The piece I chose to comment on is “Why Facebook Would Pay $3 Billion for Snapchat (And Why It Shouldn’t)” written by Ryan Tate and published on Wired.com.
The major claim of this article is that Facebook should not buy Snapchat and the author supports this claim explicitly by stating, “SnapChat has no revenues, and its collection of users — however many there are — is puny when you consider that Facebook reaches over 1.2 billion people around the world.”
Ryan Tate concedes that photos fuel social networks and “Snapchat processes nearly as many photos every day as Facebook itself.” “In addition to helping Facebook corner the market on mobile photos, Snapchat is also popular with teens, a group with whom Facebook has struggled to connect.”
The author offers the rebuttal that, “Indeed, for teens, much of the value in Snapchat is precisely its distance from Facebook: If you’re friends with your parents and relatives on Facebook, you don’t want to share your most candid pictures there. Snapchat is a safe space away from the judgmental eyes on Facebook, which in turn makes it a potentially dangerous place, which in turn makes it fun.
The extent to which Snapchat can be integrated with Facebook is really the extent to which it can be ruined for many of its users. If Facebook tries to get billions of dollars in value out of Snapchat, it may well ruin the product in the process. Snapchat understands this dynamic better than anyone.”
No comments:
Post a Comment