snapchat
by Ben Basche
通過本·巴什
「Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it.」 — Bane
「哦，您認為黑暗是您的盟友？ 您只是領養了黑暗，我就在其中誕生，被它塑造而成。」 —貝恩
It’s tempting to think of Snapchat as a part of the app revolution, as one of the shining examples of mobile-first design that has defined our smartphone age.
將Snapchat視為應用革命的一部分是很誘人的，它是定義我們的智慧型手機時代的移動優先設計的光輝榜樣之一。
This is of course true to an extent, but seeing Snapchat take its place at a consistent #1 or 2 in the US App Store alongside Facebook and Google’s main properties (and the other flavors of the week) somewhat obscures what is actually going on here.
這在一定程度上當然是正確的，但是看到Snapchat在美國App Store中排在第一名或第二名的位置，與Facebook和Google的主要資產(以及本周的其他風味)並列，在某種程度上掩蓋了實際情況。
Snapchat is not mobile-first, and it’s not really an app anymore. Nor is it a meta-app platform at this point like Facebook Messenger is angling to become (at least not yet). Snapchat is a true creature of mobile, a living, breathing embodiment of everything that our camera-enabled, networked pocket computer can possibly offer. And in its cooption of smartphones into a true social operating system, we see the inklings of what is beyond mobile.
Snapchat不是移動優先的，它不再是真正的應用程式。 目前還不是一個元應用程式平臺，就像Facebook Messenger正在努力成為(至少現在還沒有)。 Snapchat是行動裝置的真正造物，它是我們帶攝像頭的聯網掌上電腦可能提供的一切的生動體現。 在將智慧型手機納入真正的社交作業系統的過程中，我們看到了移動以外的東西的含義。
When I open Snapchat up to the camera, I can’t shake the feeling that the ghost is banging on the glass, trying to break out into the world.
當我打開Snapchat進入相機時，我無法撼動幽靈在玻璃上撞擊，試圖闖入世界的感覺。
As we come up on year 8 of of the app economy, it’s absolutely remarkable to think about just how far we』ve come. Mobile has completely reshaped old industries, created new ones, and turned the entire computing world on its head.
當我們進入應用經濟第八年的時候，思考我們已經走了多遠絕對是非凡的。 移動已經完全重塑了舊行業，創造了新行業，並使整個計算世界處於領先地位。
Companies from all sectors have met their end (or become shells of their former selves) for failing to think 「mobile-first」 — a term coined by Luke Wroblewski that has defined the age as much as 「lean」 and 「design-thinking.」 Most consumer-facing and many B2B verticals are being driven by companies that have designed or adapted their customer experiences to fit a smartphone dominated world.
各行各業的公司都因為未能考慮「移動優先」而走到了盡頭(或者變成了以前的自我的外殼)， 這是Luke Wroblewski創造的一個術語 ，定義了「精益」和「設計思維」的時代。 」 大多數面向消費者和許多B2B垂直行業都受到設計或調整其客戶體驗以適應智慧型手機主導世界的公司的推動。
And yet — like all great waves in technology — the ground shifts beneath the feet of even those who have aligned themselves around the dominant ethos.
但是，就像所有技術浪潮一樣，即使在那些支配主導風氣的人的腳下，地面也會轉移。
Peter Wagner and Martin Giles astutely wrote about these very rumblings last year in 「Mobile First, But What’s Next?」 They coined the term 「authentically mobile」 to distinguish services that not only are tailored for the mobile world, but who so thoroughly leverage the unique capabilities of mobile devices that they could literally not exist without them.
彼得·華格納(Peter Wagner)和馬丁·吉爾斯(Martin Giles)去年在「移動優先，但下一步是什麼？」中巧妙地寫下了這些隆隆聲。 他們創造了「真正的移動」一詞，以區分不僅為移動世界量身定製的服務，而且還充分利用了行動裝置的獨特功能，以至於沒有它們就無法提供這些服務。
Where mobile-first companies take the new, portable form factor and riff on things that were more or less possible but limited in some way on the desktop, authentically mobile companies are truly creating experiences that would either be impossible or entirely meaningless without a networked supercomputer in our pockets.
