Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Software

Snapchat Petition Attracts One Million Signatures (bbc.com) 51

One million people have signed a petition calling on Snapchat to roll back its latest redesign. From a report: The changes were intended to separate interactions with friends from branded content -- including that of celebrities and influencers. Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel wrote in a blog post that he believed blurring the two had contributed to the rise of fake news. However, thousands of Snapchat users say that the new layout is hard to use. Nic Rumsey, who set up the petition, wrote that some are using Virtual Private Network (VPN) apps -- which use servers abroad to mask the location of a device -- in order to access the older version of the platform: "That's how annoying this update has become," he said. "Many 'new features' are useless or defeat the original purposes Snapchat has had for the past years." The petition, posted on the change.org website, is one of several appealing to Snapchat to revert to its previous state.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Snapchat Petition Attracts One Million Signatures

Comments Filter:
  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday February 15, 2018 @12:27PM (#56128842) Journal
    When you have a single implementation of a protocol, some people are always going to hate it. When you have an open protocol with multiple client implementations, you can choose the UI that you like. I wish organisations like the EFF and FSF would spend a bit more of their marketing budget educating the general public on this. If there's only one implementation, particularly if it's closed source, then you're at the whims of whoever is responsible for it.
    • by Octorian ( 14086 )

      Unfortunately, in the modern smartphone world, this is far easier said than done. Many products depend on back-end infrastructure integration that cannot be so easily opened up (e.g. push services, API tokens, etc.). Also, many products depend on expected behaviors of other apps using the product, and open implementations can easily violate these expectations (or be way behind in supporting any protocol changes).

    • When you have a single implementation of a protocol, some people are always going to hate it. When you have an open protocol with multiple client implementations, you can choose the UI that you like

      And then you get flame wars about which UI is best and added costs to handle them all plus a lot of reinventing the figurative wheel. There are drawbacks no matter what approach you use. I think in general I agree with you that the open protocol approach is better for most circumstances. Unfortunately it's not necessarily better for specific parties. For a circumstance like this I doubt Snapchat finds much profit in the protocol approach. Their house, their rules I guess.

      If there's only one implementation, particularly if it's closed source, then you're at the whims of whoever is responsible for it.

      Very true but in fairness not a

    • I completely agree with you - the web as we know it wouldn't exist if HTTP, SMTP, and TCP/IP were some vertical thing that only one company could produce.

      The problem is twofold: First off, protocols don't make anyone money. I sincerely doubt the teams who wrote SIP or SSH are millionaires, even though their protocols make the world go round. Even the altruistic folks willing to write such a protocol need to pay the bills.

      Second, making an open protocol and then trying to make money off a first party impleme

      • It's worth noting FB chat was originally just another XMPP (Jabber) server. Then they added a nonstandard feature or two, to encourage people to move to the FB interface for FB chat. Then they changed the underlying protocol once enough of their user based was on it so you cannot use any old Jabber client.

        Any protocol where a specific client takes over enough power (IE6 HTML in 1996, or Chrome HTML5 2018) can extend a protocol to lock out competitors. Even if the protocol doesn't technically allow extens

  • but but but (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How are the UX guys supposed to justify their jobs if they can't fuck up the interface every couple of weeks?
  • Is it like sending 35mm negatives through the mail?
  • Currently deployed, so my phone wont adopt the new version. I really wonder how bad this can be if so many people hate it. I'm still running the old version and getting updates regularly to it.

  • I resubbed to Hulu again on my Roku a while back and their new UI is almost unusable. Do the people that approve these new UI's even use their own services? There is no way that they do, or they would know they're taking a huge step backwards.

    Let's start with the basics, kids: An upgrade should offer an *improvement* in the user experience. Otherwise it's a downgrade.

    • I resubbed to Hulu again on my Roku a while back and their new UI is almost unusable. Do the people that approve these new UI's even use their own services? There is no way that they do, or they would know they're taking a huge step backwards.

      Let's start with the basics, kids: An upgrade should offer an *improvement* in the user experience. Otherwise it's a downgrade.

      I sure didn't approve of it; it was the reason I cancelled my subscription to them. That and the new interface didn't remember my favorites or where I was in the episodes when I did find them again.

    • by jetkust ( 596906 )
      I actually really like the new Hulu UI. I think it's the best UI out of them all. The older interface was more confusing. And I still hate the new Netflix "video always playing no matter what you do" UI. And Amazon's scatterbrained navigation UI isn't that great either.
    • Ugh, Hulu's interface change is even _worse_ than this one! It is order of magnitude more difficult to navigate in it now...I'm heavily considering canceling my account bc of it.

