Snapchat for iOS adds message replays, filters, 'best friends' in update

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
Popular photo and video messaging service Snapchat on Friday released an update to its iOS app, bringing a host of new features including "smart filters" and the ability to replay one snap per day.

Snapchat


Snapchat version 6.1 is a substantial update that offers a set of new features built to enhance and reinvigorate the user experience.

Perhaps the most meaningful addition is Replay. With the new feature activated, users can replay a single snap per day one time. For example, if a friend were to send an especially interesting video snap, the recipient is now able to view for a second time before it's gone forever.

Replay does not, however, bring Snapchat any closer in function to apps like Instagram or Vine, as the re-viewing limit is extremely prohibitive. Users can think of the feature as more of a second chance than an extension of snap viewing time.

As for smart filters, these new overlays provide users the option to add rich information to their snaps, including time, temperature, and speed at which the device was moving when the snap was taken. Smart filters can be selected by swiping to the right and left after taking a snap. In addition, three conventional filters come with the update, including black and white, sepia and "vintage."

Finally, a front-facing flash now illuminates a device's screen for better nighttime shots, while users can add up to seven people to their "best friends" menu. All functions are accessible via the app's Settings menu under Additional Services.

Snapchat 6.1 is a free 8.6MB download from the App Store.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    Wow zero posts before mine. No wonder this company has zero revenues.

    And yet, Google was willing to pay $4B for it.

    :rolleyes:
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Doesn't that Replay feature ruin to only unique feature of Snapchat?

    It's clearly designed to share photos of body parts without the fear that the image will be permanently captured. Now, with Replay, it will be easy to set up a second camera to capture an image that was replayed on the first.
  • Reply 3 of 13
    I didn't know the iPhone had a front facing flash....
  • Reply 4 of 13
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,997member
    It doesn't have a dedicated one, Snapchat uses an all-white pulse of the screen.
  • Reply 5 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Timbit View Post



    I didn't know the iPhone had a front facing flash....

    Didn't know you couldn't read.

     

    "Finally, a front-facing flash now illuminates a device's screen for better nighttime shots"

  • Reply 6 of 13
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Wow zero posts before mine. No wonder this company has zero revenues.



    And yet, Google was willing to pay $4B for it.



    image

    Pundits keep bringing up how Facebook and Twitter have turned down substantial bids. But they forget one thing - both are sticky apps and allow users to invest and accumulate contents with emotional value. Snapchat doesn't. Except for a network of contacts, when you leave Snapchat, you lose nothing (but regain your self-respect).

     

    I bet, two years from now, Snapcaht's investors will kick themselves for the delusion that Evan Spiegel is the next coming of Mark Zuckerberg.

  • Reply 7 of 13
    zozmanzozman Posts: 393member

    At last, this is awesome, now the randoms can see my wang twice!.

  • Reply 8 of 13
    macfandave wrote: »
    Doesn't that Replay feature ruin to only unique feature of Snapchat?

    It's clearly designed to share photos of body parts without the fear that the image will be permanently captured. Now, with Replay, it will be easy to set up a second camera to capture an image that was replayed on the first.

    Couldn't I just do a "screen capture" while the photo is being shown for a second or so???
  • Reply 9 of 13
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,486member
    And yet, Google was willing to pay $4B for it.

    :rolleyes:

    It was Facebook not Google and $3 billion not $4 billion.
  • Reply 10 of 13
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    And yet, Google was willing to pay $4B for it.

    :rolleyes:

    It was Facebook not Google and $3 billion not $4 billion.

    You're apparently too lazy to attempt even a simple search before spouting off.
  • Reply 11 of 13
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,486member
    You're right. Sorry. Missed that news!
  • Reply 12 of 13
    You can but the sender is notified that you did so, and you have the presence of mind to do such a capture during its brief existence.
  • Reply 13 of 13
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,928member
    Wow zero posts before mine. No wonder this company has zero revenues.

    And yet, Google was willing to pay $4B for it.

    :rolleyes:

    http://valleywag.gawker.com/rumor-snapchat-also-turned-down-billions-upon-billions-1464626439
    Some blogs reported $3B, others said $3.5B and yet another said $4B. Oddly enough some of the blogs claim the same person was the source of each rumor too. I'm making a guess that Evan Spiegel, Snapchat's owner, was feeding the rumormill. :\
Sign In or Register to comment.