移動優先公司採用新的可攜式形式並在桌面上或多或少地限制了某些事情，但真正意義上的移動公司正在真正創造體驗，而如果沒有網絡超級計算機，這些體驗將是不可能或完全沒有意義的在我們的口袋裡。
A classic example of authentically mobile would be Uber, which without a location-enabled computing device always on our person (on both sides of the 2-sided marketplace), would almost certainly not exist. Wagner and Giles』 table here summarizes the shift:
真正意義上的行動裝置的經典示例是Uber，幾乎沒有人會發現，如果不總是在我們個人(在兩面市場的兩側)上安裝支持位置的計算設備，就不會出現這種情況。 Wagner和Giles的表格總結了這一變化：
It’s clear that Snapchat is extremely well described by column #3 — particularly with regard to its emphasis on collection — and if there were a column #4, it would be straddling the line. The 「emphasis on collection」 couldn’t describe Snapchat — an app which famously defaults to its camera — any more perfectly. CEO Evan Spiegel recently characterized Snapchat as primarily 「a camera company.」
顯然，第3列對Snapchat的描述非常好-特別是在強調收藏方面-如果有第4列，它將跨界。 「強調收藏」無法更好地描述Snapchat(著名的默認應用是相機)Snapchat。 執行長埃文·斯皮格(Evan Spiegel) 最近將Snapchat歸類為「相機公司」。
No user-interface metaphor is as widely associated with the idea of 「mobile first」 design than the scrollable feed — whether it’s standard reverse chronology or algorithmically driven. One need only to observe people on public transit with their necks craned over their phones flicking up endlessly to feel just how pervasive feeds have become in our daily lives.
用戶界面隱喻與可滾動提要相比，「移動優先」設計的思想與之廣泛關聯，無論它是標準的逆向年代學還是算法驅動的。 人們只需要觀察一下公共運輸中的人們，他們的脖子就被吊在手機上，不斷地跳動起來，就可以感覺到我們的日常生活中飼料的普及程度。
Outside of the big social players, the feed is found in countless other mobile apps ranging from productivity to personal finance. But although the smartphone form factor suits the feed incredibly well — from the focused screen size to the portability that has allowed content consumption to consume all the idle moments of our lives — it wasn’t born on mobile.
除了大型社交網站之外，Feed還可以在無數其他行動應用程式中找到，從生產力到個人理財。 但是，儘管智慧型手機的外形尺寸非常適合飼料(從集中的屏幕尺寸到可移植性，這使內容消耗可以消耗我們一生的所有閒暇時光)， 但它並不是在行動裝置上誕生的 。
We began to see feeds everywhere towards the end of the desktop browser heyday, with the most important feed obviously being Facebook’s. In a way, Facebook made the browser wars irrelevant by essentially itself becoming the browser — the jumping off point for how we experienced the web. And despite intense skepticism from Wall Street, Facebook has been wildly successful in porting the News Feed over to mobile.
在全盛時期，桌面瀏覽器即將結束時，我們開始看到提要，最重要的提要顯然是Facebook的。 從某種意義上說，Facebook 本身就成為了瀏覽器，從而使瀏覽器之戰變得無關緊要，這是我們體驗網絡的起點。 儘管華爾街對此表示懷疑 ，但Facebook在將News Feed移植到行動裝置方面取得了巨大的成功。
Adam Gale has a nice summary of just how handsomely this mobile bet has paid off for Facebook:
亞當·蓋爾(Adam Gale)很好地總結了這一移動賭注為Facebook帶來了多大的回報：
Indeed, Facebook (which includes WhatsApp and Instagram) is essentially a mobile company. Revenues on the platform jumped 70% year on year in the first quarter of 2016 (to $4.4bn, out of $5.4bn total revenues), having grown 82% the previous quarter. Mobile income now represents 82% of the business.
實際上，Facebook(包括WhatsApp和Instagram) 本質上是一家移動公司。 該平臺的收入在2016年第一季度同比增長了70％(在總收入54億美元中達到了44億美元)，比上一季度增長了82％。 現在，移動收入佔業務的82％。
Just as Facebook was making this transition, and right when the iPhone’s camera gained the capability to take acceptable photos, a more pure, focused version of the Facebook News Feed emerged: Instagram. You post a few Instagram photos per week. Then you spend a lot of time scrolling through and looking at content, much like you would with the Facebook blue app. Instagram’s simple design, creative constraints and s̶u̶s̶p̶i̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶l̶y̶̶ consistently beautiful content make it a delightful mobile experience, and in many ways the crown jewel of Facebook’s attention empire.
