How WhatsApp became an unstoppable global cultural force(restofworld.org)
restofworld.org
How WhatsApp became an unstoppable global cultural force
https://restofworld.org/2024/how-whatsapp-became-a-global-cultural-force/
194 comments
This is why travel is so important -- it gets us out of our bubbles.
Once I was brainstorming with a German colleague about a new business chat feature, and he said we should target WhatsApp as a channel. My American colleagues were like, "No one uses that these days."
But Americans have little idea how popular WhatsApp really is in Europe, and Brazil (where it's colloquially called Zappy Zappy), and vast swaths of the world. The American experience isn't as normative as we assume. I only know this because I'm part of a diaspora network and I have contacts from all over the world -- FB Messenger and iMessage are not as popular as we think outside of certain high GDP countries.
Conversely, some suggested targeting iOS in Germany, but my German colleague immediately said that iOS marketshare in Germany is actually fairly low. That surprised me but he was right.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/461900/android-vs-ios-ma...
Even France, with its reputation for liking premium products, does not have a high iOS market share.
Japan does have a very high iOS market share however because they appreciate craftsmanship, and due to Softbank's efforts in the country.
I remember the early days of WhatsApp -- it was the non-SMS messaging platform of choice in an era when phone plans changed for texting.
Once I was brainstorming with a German colleague about a new business chat feature, and he said we should target WhatsApp as a channel. My American colleagues were like, "No one uses that these days."
But Americans have little idea how popular WhatsApp really is in Europe, and Brazil (where it's colloquially called Zappy Zappy), and vast swaths of the world. The American experience isn't as normative as we assume. I only know this because I'm part of a diaspora network and I have contacts from all over the world -- FB Messenger and iMessage are not as popular as we think outside of certain high GDP countries.
Conversely, some suggested targeting iOS in Germany, but my German colleague immediately said that iOS marketshare in Germany is actually fairly low. That surprised me but he was right.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/461900/android-vs-ios-ma...
Even France, with its reputation for liking premium products, does not have a high iOS market share.
Japan does have a very high iOS market share however because they appreciate craftsmanship, and due to Softbank's efforts in the country.
I remember the early days of WhatsApp -- it was the non-SMS messaging platform of choice in an era when phone plans changed for texting.
Apple devices cost more in Europe, a jump high enough that you might as well consider the competition. I'm taking VAT into account.
That and, well... Google has been more supportive of EU countries than Apple. Apple maps was useless in the EU for a long time. Plus horrendous support across the EU. If you are in a big city, yeah you will find an Apple Store, otherwise tough luck.
It has nothing to do with craftmanship.
That and, well... Google has been more supportive of EU countries than Apple. Apple maps was useless in the EU for a long time. Plus horrendous support across the EU. If you are in a big city, yeah you will find an Apple Store, otherwise tough luck.
It has nothing to do with craftmanship.
I think the only point that stands is the price. Apple products are indeed more expensive in France than in the US.
However, Google Maps runs fine on iOS and you can purchase Apple products from other retailers and they will also handle warranty claims. None of my Apple products were bought from an Apple Store.
However, Google Maps runs fine on iOS and you can purchase Apple products from other retailers and they will also handle warranty claims. None of my Apple products were bought from an Apple Store.
In my country I would only find such retailers in one of the big 3 cities.
> Japan does have a very high iOS market share however because they appreciate craftsmanship
Citation needed
Citation needed
Which part of that claim; that Japanese appreciate craftsmanship, or that iOS is crafted?
I suspect they're asking for a citation establishing a correlation between high iOS market share and craftsmanship appreciation.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> FB Messenger and iMessage are not as popular as we think outside of certain high GDP countries.
Always funny when someone puts an AirTag in their luggage and wonders why they get few updates in a developing country.
Uhhhh, yeah, their average baggage handler and airport employee doesn’t have an iPhone, that’s why.
Always funny when someone puts an AirTag in their luggage and wonders why they get few updates in a developing country.
Uhhhh, yeah, their average baggage handler and airport employee doesn’t have an iPhone, that’s why.
