News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Snap’s Rise and Fall: How a Big, Splashy IPO Prompted the... by JumpCrisscross on Saturday November 11, 2017 @11:13AM (#15676860)
Two bits which caught my attention:

"[Evan Spiegel] has dismissed ideas that rely heavily on data, according to people who have worked with him. He prefers to study the experience of users for cues on revisions and new features, some of the people said.

...

One banker involved in the IPO said he thought the lack of voting shares and other decisions could imperil the company’s standing with investors, possibly hurting its stock price. But he said he didn’t articulate that to Snap’s executives for fear of jeopardizing his spot on the prized deal."

Re:Snap’s Rise and Fall: How a Big, Splashy IPO Prompted the... by roymurdock on Saturday November 11, 2017 @01:30PM (#15677442)
Matt Levine had a good take on the second point (as always): an underwriter used to lend its name and authority to an IPO as a gatekeeper, back when IPOs were rarer. Now they will sign onto just about any deal, and while they still do some due diligence, it means very little to investors that Morgan Stanley or UBS is underwriting.

“Nobody bought Snap because of Morgan Stanley's imprimatur. In this world, the underwriters are mostly just service providers. Certainly they have due-diligence obligations -- they really aren't supposed to take companies public if their financials are fraudulent -- but they don't have much leverage to insist on things like voting stock or forward-looking earnings guidance. The market decides stuff like that, not the underwriters. The underwriters just shut up and execute.”

Re:Snap’s Rise and Fall: How a Big, Splashy IPO Prompted the... by iaw on Saturday November 11, 2017 @03:59PM (#15678167)
Underwriting by investment banks feels less like underwriting and more like arbitraging the fear of missing out.
Re:Snap’s Rise and Fall: How a Big, Splashy IPO Prompted the... by econner on Saturday November 11, 2017 @02:09PM (#15677607)
The first point could be likened to the Apple vs. Google design model.

Google: "Test 36 shades of blue and choose the one that performs best"

Apple: "Create beautiful product based on user experience and then convince you that you like it."

I don't think making all product decisions based on data is necessarily good, nor is designing in a vacuum.

Re:Snap’s Rise and Fall: How a Big, Splashy IPO Prompted the... by PretzelFisch on Saturday November 11, 2017 @02:43PM (#15677773)
It sounds more like different data set that's gathered by observation. If you can keep the observer's bias to a minimum this method may tell you more about how your feature is received and used. It is also the most time consuming and costly approach and doesn't really scale.