就在Facebook進行這種過渡的同時，恰好在iPhone的攝像頭具備了拍攝可接受照片的能力時，出現了一個更加純淨，專注的Facebook News Feed：Instagram。 您每周發布幾張Instagram照片。 然後，您將花費大量時間瀏覽和查看內容，就像使用Facebook blue應用程式一樣。 Instagram簡單設計，創造性的局限性以及始終如一的精美內容使之成為令人愉悅的移動體驗，並在許多方面成為了Facebook關注帝國的皇冠上的明珠。
Instagram is the pinnacle of Wagner & Giles』 「emphasis on presentation」 hallmark of mobile-first. Instagram has long since eclipsed Facebook’s mindshare in the younger generation, and the acquisition has been hailed as one of the greatest in the history of technology. Facebook’s dominance over the feed metaphor is essentially complete and uncontested.
Instagram是Wagner＆Giles的「注重展示」移動優先的巔峰之作。 Instagram早在年輕一代就已經超越了Facebook的思維份額，並且這項收購被譽為技術史上最偉大的收購之一。 Facebook在feed隱喻上的主導地位基本上是完整且無爭議的。
But we are beginning to see some cracks appear in both Facebook and Instagram. Earlier this year (ironically?) the Twittersphere was abuzz over a report in Bloomberg about sinking original (i.e. user generated) sharing on Facebook in what the company refers to internally as 「context collapse.」
但是，我們開始看到Facebook和Instagram都出現了一些漏洞。 今年早些時候(具有諷刺意味的是)，Twittersphere 對於彭博社有關將原始(即用戶生成的)共享沉沒在Facebook上的報告感到震驚，該公司內部將其稱為「上下文崩潰」。
Anyone who has been on Facebook for long time probably didn’t need numbers to back up the general feeling that they and their friends weren’t posting big photo albums from the weekend’s events anymore, let alone sharing a cool song on someone else’s wall. VentureBeat reported around the same time that Instagram engagement had dropped a whopping 40% in 2015.
長期在Facebook上工作的任何人可能都不需要數字來支持他們和他們的朋友不再在周末活動中發布大型相冊的一般感覺，更不用說在別人的牆上分享一首很酷的歌曲了。 VentureBeat大約在同一時間報導稱 ，Instagram參與度在2015年下降了40％。
The Instagram numbers I take with a bit of a grain of salt as they don’t entirely pass the sniff test, but I think that while Instagram continues to grow (recently passed Twitter in a big way) and maintains a very privileged place in mediating our social hierarchies, people (especially young people) seem to be posting less frequently and are starting to spend their time elsewhere. It remains to be seen if Instagram’s algorithmic feed will fix this.
我對Instagram關注有些微，因為它們並沒有完全通過嗅覺測試，但是我認為，儘管Instagram繼續增長(最近通過Twitter取得了很大進步)，並且在調解方面保持著非常特權的地位在我們的社會階層中，人們(尤其是年輕人)似乎發布的頻率降低了，並且開始在其他地方度過時光。 Instagram算法提要能否解決此問題，還有待觀察。
To be sure, Facebook and Instagram are still part of people’s hourly (ok — every 15 minutes) routine of 「checking your phone,」 but I don’t think anyone can deny that their apparent evolution into more passive consumption experiences doesn’t raise a few red flags.
可以肯定的是，Facebook和Instagram仍是人們每小時(可以每15分鐘檢查一次)例行檢查「手機」的一部分，但我認為沒有人能否認他們向更被動的消費體驗的明顯轉變不會增加一些紅旗。
So what exactly is going on here? The numbers support the idea that Facebook and Instagram are wobbling a little in the US, and I think it’s reasonable to look at Snapchat’s continued explosive growth in users & engagement as one of the causes.
那麼，這到底是怎麼回事？ 這些數據支持Facebook和Instagram在美國出現一些波動的想法，我認為將Snapchat的用戶和參與度持續爆炸性增長視為原因之一是合理的。
But why exactly are the two scions of the feed and the lynchpins of a mobile-first empire seemingly struggling to drive people to share their lives? Perhaps the task of constantly manicuring a persistent online identity — of carefully considering what effect your digital exhaust will have on your ego — is beginning to weigh on people. Both Facebook and Instagram are supposed to be arenas for the best version of yourself, and with each post you are putting something out into the ether to be judged both now and forever.