How close does an AirTag need to be to an iPhone to get an update?
> Japan does have a very high iOS market share however because they appreciate craftsmanship
Yeah that's probably not the case.
Sent from my Sony Xperia 1 VI
Yeah that's probably not the case.
Sent from my Sony Xperia 1 VI
I'm reasonably confident WhatsApp never caught on in the USA because most American phone plans had unlimited SMS in the early 2010s when WhatsApp's popularity was growing elsewhere. International messaging was probably also a big driver in Europe, but less relevant in other markets.
yes, roaming coasts where still a thing inside the EU, so messaging relatives or friends while on holiday sucked because of the enormous pricing for roaming. (even while using SMS!. I remember paying rougly 30 euros to send a couple of hundred text messages and have a couple of minutes ( like half an hour or something) while on holiday in france.
thankfully, roaming got abolished in the first half of the 2010's thank to an EU directive, but at that time whatsapp was already very large across the EU.
thankfully, roaming got abolished in the first half of the 2010's thank to an EU directive, but at that time whatsapp was already very large across the EU.
Roaming is abolished but not international fees.
This means we now have this funny situation where if you’re abroad, sending international texts or calls is included in your plan. But if you’re in your own country, calling or texting someone in a different country is not.
This means we now have this funny situation where if you’re abroad, sending international texts or calls is included in your plan. But if you’re in your own country, calling or texting someone in a different country is not.
International messaging is still relevant in many parts of the world that don't necessarily need to message neighboring countries, but have a big diaspora.
Yeah, but the US is pretty insular. Times are different now, but my grandparents who immigrated basically didn't communicate with the old country in my lifetime.
If roughly 15% of the US population is immigrants [1], and not all of them communicate across borders, and very few non-immigtants communicate cross borders there's not a whole lot of demand for a product that reduces costs of cross border messaging in the US.
As an early employee if anyone knew about WhatsApp, they almost certainly were a younger immigrant. Everyone else was like 'why would I use that?, I have unlimited texts' or they were using BBM.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/u-s-immig...
If roughly 15% of the US population is immigrants [1], and not all of them communicate across borders, and very few non-immigtants communicate cross borders there's not a whole lot of demand for a product that reduces costs of cross border messaging in the US.
As an early employee if anyone knew about WhatsApp, they almost certainly were a younger immigrant. Everyone else was like 'why would I use that?, I have unlimited texts' or they were using BBM.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/u-s-immig...
Sure. Americans with close or many international contacts almost certainly use an internet-based chat/voice app with those contacts. That's not a large enough percentage than any one messaging app is a viable option for a group chat involving a dozen randomly-selected Americans. Almost every time, one or two of them will steadfastly refuse to install any app and insist on using MMS.
You are correct, this is exactly the reason.
Other countries charged per SMS so everyone had good reason to use an app instead.
The US didn't charge, so why would anyone download an app?
Other countries charged per SMS so everyone had good reason to use an app instead.
The US didn't charge, so why would anyone download an app?
The US did have SMS caps/charges, but pre-2008-iPhone+AppStore. (from memory)
Consequently, I don't remember much of a timespan when US customers had both (a) SMS caps/charges and (b) smartphones with open-enough app stores to distribute something like WhatsApp.
For much of the rest of the world, including international communication, that was a more extended period.
Consequently, I don't remember much of a timespan when US customers had both (a) SMS caps/charges and (b) smartphones with open-enough app stores to distribute something like WhatsApp.
For much of the rest of the world, including international communication, that was a more extended period.
> The US didn't charge
More like charged so exorbitantly up front so there’s no reason to additionally charge per use. My AT&T phone bill in the early 2010s was ~$80 as a single line or ~$50 per line as part of a family, which was several times over what I paid elsewhere with per-minute/text pricing. I later switched to a cheap MVNO (PureTalk) which did charge per text.
More like charged so exorbitantly up front so there’s no reason to additionally charge per use. My AT&T phone bill in the early 2010s was ~$80 as a single line or ~$50 per line as part of a family, which was several times over what I paid elsewhere with per-minute/text pricing. I later switched to a cheap MVNO (PureTalk) which did charge per text.
