sharing app with a little twist. A twist that can be undone by a software-update making it impossible to prevent the device from saving it. Did you know Android-KitKat comes with ScreenRecording? I wonder how snapchat deals with that.
EDIT: Ives's answer about SecureContent flag sounds good. Now I wonder about the future Custom ROMs...
Worst part is that everyone's feeling awkwardly trapped. I even feel bad complaining - damn golden handcuffs.
Snapchat is not unique. In fact, there are far bigger and more popular messaging apps around the world. They just dont get the attention that SnapChat does because it happens to be in California and in the US. http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/10/18/best-mobile-messaging-...
(P.S. You might consider posting this kind of stuff anonymously, as it took me less than 5mins to figure out who you are in real life... if that's a concern for you.)
That's how I see it being used anyway. It's not being used with the expectation that there is literally no chance of the image being saved anywhere.
Evan grew up rich and has family money to fall back on if he fails, so perhaps he can afford to gamble for a bigger payday. The problem is that he is gambling with the financial futures of his investors and employees as well. In my opinion, a bet that Snapchat will ever be valued at more than $3 billion is a long shot, and there is a greater-than-zero chance that the company will be worth nothing two years from now.
Steve Jobs said that to Drew Huston about Dropbox. I think Steve believed it, too.
History will show whether Snapchat is a feature or a product, because they'll either fail or succeed. But if even Steve Jobs was bad at assessing early-stage tech companies, then we outsiders probably shouldn't make categorical judgments like "Snapchat isn't a product."
I use Dropbox because it works. I tried iCloud, and hit multiple points of frustration and failure. Whereas Dropbox let me transition seamlessly from Windows to OS X.
In fact, this is how most successful software companies get their start - right? They begin with very narrow product - a single feature, even. If their hypothesis proves correct, they will grow pretty rapidly in usage and in offerings.
Not that I disagree about Snapchat's possibly ephemeral value, but dismissing it is a bit premature. I doubt many would say Dropbox isn't a business anymore because interesting or compelling things have a tendency of creating their own destiny.
Think about it as the natural counterpart to Steve Jobs' biography and other such pieces making myths out of SV entrepreneurship.
/takes-off 3D printed tin foil hat
The note, accompanied by a plea for a new BMW 535i
Has anyone been able to find out what he studied while at Stanford?
That said, understanding that he came from an extremely privileged background does make it slightly easier to understand how he could be sufficiently detached from the money to turn down the multi-billion-dollar offers he's received.
Even though the article paints him as a thoroughly detestable character, I like the fact that Facebook - which started as an equally trivial app - is scared of his company. It's not like Zuckerberg wasn't privileged too.
Are they hitting at an IPO? Bluffing? Do they have billion dollar revenue stream lining up? What is their deal?