The Many Ways of WeChat(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
The Many Ways of WeChat
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/26/the-many-ways-of-wechat-how-messaging-is-eating-the-world/
29 comments
Very interesting angle. I am heavily using WeChat on a daily basis for all purpose: keep in touch with friends, read news, share content (audio, video, articles, pdf, etc.), call people worldwide (very good video stream in China), get alerts from servers, quickly reach distributed teams, pay in restaurants or bars, order train tickets, transfer money to friends, pay online, top up my mobile, etc.
It is by far the app that I use the most on my mobile. For a lot of my contacts, I do not have their phone numbers, email address or full name. I also believe I do not know anybody that do not have a WeChat account (from my landlord, the restaurant down my work to the legal contact of some of our contracts).
I will be leaving Asia soon, I am not sure what will replace this while settling in Europe. My phone could only use WeChat, I will not see big differences, save for emails. What other apps are so central for other markets? I merely use Whatsapp but it is far from having the same extend of functionalities nor such a complete experience.
It is by far the app that I use the most on my mobile. For a lot of my contacts, I do not have their phone numbers, email address or full name. I also believe I do not know anybody that do not have a WeChat account (from my landlord, the restaurant down my work to the legal contact of some of our contracts).
I will be leaving Asia soon, I am not sure what will replace this while settling in Europe. My phone could only use WeChat, I will not see big differences, save for emails. What other apps are so central for other markets? I merely use Whatsapp but it is far from having the same extend of functionalities nor such a complete experience.
While anecdotal, I've noticed that WhatsApp use and use cases are steadily increasing in my surroundings.
At first it was just an sms replacement. Then people started using the group chats for (mostly) silly stuff or family groups. Then the group chat function started to be used more functionally for work and, say, flatmate-type stuff coordination and communication.
I wouldn't be surprised that if (or perhaps when) WhatsApp adds more functionality, it will quickly be picked up by everyone around me. I'm mostly surprised what WhatsApp hasn't done this already, especially considering that Facebook already offers a number of functions that I'd love to see integrated (to a limited degree) into whatsapp's paradigm (event creation/planning, more advanced photo sharing, 'blogging').
Does anyone have any idea why WhatsApp isn't becoming more like WeChat?
At first it was just an sms replacement. Then people started using the group chats for (mostly) silly stuff or family groups. Then the group chat function started to be used more functionally for work and, say, flatmate-type stuff coordination and communication.
I wouldn't be surprised that if (or perhaps when) WhatsApp adds more functionality, it will quickly be picked up by everyone around me. I'm mostly surprised what WhatsApp hasn't done this already, especially considering that Facebook already offers a number of functions that I'd love to see integrated (to a limited degree) into whatsapp's paradigm (event creation/planning, more advanced photo sharing, 'blogging').
Does anyone have any idea why WhatsApp isn't becoming more like WeChat?
I listened to a talk by Jan Koum from WhatsApp right before the acquisition by Facebook. His key point was that WhatsApp success comes from the fact that they only do messaging (as an sms replacement) and keep the app simply. He was talking about a lot of functionality that he did not want to add (desktop client, video chat, games, anything commercial or e-commerce related) and said WhatsApp wants to keep the surface are of it's app and developer team as small as possible.
I don't know how much that changed after the acquisition, though.
That strikes me as primarily an 'operational' success.
It seems entirely possible to me to integrate a significant amount of features into the 'stream of messages' paradigm without making it complicated enough to turn people away. And clearly the existence of WeChat shows that doing more than just messaging can be hugely successful.
It just happened to be smart for WhatsApp specifically, because of its circumstances and ability and whatnot, to focus on the core product.
It seems entirely possible to me to integrate a significant amount of features into the 'stream of messages' paradigm without making it complicated enough to turn people away. And clearly the existence of WeChat shows that doing more than just messaging can be hugely successful.
It just happened to be smart for WhatsApp specifically, because of its circumstances and ability and whatnot, to focus on the core product.
Again I really appreciate the angle. Working in the technology sector I am wondering what is limiting Whatsapp to expand the features or if the are limiting the features on purpose. I would really like to understand the product design decision.
Interestingly there are some projects that try to do a similar thing:
- Camlistore is a store where all your stuff is available as JSON or raw bytes, and all "application" just hit into it
- Cozycloud that puts everything in a single CouchDB so all your "applications" access the same shared data that is also JSON or raw bytes
I'd love to see a similar model with mobiles, where all your activity (contacts, payments, messages, pics, anything) is stored inside a common database synchronizable and accessible everywhere. Put focus back on data rather than on applications.
- Camlistore is a store where all your stuff is available as JSON or raw bytes, and all "application" just hit into it
- Cozycloud that puts everything in a single CouchDB so all your "applications" access the same shared data that is also JSON or raw bytes
I'd love to see a similar model with mobiles, where all your activity (contacts, payments, messages, pics, anything) is stored inside a common database synchronizable and accessible everywhere. Put focus back on data rather than on applications.