It’s that, and the fact that MMS is still not free on most plans (if it even is still available; I know operators that just don’t support it, because nobody uses it).
Another reason is that the Nokia Symbian and Series 40 phones weren't popular in the US.
Hi, I am one of the editors of this story, and we have also thought about this. In my opinion, one of the reasons why WhatsApp hasn't become the "everything app" in the US is because Apple/iOS devices are very popular in the country, where as in much of the world, Android is popular thanks to the availability of cheaper devices. Apple offers a suit of apps and features, including Facetime, that's not available for Android users, which adds to the popularity of WhatsApp.
It’s pretty simple: SMS functionality sucked and was super expensive.
Before WhatsApp there was blackberry messenger (BBM). When I was growing up kids were running around with blackberry phones, marketed at businessmen, purely for BBM. WhatsApp was just this, except on a platform that didn’t suck.
WhatsApp also predates iMessage and FaceTime.
Before WhatsApp there was blackberry messenger (BBM). When I was growing up kids were running around with blackberry phones, marketed at businessmen, purely for BBM. WhatsApp was just this, except on a platform that didn’t suck.
WhatsApp also predates iMessage and FaceTime.
> WhatsApp also predates iMessage and FaceTime.
I was surprised to find this accurate. Though the lineage for a Mac user would likely include Messages and iChat, which go back further.
iChat: 2002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IChat Messages: 2007 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messages_(Apple) iMessage: 2011 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMessage WhatsApp: 2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp
I was surprised to find this accurate. Though the lineage for a Mac user would likely include Messages and iChat, which go back further.
iChat: 2002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IChat Messages: 2007 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messages_(Apple) iMessage: 2011 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMessage WhatsApp: 2009 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp
But those were not mobile services, more like Apple's implementation of ICQ or MSN Messenger.
An interesting tidbit is that WhatsApp actually predates FaceTime and iMessage, and thus it was one of the earliest iPhone apps that allowed sending text messages over data as opposed to SMS. Interoperability with Android was a plus.
I was tremendously pissed off when I moved from a BlackBerry (with blackberry messenger and “free over data” messaging) to an iPhone in 2008 and had to go back to paying per sms sent. The moment WhatsApp became available I got it (and paid for it!) and have been using it ever since.
I wonder what other iPhone users did for data messaging before iMessage became available.
I was tremendously pissed off when I moved from a BlackBerry (with blackberry messenger and “free over data” messaging) to an iPhone in 2008 and had to go back to paying per sms sent. The moment WhatsApp became available I got it (and paid for it!) and have been using it ever since.
I wonder what other iPhone users did for data messaging before iMessage became available.
At least here in Brazil, WhatsApp consolidated its position by working well in feature phones that ran J2ME and dominated the low-end market before Android. It took testing and adaptation to each and every available phone (as far as I can remember, J2ME was kind of a loose standard so developing a J2ME on one device did not guarantee it ran well, or at all, in any other). This, coupled with the possibility of eliding the outrageous SMS rates and the availability of EDGE data plans.
WhatsApp ran on Nokia S40, which is J2ME, but it did not run on other J2ME phones (unless there was some way to put the s40 app bundle on them? I never heard about that).
There was a period of time where someone was selling low end phones with an unauthorized and incomplete client built in... In addition to not supporting group messages, it apparently had a backdoor to remote send spam.
There was a period of time where someone was selling low end phones with an unauthorized and incomplete client built in... In addition to not supporting group messages, it apparently had a backdoor to remote send spam.
I found it surprising at the time that instant messaging apps that originated on PCs (ICQ, AIM, Skype, etc...) did not get widely adopted for this role despite most of the well-known ones releasing iOS and Android versions at the time.
Because WhatsApp was the first with password less-login using SMS login.
It was dead simple to use. You had a phone, installed Whatsapp, it sent you a verification text that it automatically read and verified to ensure you owned that phone number, and that was your “account”.