  • people always hate change right? even if it's positive... well not this time. the update actually isn't intuitive.

    the original goal was to make paid content separate from your friend's content, however they actually made it worse. If you go to the discover tab, you get one screen where both types are mixed together. If you tap on a friend's snap, it will switch next to a paid content's snaps.

    If you to to the chat tab, you do get only your friend's contents, but the sorting is erratic. if you have lots of co

    • people always hate change right? even if it's positive... well not this time. the update actually isn't intuitive.

      Well, I mean, to be fair, Snapchat's UI was never intuitive. There were no UI indicators as to whether to tap or swipe or hold, there are virtually no context menus, no 'back' buttons, and very little consistency for tasks in various swipe directions.

      The UX designers went for 'trendy minimalism' rather than allowing users with existing understanding of UI paradigms to leverage them. It's easily the worst UI I've worked with, and I configure Sonicwalls for a living.

      • by lgw ( 121541 )

        The UX designers went for 'trendy minimalism' rather than allowing users with existing understanding of UI paradigms to leverage them. It's easily the worst UI I've worked with, and I configure Sonicwalls for a living.

        Perhaps I'm assuming more intelligence than is warranted, but I just assumed the UX designers went for "parent proof", and succeeded. Kids use Snapchat specifically because their parents don't.

        • Perhaps I'm assuming more intelligence than is warranted, but I just assumed the UX designers went for "parent proof", and succeeded. Kids use Snapchat specifically because their parents don't.

          It's a possibility, but I think Snapchat is inherently more parent-proof because of its anti-retention functions. Trading naughty pics and pejorative comments is far easier if you can keep your phone away from the 'rents for 24 hours; can't get in trouble for what they can't find, and even if they do find it, it limits the fallout vs. a since-forever Whatsapp thread. Additionally, I'd assume that the majority of parents aren't going to want to spend time on a social network that requires constant checking i

  • by sqorbit ( 3387991 ) on Thursday February 15, 2018 @01:00PM (#56129034)
    1 million 14 yr old girls don't like change.
  • their complaint is that its hard to use? Its fucking snapshat hard to use is the primary feature.
  • Dear insufferably-stupid fuckwits whose obviously-stupid choices create the network effects that retard all progress and make everything worse for everyone,

    You all chose your app before your protocol. If you had chosen an open documented protocol and then chosen from the competing (and interoperable) implementations of that protocol, then you would have the UI that you want. You would be using an app that would be designed to serve you instead of whoever wrote it. You would not be locked in. You would be a

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      I'm sure it'd be really popular to tell everyone using snapchat "Just download and compile this app for Jabber and we can send links to pictures hosted on our private web servers!" Network matters.
  • As long as their customers are not complaining, why would they change? This is like cows complaing that the farmer has cold hands.

    • I do wish this simplistic "you're not the customer you're the product" meme would die. The cowscan't choose to leave, the app users can.

      On another note every update breaks someone's workflow. Insert xkcd.

  • How much thought does a person really put into responding on snapchat? Petitions on electronic media just don't have the same resonance, because you're likely to think about what you're signing a lot more if it is a real piece of paper.
  • Snapchat's entire premise is that images will vanish after a few seconds but that's not true anymore. It had other social things bolted onto that framework later and they always felt bolted on and crappy. Snapchat's app has always been a pain in the ass to use and every iteration made it worse than the last. I made the mistake of reinstalling the app briefly a couple of days ago and I couldn't believe how hard to use it had become. It may be the least intuitive and discoverable UI ever designed in the histo
  • There is no turning back.

    Face it. WE ARE SNAPCHAT, and this is the future.

    For those of you 14-year olds that want the old snapchat back, we will re-issue it, using the prior protocols, but we will not be using the snapchat name. Henceforth, if you wish to retain the old UI and previous functionality, simply install Snappy McSnapface and everything old is new again. Happy Snapping, says Snappy McSnapface.

  • Social apps want to grow in users all the time and they keep changing their product all the time to get more users, get them to spend more time or add more monetization options.
    The problem is that at some point your product is gonna be pretty good and adding more things usually makes it worse. The undelying problem is that the users are not the customers they're just the product and so what they want is a secondary concern.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller

Working...