>Evan Spiegel is just another talented but arrogant, unaware-of-his-own-privilege guy.<p>From a profile on Spiegel in LA Weekly:<p>"John Spiegel strove to make sure his children understood that their life was privileged. Every Christmas, he would take them to hand out food at Head Start centers. Through their church, All Saints Episcopal in Beverly Hills, they traveled to Mexico to build houses for the poor"<p>"He laid out his case in a letter to his father on Feb. 12, 2008. He began by thanking his father for working so hard to afford "such an amazing lifestyle," assuring him that he understood how privileged they were. "We live in a bubble," Evan wrote."<p>"But where he is a real outlier is in his attitude toward his own success. One of the cherished ideas of the tech world is that success is based on talent and hard work, and that everyone has an equal chance. But Spiegel, who grew up in a wealthy family, has little use for what he calls "the myth of meritocracy." Where others see success as a function of effort, he sees it as luck."<p><a href="http://www.laweekly.com/2013-10-17/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel/full/" rel="nofollow">http://www.laweekly.com/2013-10-17/news/snapchat-evan-spiege...</a><p>I would say these statements fly directly into the face of your characterization of Spiegel.<p>>I would be hard-pressed to find someone who thought Snapchat was actually useful to the world. Popular, yes, and fun too, but not particularly useful. Certainly not $4 billion useful. To turn down that amount of money means that Evan sees Snapchat as his primary priority. With $4 billion, Evan could easily fund multiple new startups that are doing meaningful work to change the world (or at least make money!).<p>Couldn't you dismiss Facebook and Twitter with the same criticism? Who determines what is useful to the world? Enhancing communication isn't the same as curing cancer, but I think you could argue there is some benefit from connecting people?<p>I'm not sure where you get that his refusal to accept a buyout makes him more out of touch. Do you think Zuck should have sold out at 1 billion to Yahoo so he could go build and invest in other companies? Isn't there a Zuckerburg quote where he said if he sold Facebook, he would go out and build the same company again? Also isn't it plausible to believe that Instagram sold out too early?<p>So why are you faulting a guy for thinking that his billion dollar company (which comes around very rarely) is his main goal right now? He probably recognizes that this is his one shot at becoming a tech icon, is it absurd to swing for the fences?