No user names to remember, no passwords, a completely computer illiterate person could use it, especially if their first device ever was a smartphone.
And it worked amazingly well. And there was no spam. I specifically remember sharing contacts being a pain in the ass until WhatsApp came along.
It was dead simple to use. You had a phone, installed Whatsapp, it sent you a verification text that it automatically read and verified to ensure you owned that phone number, and that was your “account”.
No user names to remember, no passwords, a completely computer illiterate person could use it, especially if their first device ever was a smartphone.
And it worked amazingly well. And there was no spam. I specifically remember sharing contacts being a pain in the ass until WhatsApp came along.
I suppose none of the others, which could have leveraged their existing userbase chose to follow suit because the companies that owned them did not have a way to make money from them. WhatsApp didn't either, but startups weren't expected to.
The initial WhatsApp plan was to charge between $1 and 2€, initially a one time fee paid after a few weeks, then a yearly subscription after one free year.
I kinda wish that had paned out.
It'd still be hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly revenue. Plus businesses.
I kinda wish that had paned out.
It'd still be hundreds of millions of dollars in yearly revenue. Plus businesses.
The funny thing is that on Android, I never had to pay the fee as the free trial kept getting extended. Only my friends with iPhones paid for WhatsApp, IIRC on iOS it was upfront too!
ICQ and AIM were pretty much dead already.
Microsoft really missed an opportunity, I remember using a third party app for Messenger and the mobile experience wasn't great. Skype was too focused on voice and video calls, not seen as an instant messaging app, even though it could very well have been.
The biggest fumble really comes from Google though. I was using Google Talk as my main messaging app on PC, and Android had pretty much everything ready before iOS, including video chat over 3G.
However Google went through a pointless revamp with Hangouts and never managed a convincing SMS integration.
Microsoft really missed an opportunity, I remember using a third party app for Messenger and the mobile experience wasn't great. Skype was too focused on voice and video calls, not seen as an instant messaging app, even though it could very well have been.
The biggest fumble really comes from Google though. I was using Google Talk as my main messaging app on PC, and Android had pretty much everything ready before iOS, including video chat over 3G.
However Google went through a pointless revamp with Hangouts and never managed a convincing SMS integration.
The amount of perfectly functional messaging apps Google has gone through is crazy[1]. Each Google messaging app (GTalk, Hangouts, Meet, etc) is perfectly functional, but with an endless series of migrations, why would you stay around and every several months/year explain to the non-technical family members how the new version of Google's messaging product works?
Enter Whatsapp, which has been pretty consistent through the years, and of course guess which one people use.
[1]: Of course, it's crazy from a product management perspective - but from a "launch a new product to get the next promotion" perspective...
Enter Whatsapp, which has been pretty consistent through the years, and of course guess which one people use.
[1]: Of course, it's crazy from a product management perspective - but from a "launch a new product to get the next promotion" perspective...
Hangouts was the default SMS client in Android for a while, and it worked well enough as an SMS client that I never heard anybody complain about it. Much like iMessage, it could upgrade to internet-based messaging if both people in a conversation used it.
Where Google went wrong was bowing to pressure from carriers to stop doing that. Carriers had been much more powerful in the past, and I think Google failed to recognize just how fast their influence was waning.
Where Google went wrong was bowing to pressure from carriers to stop doing that. Carriers had been much more powerful in the past, and I think Google failed to recognize just how fast their influence was waning.
I don't buy it. Google just followed iMessage, only two years later, I don't see why carriers would suddenly have an issue with that. Plus Hangouts has never been a mainstream mobile messaging app, and I was a big user at the time. I worked at Samsung then and I'd bet most Android users never launched Hangouts nor even noticed it was preinstalled.
Google killed the integration in 2017 when they started betting on RCS and Google Messages more seriously.
Google killed the integration in 2017 when they started betting on RCS and Google Messages more seriously.
At the time, Google was in a much weaker position to push against carrier demands, because it didn't have as firm control over Android OEMs.
So it was trying to juggle carrier + OEMs + Android and keep everyone happy.