You're right - on a recent article, Facebook said it was explicitly trying to position their Messenger app as a meta-platform.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-virtual-realit...
"Messenger is trying to eat your smartphone
Zuckerberg's "big regret" also helps explain Facebook's current strategy with Messenger. It spun out its messaging service into a standalone app in April 2015, and David Marcus, formerly of PayPal, is heading up these efforts. He's determined to make it into a platform in its own right.
David Marcus FacebookEric Piermont/Getty ImagesDavid Marcus, Facebook's VP of Messaging Products.
Also speaking at Web Summit, Marcus laid out a roadmap for the future of mobile that puts Messenger front-and-centre.
Marcus wants companies to use message threads, rather than standalone threads, to communicate with their customers. Why download an app you'll only use once or twice when you can have a conversation with the company right there in Messenger, he reasons. "People don't want apps for every single business that you interact with," he said. They "want the ones on your homescreen and that's it."
"When you have the chance to build a great communication within a conversation app ... just have a message within a nicely designed bubble ... [that's a] much nicer experience than an app." It's a "new generation of apps inside of threads."
M, Facebook's new virtual assistant that operates straight out of Messenger, is part of this. It is powered by Facebook's AI tech, and is supplemented with human assistance when necessary. (It's only available to a small group of users right now.) The more it can do for you, the less you need to use other apps.
The result is, of course, that Google and Apple lose out. Their grip on your phone weakens, as you eschew their app store in favour of Messenger threads. If Facebook gets its way, it won't own your mobile operating system — but it will control everything else."
I haven't tried it, but WeChat seems to be ahead of Facebook and WhatsApp at the moment. However, FB does have a strong network effect. Interesting battle to watch.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-virtual-realit...
"Messenger is trying to eat your smartphone
Zuckerberg's "big regret" also helps explain Facebook's current strategy with Messenger. It spun out its messaging service into a standalone app in April 2015, and David Marcus, formerly of PayPal, is heading up these efforts. He's determined to make it into a platform in its own right.
David Marcus FacebookEric Piermont/Getty ImagesDavid Marcus, Facebook's VP of Messaging Products.
Also speaking at Web Summit, Marcus laid out a roadmap for the future of mobile that puts Messenger front-and-centre.
Marcus wants companies to use message threads, rather than standalone threads, to communicate with their customers. Why download an app you'll only use once or twice when you can have a conversation with the company right there in Messenger, he reasons. "People don't want apps for every single business that you interact with," he said. They "want the ones on your homescreen and that's it."
"When you have the chance to build a great communication within a conversation app ... just have a message within a nicely designed bubble ... [that's a] much nicer experience than an app." It's a "new generation of apps inside of threads."
M, Facebook's new virtual assistant that operates straight out of Messenger, is part of this. It is powered by Facebook's AI tech, and is supplemented with human assistance when necessary. (It's only available to a small group of users right now.) The more it can do for you, the less you need to use other apps.
The result is, of course, that Google and Apple lose out. Their grip on your phone weakens, as you eschew their app store in favour of Messenger threads. If Facebook gets its way, it won't own your mobile operating system — but it will control everything else."
I haven't tried it, but WeChat seems to be ahead of Facebook and WhatsApp at the moment. However, FB does have a strong network effect. Interesting battle to watch.
What language(s) is the backend written in? Are there any pieces written using Erlang/functional langueages?
Just a small reminder that the reason WeChat (and Baidu) are so popular in China is because Facebook, Twitter, Skype and Google are blocked there. It's easier to grab a local market when free competition is made illegal. I'd be more impressed if they were forced to compete with the rest of the world and in fact, they are doing pretty badly in most of the rest of the world where they are forced to compete.
Not necessarily true.
Baidu was popular even before Google was blocked in China. Taobao is more successful than Ebay and Amazon in China, even Ebay and Amazon have never been blocked in China.
My personal experience of buying a book from amazon.cn is much worse than from Taobao. It took Amazon a week to deliver the book to a small town in the rural area but Taobao a day.
Many successful enterprises from outside fail to succeed in China, even they are not blocked.
For businesses, understand your customers' needs is essential to the success. Sadly many of them, both from western and China failed to realise this.
The same business model or user experience might works like magic in a market but fails horribly in another.
My personal experience of buying a book from amazon.cn is much worse than from Taobao. It took Amazon a week to deliver the book to a small town in the rural area but Taobao a day.
Many successful enterprises from outside fail to succeed in China, even they are not blocked.
For businesses, understand your customers' needs is essential to the success. Sadly many of them, both from western and China failed to realise this.
The same business model or user experience might works like magic in a market but fails horribly in another.