但是，為什麼飼料的兩個接班人和流動優先的帝國的關鍵人物似乎在努力促使人們分享生活呢？ 也許不斷地維護一個持久的在線身份的任務-仔細考慮您的數字資產將對您的自我產生什麼影響-的任務正在開始給人們帶來壓力。 Facebook和Instagram都應該是自己最好的競技場，每發布一則帖子，您都會發現一些東西，無論現在還是將來，都要加以評判。
Mark Zuckerberg is famous for his extreme views on the singularity and persistence of our identity, going so far as to say that 「having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.」 Consuming the feed exacerbates some of our darker insecurities which, in turn, put a ton of pressure on our contributions to it.
馬克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)以他對我們身份的奇異性和持久性的極端見解而聞名，甚至說「自己擁有兩個身份就是缺乏誠信的一個例子」。 食用飼料會加劇我們一些較暗的不安全感，這反過來又給我們做出的貢獻帶來了巨大壓力。
As everyone with a mom who made the family stop for a picture at every turn while on vacation can attest to, the urge to photograph all of the best moments of our lives is nothing new, but social media has turned this up to a fever pitch such that if it’s not posted, a moment might as well have not happened.
每個人都有一個媽媽在度假時動不動就停下來拍照的人都可以證明，渴望拍攝我們一生中所有美好時光的渴望並不是什麼新鮮事，但是社交媒體卻把這變成了狂熱的推銷。這樣一來，如果未發布，那麼片刻可能也不會發生。
Before joining Snapchat as a researcher in 2013, Nathan Jurgenson wrote an essay called 「Pics and It Didn’t Happen」 that sheds some light on the chickens that are finally coming home to roost. He begins one of the most poignant sections here with a quote from Susan Sontag:
在2013年加入Snapchat擔任研究人員之前， 內森·於根森(Nathan Jurgenson)撰寫了一篇名為《 Pics and It Notn't Happen》的文章 ，為最終歸巢的雞提供了一些信息。 他從蘇珊·桑塔格(Susan Sontag)的名言開始，介紹了最令人髮指的部分之一：
As Susan Sontag wrote in On Photography,
正如Susan Sontag在《攝影》中寫道，
「there is something predatory in the act of taking a picture. To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.」
「拍照的行為有些掠奪性。 拍攝人物就是違反他們的想法，因為他們看到了他們從未見過的東西，了解了他們永遠無法擁有的東西； 它將人們變成可以象徵性擁有的物體。」
Sontag notes that this makes for a nostalgic gaze, an understanding of the world as primarily documentable. For those who live with status updates, check-ins, likes, retweets, and ubiquitous photography, such an understanding is near inescapable. Social media have invited users to adopt a sort of documentary vision, through which the present is always apprehended as a potential past. This is most triumphantly exemplified by Instagram’s faux-vintage filters.
桑塔格(Sontag)指出，這引起了懷舊的目光，將對世界的理解主要記錄在案。 對於那些了解狀態更新，籤到，喜歡，轉發和無處不在的攝影的人來說，這種理解幾乎是不可避免的。 社交媒體已邀請用戶採用一種文檔化的願景，通過該願景，人們總是將現在視為潛在的過去。 Instagram仿老式濾鏡最能說明這一點。
I don’t think it’s so much the simultaneous massaging and crushing of our egos that is weighing on the mobile-first giants of the feed. Snapchat Stories certainly have a component of performance and voyeurism that probably never goes away in social.
我認為，對我們的自負同時進行按摩和壓榨並沒有給飼料的移動優先巨頭帶來壓力。 Snapchat Stories當然具有性能和偷窺狂，在社交場合可能永遠不會消失。
Rather, as we drown in an over-abundance of content destined for archive that has lost its meaning, the immediacy and intimacy of those platforms like Snapchat and plain old messaging have given us an island of engagement with the present moment.
恰恰相反，當我們淹沒在準備用於存檔的過多內容中而失去了意義時，諸如Snapchat和普通的舊消息傳遞等平臺的即時性和親密性使我們對當前時刻充滿了孤島。
Jurgenson absolutely nails it when he says 「By being quick, the temporary photograph is a tiny protest against time.」 In contrast, the feeds are crushing in their insistence that we are constantly living to relive the past.