Anything that upset one party wasn't going to happen. Only in more recent, Samsung/Pixel-centric times has Google had iPhone-like negotiating weight (and will).
So it was trying to juggle carrier + OEMs + Android and keep everyone happy.
Anything that upset one party wasn't going to happen. Only in more recent, Samsung/Pixel-centric times has Google had iPhone-like negotiating weight (and will).
But realistically I don't know why any carrier would give a damn about this. In 2013, SMS was already irrelevant in most of the world. And in the US pretty much everyone had had unlimited texting for a while. Encouraging people towards OTT messaging was beneficial to carriers that were now ubiquitously making money on data packages, not texts/calls.
End users are not the only customers for SMS. A large number of automated notifications, confirmations, and 2FA codes are sent that way, and carriers get paid for it.
> End users are not the only customers for SMS. A large number of automated notifications, confirmations, and 2FA codes are sent that way, and carriers get paid for it.
Not just paid, they gouge their enterprise customers for it. Signal did a cost breakdown[0] and of their $13.7 million infra costs, a whopping $6 million is "registration fees".
[0]https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
Not just paid, they gouge their enterprise customers for it. Signal did a cost breakdown[0] and of their $13.7 million infra costs, a whopping $6 million is "registration fees".
[0]https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/
And how is this relevant to Hangouts acting as the default SMS client for a minority of subscribers?
If it was nearly every Android device, it wouldn't have been a minority in the mid 2010s.
I don't have an authoritative citation, but complaints from carriers is often reported as the reason Google backed away from the default SMS client decision. Here's one example, but I've seen it from other publications: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-...
I don't have an authoritative citation, but complaints from carriers is often reported as the reason Google backed away from the default SMS client decision. Here's one example, but I've seen it from other publications: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/rip-google-hangouts-...
Did Samsung use a different SMS client by default? I had Nexus and Xperia devices at the time, and they defaulted to Hangouts. If Samsung didn't use it, that approach might not have had much chance of reaching critical mass.
Right, Samsung had its own SMS client.
But even on (near) stock Android, you could easily install the AOSP client, or some third party (Textra was popular somehow).
I'm surprised Sony wouldn't bundle a proper SMS client by default. I thought only Nexus phones and Motorolas would default to Hangouts for a relatively short period, until Google started pushing Messages instead.
But even on (near) stock Android, you could easily install the AOSP client, or some third party (Textra was popular somehow).
I'm surprised Sony wouldn't bundle a proper SMS client by default. I thought only Nexus phones and Motorolas would default to Hangouts for a relatively short period, until Google started pushing Messages instead.
Do you have any details on that being due to carrier pressure?
I remember using Hangouts (and Google Talk before it) with almost everybody in my social circle. It had XMPP interoperability for a while (which let me use it at a computer, even with my phone battery dead, at a time when WhatsApp was available on the phone only) and it otherwise just worked.
I never understood why Google went out of their way as much as they did to kill a perfectly fine product in favor of various alternatives that just looked like yet another WhatsApp clone, including all the deficiencies of that (i.e. being single-device only, not using the existing Google account social network etc.)
I remember using Hangouts (and Google Talk before it) with almost everybody in my social circle. It had XMPP interoperability for a while (which let me use it at a computer, even with my phone battery dead, at a time when WhatsApp was available on the phone only) and it otherwise just worked.
I never understood why Google went out of their way as much as they did to kill a perfectly fine product in favor of various alternatives that just looked like yet another WhatsApp clone, including all the deficiencies of that (i.e. being single-device only, not using the existing Google account social network etc.)
> An interesting tidbit is that WhatsApp actually predates FaceTime and iMessage, and thus it was one of the earliest iPhone apps that allowed sending text messages over data as opposed to SMS. Interoperability with Android was a plus.
I still remember the "Ping!" app (not Blackberry Ping). Because early iOS was very lackluster with no notification support, every message was a pop-up. And "Ping!" itself had no message history. WhatsApp followed pretty closely after.