Yes and no. KakaoTalk, LINE, and WhatsApp were not blocked in China at the time, and WeChat was, in its early stages, essentially a Chinese clone of those others. WeChat's success had a lot more to do with
* Being able to login with your QQ account and import your QQ friends (WeChat and QQ are made by the same company, and for many people, WeChat replaced QQ)
* Catering to Chinese users, including Chinese payment systems, Chinese train/plane tickets, Chinese taxis, and pretty much everything else local
* Network effects within the Chinese community
* Aggressively targeting Chinese distribution channels
* Being able to login with your QQ account and import your QQ friends (WeChat and QQ are made by the same company, and for many people, WeChat replaced QQ)
* Catering to Chinese users, including Chinese payment systems, Chinese train/plane tickets, Chinese taxis, and pretty much everything else local
* Network effects within the Chinese community
* Aggressively targeting Chinese distribution channels
Note that QQ itself was popular because facebook messenger and msn before were blocked, and so was twitter. Chinese payment systems were themselves blocking foreign competition. The digital economy is basically a walled garden where only local companies can thrive with very few exceptions.
I hope it was true, but no.
In 2006, I have both QQ, Skype, MSN, Yahoo messenger installed and they all work in China at that time. QQ for friends and family, Skype for Voip calls, MSN for friends in university, well, Yahoo messenger, mostly was used to chat with people outside of China, to practice English.
QQ was huge popular among younger populations at that time, in way I could not understand.
I used MSN most of the time to communicate with my friends in university, but almost all my friends or relatives that were below 20 at that time, who have an IM, is on QQ.
But now most people in China are on WeChat, people are moving away from QQ. And WeChat becomes many people's first IM, for example, my mother in-law who is retired, does not know how to use a computer or how to use QQ, knows how to use WeChat.
I have to say these guys are onto something. Yes, they were copycats in the beginning, and yes, their current counterparts outside are blocked in China, but I strongly doubt the theory that if facebook, google etc are not blocked in China right now, they would be successful in China. After all, they had their chance before, and they blew it.
In 2006, I have both QQ, Skype, MSN, Yahoo messenger installed and they all work in China at that time. QQ for friends and family, Skype for Voip calls, MSN for friends in university, well, Yahoo messenger, mostly was used to chat with people outside of China, to practice English.
QQ was huge popular among younger populations at that time, in way I could not understand.
I used MSN most of the time to communicate with my friends in university, but almost all my friends or relatives that were below 20 at that time, who have an IM, is on QQ.
But now most people in China are on WeChat, people are moving away from QQ. And WeChat becomes many people's first IM, for example, my mother in-law who is retired, does not know how to use a computer or how to use QQ, knows how to use WeChat.
I have to say these guys are onto something. Yes, they were copycats in the beginning, and yes, their current counterparts outside are blocked in China, but I strongly doubt the theory that if facebook, google etc are not blocked in China right now, they would be successful in China. After all, they had their chance before, and they blew it.
In India, Whatsapp almost enjoys the same status as WeChat. Only that Whatsapp isn't really doing what WeChat is, but it could very well do that too. Then again, it raises question about how much should an app really do... someone posted a blog to HN that complained how Evernote is trying to do too many things, and is getting the note-taking part wrong, which is core to its product.
Whatsapp is touted as a SMS replacement. But calling it that is downplaying it prowess in handling multimedia content. Almost everyone I know use it as an "email replacement" instead (after the advent of "100 people groups," I must admit). Think about that for a moment-- a replacement to email! As Whatsapp continues to get better at handling more and more content, it will start replacing the "browser" on the phone. That's upto Whatsapp of course to make it more powerful and realise that vision, flawed or not.
Look at how powerful the browsers have become. Tomorrow, if Whatsapp starts offering in-app embedded browser experience, I am pretty sure the dynamics will change again.
Oh, and e-commerce happens over Whatsapp as well. So, its kind of a craiglist replacement too.
Whatsapp is touted as a SMS replacement. But calling it that is downplaying it prowess in handling multimedia content. Almost everyone I know use it as an "email replacement" instead (after the advent of "100 people groups," I must admit). Think about that for a moment-- a replacement to email! As Whatsapp continues to get better at handling more and more content, it will start replacing the "browser" on the phone. That's upto Whatsapp of course to make it more powerful and realise that vision, flawed or not.
Look at how powerful the browsers have become. Tomorrow, if Whatsapp starts offering in-app embedded browser experience, I am pretty sure the dynamics will change again.
Oh, and e-commerce happens over Whatsapp as well. So, its kind of a craiglist replacement too.
My biggest gripe about WeChat is that it doesn't support multiple logins.
It's tied down to 1 mobile device and there is no desktop or web-based client that can login using a simple username and password. I switch devices very often and very much prefer that information flow with me as I switch from place to place, device to device, transparent to others around me, and not require me be attached to a single piece of hardware. This is something that Facebook chat does very well. Unfortunately, my entire social circle uses WeChat so I don't exactly have a choice.