于爾根森(Jurgenson)說道：「通過快速，臨時照片是對時間的微小抗議。」 相反，這些提要卻壓制了我們堅持不懈地努力重溫過去。
Countless people have observed (and often lamented) Snapchat’s 「bad UX/UI」 according to generally accepted design practices on mobile. Where 「good design」 calls for feature discoverability, Snapchat does almost no hand holding for new users and buries features behind complex gestures and unintuitively placed screens. From pressing on Discover stories to compose a snap to share + markup the content, to double filters (hold the first down and then keep swiping through), Snapchat is at once one of the simplest apps of its stature in the world and one of the hardest to learn.
根據普遍接受的移動設計實踐，無數人已經觀察到(並常常感嘆)Snapchat的「不良UX / UI」。 在「好的設計」要求功能可發現性的地方，Snapchat幾乎沒有為新用戶提供幫助，並且將功能隱藏在複雜的手勢和不直觀的屏幕後面。 從按下「發現故事」以組成一個快照來共享內容並為其加標記，到將過濾器加倍(先按住不放，然後繼續滑動)，Snapchat立刻成為世界上最簡單的應用程式之一，也是其中之一最難學的。
Importantly though, it’s not really the UI that is the 「hard」 part about learning Snapchat (many have overstated the role of this feature bamboozling in keeping out 「the olds」). Rather, the ambiguity around what Snapchat 「is」 and 「what it’s for」 is primarily responsible for the incredulity of onlookers and the so-called steep learning curve.
但是重要的是，並不是真正的UI是學習Snapchat的「難」部分(很多人誇大了此功能在阻止「過時」中的作用)。 相反，關於「 Snapchat」是什麼和「它是什麼」的含糊不清主要是造成旁觀者的不確定性和所謂的陡峭學習曲線的原因。
Beyond the visual design practices that have defined the smartphone era, perhaps an even more overarching principle that has guided the critique of mobile apps has been the idea of a core 「problem」 to be solved, a single organizing principle around which users can rally. Reminiscent of the early days of Twitter, Snapchat has faced questions about what it’s core use case is, but unlike Twitter which has arguably been consumed by this dilemma, Snapchat has embraced the ambiguity and essentially responded with ?.
除了定義智慧型手機時代的視覺設計實踐之外，引導行動應用程式批判的一個甚至更重要的原則也許就是要解決的核心「問題」的思想，即用戶可以團結的單一組織原則。 讓人回想起Twitter的早期時代，Snapchat面臨著關於其核心用例是什麼的問題，但是與可以被這種困境所困擾的Twitter不同，Snapchat擁抱了歧義，並以？做出了回應。
Snapchat is very difficult to understand, even for those who use it regularly and think about it until their head hurts. The tangible reasons for its incredible success are numerous, overlapping and, at the end of the day, inadequate when compared to the actual feeling and experience of using it.
Snapchat很難理解，即使對於那些經常使用它並想到頭疼的人也是如此。 取得令人難以置信的成功的實在原因是眾多的，相互重疊的，而且到最後，與使用它的實際感覺和經驗相比，還不夠。
An interview Evan Spiegel gave to The Verge back in 2013 for the launch of Stories gives one of the best lenses (no pun intended) through which to understand what Snapchat is and what it was about to become. He said, describing the new feature:
埃文·斯皮格爾(Evan Spiegel)早在2013年就接受了The Stories 的採訪，採訪了埃文·斯皮格爾(Evan Spiegel )。 他說，描述了新功能：
When you have a minute in your day and are curious about what your friends are up to, you can jump into their experience. The last snap today will also be the beginning of tomorrow so there’s no pressure to compose a narrative. There’s this weird thing that happens when you contribute something to a static profile. You have to worry about how this new content fits in with your online persona that’s supposed to be you. It’s uncomfortable and unfortunate.
當您有一天的時間並且對朋友的工作感到好奇時，您可以加入他們的經驗。 今天的最後一刻也將是明天的開始，因此沒有壓力來撰寫敘述。 當您向靜態配置文件中添加內容時，會發生這種奇怪的事情。 您必須擔心此新內容如何適合您本來應該是您的在線角色。 這是不舒服和不幸的。
「Jumping into their experience,」 I think is probably the closest thing I』ve heard to a unified theory of what Snapchat is. It connotes an active give and take between friends (and more recently, influencers). It foreshadows the importance of the doodles, stickers and filters that have come to define much of Snapchat, which are more about giving us an excuse to share anything — profound or mundane — than posing for an eternal self portrait. It’s something that only really works when the capture and consumption device are the same, and where the output — vertical photos/videos — fully immerses you in each experience shared with you.
