Has anyone tried it out?
I have no interest in something like this. Although the mechanic seems like a clever way to keep people sharing, I can't imagine being bothered enough to unlock messages. Also, since you have to reply to unlock a message, by not doing so, you are sending another kind of message to the sender. It sounds like it could bind you in a world of drivel by the chains of social obligation.
"A picture is worth a thousand words." "A picture is worth another picture." "A picture is worth nothing."
Seems there is a trend with these social media companies to limit their products rather than provide everything. Twitter: character limit, Snapchat: limited time, Slingshot: give and take or nothing. The first two were successful, we will see about the third. I wonder what this says about our current culture, that we need artificial restraints to receive enjoyment.
Another ridiculously limiting app: http://www.vox.com/2014/6/18/5820948/9-questions-about-yo-you-were-embarrassed-to-ask 2) That's it? Yes.You establish a username. Then a friend who also uses Yo can select your username inside his app and you will receive a push notification reading: "Yo" and featuring audio of a voice stating "Yo."
Yo Yo insomniasexx what's your yo name. I have no friends on the app.
I don't have the app. I just cannot bring myself to download and use something this stupid. Do you actually have it?
There is something to be said about the things that can be created when limitations are imposed. There is a great documentary film called The Five Obstructions where two filmmakers, Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth, place insane limitations on the technical process in order to force creativity. The results are incredibly interesting. In terms of social media and apps, it's not about the creative process as much as it is about getting users to actually use these services and solve a "problem". Twitter was a response to blogs - 99% of blogs were long winded, rambling, pieces of shit that no one read or had time to read. By limiting the character count it forced people to be concise but also allowed users to easily read, digest, and find interesting stuff. Of course it had some unintended side effects like pictures of dinner, etc. Twitter before it was purely about promoting your brand, publication, or self was pretty cool. Medium is too a response to blogs. It forces their users to use the provided styling so that everything looks good (this is subjective) and at least consistent. It also gives spectators a single place to read blogs rather than having to go to 80 different sites. Snapchat is a bit different. I think it's a response to the issues with sexting and "once something is on the internet, it is there forever." Twitter wouldn't have been anything without limiting the number of characters because it wouldn't have solved the problem with rambling blogs. Same with Snapchat's approach.
:( But really, haha, I like what you say here: We've moved from feature overload to feature scarcity. Hit up the Mac App Store right now and you'll see at least 10 different apps that are "just" full-screen, distraction-free writing apps. Or music apps like Vox that focus entirely on "just the music." We want one app that does something really well, as opposed to something like, say, Facebook or iTunes, which do a bunch of things poorly.99% of blogs were long winded, rambling, pieces of shit that no one read or had time to read.
In terms of social media and apps, it's not about the creative process as much as it is about getting users to actually use these services and solve a "problem".
The more I think about it, the more reasons there are for the way apps have developed in the last couple years. The focus is certainly another factor. The fact that the people building these apps are often unfunded startups with passion attempting to build a MVP or actually build something period also leads to more focused apps. No kid with a computer can take on a feature set like iTunes - but he can build a clean and functional music player that simply plays music. Another reason is that these apps may become successful is that the kids building them are closer to the consumer. Theres no corporate bureaucracy to cut through. The problems are real things that the developer themselves have often experienced personally. Looking at Snapchat and the CEO's recent frat house, party animal, college days + misogynistic comments, Snapchat was a much of a solution to a problem he was having as it was an app for the world.
Being in Computer Science, I've learned that's the de-facto method of creating a good app, for practice or otherwise -- build something you want to use to solve a problem/make things easier. There's a certain honesty to that simplicity that comes with the app, as you touched upon, and I do like that.
My thoughts too. I noticed in the advert that there were multiple instances where people seemed to be directly replying to the video sent to them. For example, someone replying 'awww' to a picture of a dog or 'wheeee' to a kid going down a slide. Surely that'd be impossible to do in reality if you can't see the video beforehand? This erroneous demonstration also exposes its biggest flaw (which you worded out above) in a backhanded sort of way. It shows they actually just wanted a Snapchat clone but, in adding the 'reply to unlock' feature, have completely broken the dynamic Edit: So I just read further on in the article I saw this: 'If you see a sling that’s particularly inspiring, you can reply with a reaction shot or video that can be viewed immediately. You’ll get the top half of the original sling, and can react with the bottom half of the screen.' I guess that makes a bit more sense but I still don't think it alleviates the problem you suggested. However, even if do that you still have to send a prior 'Slingshot' out to unlock it anyway. The whole things just sounds too much like 'we need a Snapchat clone that isn't a Snapchat clone.'It sounds like it could bind you in a world of drivel by the chains of social obligation.
It's clear they are desperate to get a foothold in the space, as growing evidence suggests that these apps are replacing the space that Facebook held in the younger demographic. I think that is part of the reason why Slingshot isn't linked to a FB account, -they don't see a gateway to Facebook as a viable strategy. FB needs a compelling offering for a generation that isn't interested in their social network. Perhaps they should have gone edgier than SnapChat. CrotchShot: Get anonymous images of crotches. Reply with your own crotch selfie to unlock the identity of a crotch. :PThe whole things just sounds too much like 'we need a Snapchat clone that isn't a Snapchat clone.
I think this already sort of happens with Snapchat, though. And even Facebook, too. Really any app that allows you to see that the message has been read is really annoying to me. Lots of "you saw my message/snap, why didn't you reply to me?" happens. Maybe that's just a thing in my age-group, though. I don't take pictures on Snapchat because I don't like pictures of my face, weird as it sounds, and I don't think my life is interesting enough to take pictures/record it. It's weird to me that everything needs to be captured behind a screen. When I was on vacation, I had to coax my mom into putting the camera down for a bit, so that she could enjoy the moment with something other than a lens. Buuuut I guess I'm rambling, I'll stop now.Also, since you have to reply to unlock a message, by not doing so, you are sending another kind of message to the sender.
No, I am with you. I hate taking multiple pictures with the intention to document the moment as it disrupts the experience. If I want a record, I'll take one picture, then put my phone away. The return on investment drops precipitously with each successive photo.
So if anyone slingshots me before 9am-7pm they will either get random selfie face or random shot of my computer with whatever I'm working on. "Creation". Woo-hoo.Everyone is a creator and no one is a spectator”
The thing that bothers me is that you're not going to be able to have a conversation, you always have to reply without knowing what the other person said.
So what are they trying to say? If this becomes a thing we lose everything we usually use on mobile? And like _refugee_ said "Why does it seem dumb... Why should I have to do something in order to see something my friends chose to send to me? It's like I have to pay them before I've received any service." I don't want to have to post something in exchange for seeing if I have anything important waiting for me. (For example, I'm waiting on a friend to message me the address of the hotel he's booked at in a week. I don't want to have to "sling" something JUST to see the address for a few seconds. * tl;dr _refugee_ I agree with you.
Seems dumb. Won't bother trying. Why does it seem dumb... Why should I have to do something in order to see something my friends chose to send to me? It's like I have to pay them before I've received any service. It promotes creating content but it promotes creating stupid content - it sets a bar to entry that can be surpassed by doing almost nothing and so therefore if users choose to engage in this experience most will probably attempt to skate by with "almost nothing." It claims it promotes conversation but what about two non sequiturs promotes conversation? Also the articles written like an ad.