Even earlier, people used MSN via eBuddy. Not everyone had a smartphone yet, but at least the whole world was on MSN, so as long as the person without a smartphone was at a PC, you could converse. Someone had to text you "hey, get on eBuddy/MSN" though. Apps could either be foregrounded or dead in the background. There was no background processing aside from privileged apps like Mail or Music. And there was no notification service that could act like an IRC bouncer and wake up your backgrounded application. Medieval times.
Also, back then almost no one was using data, it was texting / calling that was still the major cash cow of providers, so you often got unlimited data for very cheap.
Funnily enough that "unlimited data for cheap" later led to a pretty big scuffle between providers and clever people who rolled over their contract indefinitely. Legally providers had to keep providing them with unlimited internet. The trick they did to push customers to renew their subscription was only providing them with 2G or 3G data (depending on their contract) and also limiting their speeds to the lowest tier. One provider even went as far as squeezing them on band access.
I still remember the "Ping!" app (not Blackberry Ping). Because early iOS was very lackluster with no notification support, every message was a pop-up. And "Ping!" itself had no message history. WhatsApp followed pretty closely after.
Even earlier, people used MSN via eBuddy. Not everyone had a smartphone yet, but at least the whole world was on MSN, so as long as the person without a smartphone was at a PC, you could converse. Someone had to text you "hey, get on eBuddy/MSN" though. Apps could either be foregrounded or dead in the background. There was no background processing aside from privileged apps like Mail or Music. And there was no notification service that could act like an IRC bouncer and wake up your backgrounded application. Medieval times.
Also, back then almost no one was using data, it was texting / calling that was still the major cash cow of providers, so you often got unlimited data for very cheap.
Funnily enough that "unlimited data for cheap" later led to a pretty big scuffle between providers and clever people who rolled over their contract indefinitely. Legally providers had to keep providing them with unlimited internet. The trick they did to push customers to renew their subscription was only providing them with 2G or 3G data (depending on their contract) and also limiting their speeds to the lowest tier. One provider even went as far as squeezing them on band access.
The US was one of the few countries in the world where there were unlimited SMS plans. So by the time Whatsapp came around instant free messaging was already ubiquitous. This wasn't the case for most other regions, where Whatsapp actually brought free unlimited mobile messaging.
Not sure how true this is as I had unlimited SMS in the UK in 2000. I struggled to keep that plan as the original provider got bought by O2. Luckily when it happened lots of providers provided enough SMS that was basically "unlimited". The problem for me was the cost of accessing no wap web pages.
Importantly these also usually included unlimited media messages (MMS) early on.
Flat rate plans in Europe started appearing a bit later and usually never included MMS, so it was calls and texts only, but no photos. WhatsApp changed that.
Flat rate plans in Europe started appearing a bit later and usually never included MMS, so it was calls and texts only, but no photos. WhatsApp changed that.
WhatsApp was a paid product to start with.
It cost ~$1 (initially a one time fee, later joiners paid annually). Depending on your SMS plan, that might be paid for with the first 10 messages you sent. There was zero additional cost to use to send a lot of messages, including pictures and group messages. This was quite different to most mobile contracts at the time
It wasn't even enforced though. Charged only after a year, but you could reinstall and get another year free.
I've used it at that time, and somehow they never managed to actually charge me (and I didn't go out of my way to avoid paying).
WhatsApp was there before Apple. There was even Symbian versions of it.
The reason it got so popular in other counties is the extortionate pricing of SMSes. WhatsApp used (and still uses) very little data and with the lowest level data tariff you would still get more messaging quota. Moreover it costed nothing when WiFi on phones became a thing. Then sending pictures for free became a thing too.
They were also a smaller company and it didn't bother people to pay a small amount for all of the benefits they got.
The reason it got so popular in other counties is the extortionate pricing of SMSes. WhatsApp used (and still uses) very little data and with the lowest level data tariff you would still get more messaging quota. Moreover it costed nothing when WiFi on phones became a thing. Then sending pictures for free became a thing too.
They were also a smaller company and it didn't bother people to pay a small amount for all of the benefits they got.