「跳入他們的經驗，」我認為這可能是我聽過的關於Snapchat是什麼的最統一理論。 它意味著朋友之間(以及最近的影響者)之間的積極奉獻。 它預示了塗鴉，貼紙和濾鏡的重要性，這些塗鴉，貼紙和濾鏡已經定義了Snapchat的大部分內容，它們更多的是為我們提供藉口來分享任何東西(深刻或平凡)，而不是擺出永恆的自畫像。 只有當捕獲和消費設備相同並且輸出(垂直的照片/視頻)完全使您沉浸在與您共享的每種體驗中時，這才真正起作用。
And like all real experiences, these shared 「jumpings」 are fleeting. We can put a different persona on (with face filters, now literally) each moment and be reborn the next. Snapchat itself feels like it’s constantly pulsing like one of those time lapse videos of cars and city lights. We all go 「there」 when we get a peek into each other’s lives, but really there’s no there, there.
像所有實際經歷一樣，這些共享的「跳躍」正在轉瞬即逝。 我們可以在每時每刻都使用不同的角色( 現在使用面部濾鏡)，然後在下一刻重生。 Snapchat本身就像是汽車和城市燈光的延時錄像之一，一直在不斷跳動。 當我們窺視彼此的生活時，我們所有人都會進入「那裡」，但實際上那裡沒有那裡。
In this way, Snapchat the 「place」 is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The 「app」 lives as much in our own mind and habits— the latent potential of any moment to be instantly shared, experienced together, and forgotten — as it does on Snapchat’s servers. Rather than looking at the inherent ephemerality of life as a bug like some of its competitors, Snapchat sees it unequivocally as a feature. Without this impermanence, Snapchat would feel like surveillance. Instead, it feels more like teleportation — somehow allowing us to be together when we’re apart.
通過這種方式，Snapchat的「地方」無處不在。 「應用程式」與我們在Snapchat的伺服器上一樣，生活在我們自己的思想和習慣中，即隨時可以共享，一起體驗和忘記的任何潛在潛能。 Snapchat沒有像其他競爭對手那樣將生活的內在短暫性視為錯誤，而是將其明確地視為功能。 沒有這種無常性，Snapchat就會感覺像是監視。 取而代之的是，它感覺更像是隱形傳訊-某種程度上使我們彼此分開時可以在一起。
It’s no surprise that even as Snapchat remains a fraction of Facebook’s size, it has nearly caught the blue giant in terms of photos shared daily. Ben Thompson had a great piece where he posited that tech markets all seem to have a 「phonebook」 and a 「phone」 — the phonebook being the grand directory of both people and content, and the phone as the go-to place for actively connecting with the most important people in our lives. In the US, he stated the obvious: Facebook is the phonebook, and Snapchat is increasingly becoming the phone.
毫無疑問，即使Snapchat仍然只是Facebook的一小部分，但就每日共享的照片而言，它幾乎已經吸引了這家藍色巨人。 本·湯普森(Ben Thompson)有一篇很棒的文章 ，他認為技術市場似乎都有一個「電話簿」和「電話」，電話簿既是人和內容的大目錄，又是電話，是人們積極聯繫的必經之地與我們生命中最重要的人在一起。 他說在美國很明顯：Facebook是電話簿，Snapchat越來越成為電話。
This might appear to be a stable stalemate, but I pose the question in light of Facebook’s frantic attempts to get Messenger to catch on in the US: how long can the phonebook live without the phone? Much like Facebook became the browser on the desktop and took its momentum into the mobile-first world, I think we should expect authentically mobile Snapchat to parlay its takeover of the phone into whatever comes next.
這似乎是一個穩定的僵局，但鑑於Facebook瘋狂地試圖使Messenger在美國流行的問題，我提出了這個問題：沒有電話，電話簿能活多久？ 就像Facebook的成為桌面上的瀏覽器，並把它的聲勢推向移動世界第一，我認為我們應該期待真正的移動Snapchat到大洲其手機的收購到任何隨之而來的。
Update 6/30: Two interesting new stories I felt I should include here as an addendum
更新6/30：我覺得我應該在此處作為附錄編入兩個有趣的新故事
翻譯自: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/ghost-in-the-machine-snapchat-isnt-mobile-first-it-s-something-else-entirely-4f6c265152a2/
snapchat