The only way to determine which has an advantage is to conduct UX research from a completely unbiased standpoint.
There is absolutely no crime on the island (as in zero). It's a very, very, very wealthy strip of island in Sarasota, FL and there's no reason for this.
The police department there has more money than they know what to do with. I guess it shows.
Where I live (big bad city), it's $14.00 for a single adult ticket, plus a $1.00 fee to buy online.
Oh, you want to see "A Scientologist Actor Saves the World 3D?"
That'll be $19.00 for the "3D ZOMG1!1!!!" experience, plus a $1.00 fee to buy online.
I do the math and realize I have a pretty big HD tv and a penchant for Usenet and all of the sudden that cellphone-manners-fight-waiting-to-happen doesn't seem so appealing.
All. The. Time.
The demographic that they appeal to is very, very young. As in teens and college-aged adults. The app itself is extremely popular in the iTunes store and on Android. So much so, in fact, that Facebook, after not being able to buy it quickly (after explosive... truly explosive growth) decided to rip it off and build a clone called, wait for it, Poke.
People declared the end of Snapchat as big bad Facebook was going to eat their lunch, digest their user base and excrete them out into a paper bag to be lit aflame and left on Snapchat's front step. Poke hit around #14 on iTunes, then slide down fairly rapidly and is now an afterthought.
This was a victory for small dev shops that demonstrated that big companies can clone a product but that user loyalty is a very, very real thing.
Last night a company I'm helping build had a booth at Uncubed NYC. A guy came over with the glasses at the end of the night. He had a drink in his hand and had obviously been taking advantage of the free booze. He was an MBA-type douche with obnoxious semi-slurred questions about our app (ex. "So, why can't Google just build this?).
As soon as he came over you could tell that everyone stiffened up and our attitudes changed. It changes how you respond to people's questions, how you act.
In a nutshell, Google Glass blows.
Basically, it's a free messaging services where the messages self-destruct. They never get written do disk, just to volatile memory. If there's an outage messages will be lost, which sucks, but it does mean that they kind of mean business about privacy. The messages have a maximum shelf life of 30 days.
Here's a writeup in Techcrunch.
I don't know if it's going to get that big but I realized the other day that even in my non-criminal, law-abiding life there are still a lot of things that I send to people via SMS that I probably should not have. Lots. Of. Things.
It's meant to be a rallying cry for easily-led, mis/uneducated people and nothing more.
It's meant to show the Creation Museum as the stalwart fighter for the cause of Intelligent Design, which, I suppose it is.
We have more important things to be debating.
Even though companies complain about ROI (which is a valid argument) it is still an extremely effective way of connecting to consumers. This is not going away any time soon. They are at ~450 million mobile users. Mobile commerce is exploding.
It's great to push people to your blog/website from Facebook but if it's mirroring your website's content you can connect with your users (read:customers) via 1 or 2 clicks instead of 12. You choose the 1 or 2-click method, always.