> because Apple/iOS devices are very popular in the country
Apple is popular also in Europe, and Android has a 43% market share in the US. But in Europe nobody would use a messaging system that is broken for 40% of their contacts. So either in the US there is no intersection between the social circles of people that use Android vs Apple (highly improbable) or something in the US culture makes people willing to cripple their own experience in order to impose a tax on those in the outgroup.
Apple is popular also in Europe, and Android has a 43% market share in the US. But in Europe nobody would use a messaging system that is broken for 40% of their contacts. So either in the US there is no intersection between the social circles of people that use Android vs Apple (highly improbable) or something in the US culture makes people willing to cripple their own experience in order to impose a tax on those in the outgroup.
SMS/MMS is free in almost all phone plans in the US, and I have absolutely no trouble believing that people would subject themselves to a very bad messaging experience if that's the default that comes with their phone, as long as it's free.
If I were to come up with a social/economic theory to further back that, my guess would probably be that phone users in the US have a "full service mentality" much more than in the rest of the world:
Buying a phone on a (very expensive) monthly plan that subsidizes the device is much more common than elsewhere, and historically, SIM cards weren't even a thing, so devices were tied to a given network and (to some extent) even a subscriber much more than in the rest of the world.
That would logically extend to people not expecting to have to install a third-party app for what they consider to be "basic phone functionality".
If I were to come up with a social/economic theory to further back that, my guess would probably be that phone users in the US have a "full service mentality" much more than in the rest of the world:
Buying a phone on a (very expensive) monthly plan that subsidizes the device is much more common than elsewhere, and historically, SIM cards weren't even a thing, so devices were tied to a given network and (to some extent) even a subscriber much more than in the rest of the world.
That would logically extend to people not expecting to have to install a third-party app for what they consider to be "basic phone functionality".
The 'something in US culture' is conspicuous consumption and a perception that apple are superior and you shouldnt have to go out of your way to interact with poor android users.
I wonder if this is somehow related with the healthcare policies: a country where everyone is willing to pay extortionate prices for medical care, sometimes to the point of financial ruin, so that those who are "undeserving" don't get it for free.
I read a comment recently on Hacker News that a pesticide or herbicide popular in the US and banned in the EU also happened to be an endocrine disruptor in humans, for a hormone responsible for empathy (oxytocin). Don't know if it's true.
WhatsApp has not become the "everything app" in the EU either?
People use it for chatting with people, groups of people, or businesses. Virtually no one uses the Status or Communities feature.
I have 289 people in my phone book right now, 1 of them occasionally posts on Status when on vacation. Of 25 people I quickly checked with, not one of them uses Communities.
People use it for chatting with people, groups of people, or businesses. Virtually no one uses the Status or Communities feature.
I have 289 people in my phone book right now, 1 of them occasionally posts on Status when on vacation. Of 25 people I quickly checked with, not one of them uses Communities.
This. It's just a replacement SMS and phone app. It's not an everything app.
I vaguely remember hearing that status updates are much more popular in other markets.
I could imagine the same for channels, as WhatsApp is zero-rated on many data plans in the developing world (as well as for in-flight Wi-Fi plans in more and more airlines!), which would make that an economical way of staying up to date on news.
I could imagine the same for channels, as WhatsApp is zero-rated on many data plans in the developing world (as well as for in-flight Wi-Fi plans in more and more airlines!), which would make that an economical way of staying up to date on news.
Facetime was announced as an intended open standard. Shortly, Apple realized their advantage of keeping it closed.
Idk how much of an advantage this has turned out to be. Like GP said, FaceTime is not as popular outside of the US because it isn’t on Android. Even its US popularity is limited by the fact that it doesn’t work with Android/PC users, mandating that you have another app (which likely works as well as FaceTime) on hand for those situations. I think this is more of an example of them shooting themselves in the foot for no advantage, but not caring because they have like 300 feet.
A patent lawsuit kept them from opening it up at the time. I think it's only recently been resolved.
This is such a weird claim getting repeated. If they were infringing, opening the protocol wouldn't change that fact. They didn't even have to provide the client for other platforms, so their unit count wouldn't be increased for damages.