It works as designed. WeChat is focusing on mobile phones. Everyone has a phone and it's always with him/her. PC and tablets become the extensions of the phone. There are WeChat clients for PC and Mac. But you still need the phone to login. It always reminds you that WeChat is a mobile app.
"Everyone has a phone and it's always with him/her"
Except me. That's the point. I would much prefer it offer a protocol and let me choose how I wish to use that said protocol. Some people walk around with 1 mobile phone. I have several mobile phones I use at different times and places. Most services permit multiple logins and seamlessly display all information on all devices. Also, at times when I have my computer around, I want my computer to BE my phone, so that everything is consolidated. It's quite ridiculous that I have to peck at a phone when I have a laptop staring at my face. Facebook lets me just use that laptop to continue conversations seamlessly, without even having to carry my phone, and without needing to re-login to anything. And I can move from room to room several dozen times a day, having all conversations simultaneously open in all of my rooms. Information flows with me.
Unfortunately, because WeChat wants to dictate how they think I should use technology, I don't really have a choice but to create separate WeChat accounts on every device, launch Android emulators on PCs, and create a chatroom for every contact I have, inviting all of my other accounts. It's a super-cumbersome way to use technology but they don't offer me a choice.
Except me. That's the point. I would much prefer it offer a protocol and let me choose how I wish to use that said protocol. Some people walk around with 1 mobile phone. I have several mobile phones I use at different times and places. Most services permit multiple logins and seamlessly display all information on all devices. Also, at times when I have my computer around, I want my computer to BE my phone, so that everything is consolidated. It's quite ridiculous that I have to peck at a phone when I have a laptop staring at my face. Facebook lets me just use that laptop to continue conversations seamlessly, without even having to carry my phone, and without needing to re-login to anything. And I can move from room to room several dozen times a day, having all conversations simultaneously open in all of my rooms. Information flows with me.
Unfortunately, because WeChat wants to dictate how they think I should use technology, I don't really have a choice but to create separate WeChat accounts on every device, launch Android emulators on PCs, and create a chatroom for every contact I have, inviting all of my other accounts. It's a super-cumbersome way to use technology but they don't offer me a choice.
Wechat is way more than just a SMS replacement. You can pretty much run your life on it. In China, you can book hotels, buy train tickets, pretty much everything on it as well.
What I really like about it is you can create different circles of people (kinda of what Google+ tried to popularize and failed) and communicate with all of them at once. A lot of people are part of circles with their grade school friends, with all their relatives (distant cousins too), etc. etc.
What I really like about it is you can create different circles of people (kinda of what Google+ tried to popularize and failed) and communicate with all of them at once. A lot of people are part of circles with their grade school friends, with all their relatives (distant cousins too), etc. etc.
I thought it was just for meeting up or online chat.
Just like Facebook is just for keeping a contact list of friends and family.
Sarcasm aside, wechat is a full social network.
Sarcasm aside, wechat is a full social network.
A lot of messaging applications originating out of Asia seem to have a similar set of traits. They have minimal data costs, they have both audio and video (although Line's audio is terrible) and they also are building their own payment systems.
At one point, this recipe is going to get old.
At one point, this recipe is going to get old.
[deleted]
Egads, what a linkbaity title. I prefer a16z's survey of the WeChat world: http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/
How is this clickbait? I think it sums up the content of the article nicely. Clickbait would be "We compiled 15 of the coolest WeChat features. #3 will shock you!"
The recent "messaging apps will eat everything" spin is burying the lede. What's happening, broadly, is that in some places (esp. Asia), OS/phone vendors are losing in the early stages of a war between platform (iOS, Android) and meta-platform (things like WeChat, LINE, FB).
Yes, its central function is nominally an SMS replacement, but as a meta-platform it plasters over a bunch of gaps in the OS level. The central UI is a common, semi-hierarchical stream for notifications/news/messages with a consistent set of controls for deprioritizing/blocking things. Then you have services like payment, authentication, and social graph. A lightweight Instapaper/Evernote shared by all my apps. Handling for things like QR codes which western-designed OSes don't do on a system level. Universal search for chat and non-chat content alike. A health/activity data feature for the various Bluetooth gizmos my friends and I use. Then, on top of that, you have tons of light-weight third-party services/apps which, while the experience can shoddier than a native app, for 50% of apps is far more convenient than actually downloading and updating so many 100MB+ apps on my phone and spotting their various red badges in a sea of icons/groups.
In effect, it's a nascent vision of an OS oriented around a thread-based UI paradigm instead of an app-based UI paradigm. Some day, I'm certain some kind of sensible central "inbox" will replace my home/lock screen (as well as the push notification tray).