Jobs' statement at the time was the intent to make it a published standard. If that standard was patent encumbered (or could be claimed to be, as the suit did) then it would be pretty hard to convince other people to implement that standard, and difficult to get a standards body to actually publish it. Why would Google, MS, or anyone else implement something if it'd get them bogged down in the same lawsuits Apple was already dealing with?
There's lots of standards covered by patents. Gif included https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF
Yes, which is a great example of a patent encumbered standard creating problems for people implementing the standard.
Considering FaceTime postdates the GIF experience, I'm sure plenty of corporate lawyers understood the problem much better.
Considering FaceTime postdates the GIF experience, I'm sure plenty of corporate lawyers understood the problem much better.
As a matter of policy, I avoid looking into details of patents, but from the title, I thought the patent was about something the server does, routing or something? In which case, infringement or licensing would scale with the number of users, not the number of shipped clients.
This was around the same time that Apple was charging for OS upgrades, at least on Mac, and I think they wouldn't have wanted to pay for something they were providing for free.
This was around the same time that Apple was charging for OS upgrades, at least on Mac, and I think they wouldn't have wanted to pay for something they were providing for free.
Making the protocol a standard doesn't mean they have to accept every client. They already restrict that.
Making it an open standard and then not accepting any clients but their own is an option I didn't even consider.
Not sure it would help them build their network, but I guess it's an option.
Not sure it would help them build their network, but I guess it's an option.
Even in my country where iOS reigns supreme, there is very minimal usage of regular SMS/iOS messages functionality. Almost everyone uses some kind of 3rd party app.
Do you think it could be that general purpose computers tend to exist as household items here moreso than in other parts of the world? I see my phone as a small extension of a much larger and more capable computing base. Is that view even possible in other parts of the world?
Most folks no longer need a general purpose computer, like they once did to participate.
Apple could release a fully functional iMessage for Android if they wanted to- hell the EU council would send them a cake if they did that.
One can speculate why they don't.
One can speculate why they don't.
The EU doesn't care. The DMA doesn't apply to iMessage, its market share is too small.
Payments. The sticky part of "everything" app is the payments platform. With a payments platform you have a internal "funded" ecosystem. Anybody who can not take payments from the "everything" app has a incentive to get inside so they can get paid. In many countries, the "everything" app contains, what in the US would be called, a bank.
This is basically illegal in the USA. US Banks are extremely stringently regulated to the point where many international banks do not even want to take US customers because that would subject them to US laws about banks. That is how insanely challenging it is for literal banks with decades of past and current experience to manage the regulations. "Move fast and break things" would get "Go directly to jail, do not pass go". Even money transmitter licenses like Paypal and Venmo are extremely challenging. And even those companies try really hard to make sure they do not get classified as a bank.
Trying to graft on a social platform onto a bank or a money transmitter would make the entire social platform subject to bank/money transmitter business restrictions which is almost certainly doomed legally. It is not like these companies do not know to add payments, it is just so insanely hard that even the 900 pound gorillas do not want to mess with Godzilla.
This is basically illegal in the USA. US Banks are extremely stringently regulated to the point where many international banks do not even want to take US customers because that would subject them to US laws about banks. That is how insanely challenging it is for literal banks with decades of past and current experience to manage the regulations. "Move fast and break things" would get "Go directly to jail, do not pass go". Even money transmitter licenses like Paypal and Venmo are extremely challenging. And even those companies try really hard to make sure they do not get classified as a bank.
Trying to graft on a social platform onto a bank or a money transmitter would make the entire social platform subject to bank/money transmitter business restrictions which is almost certainly doomed legally. It is not like these companies do not know to add payments, it is just so insanely hard that even the 900 pound gorillas do not want to mess with Godzilla.
Nope - nobody in Europe uses WhatsApp as a payments platform. Does it even have one?
It succeeded because it was around at the time where SMS messages where expensive, but smart phones where exploding in popularity.
It succeeded because it was around at the time where SMS messages where expensive, but smart phones where exploding in popularity.
WhatsApp is not a "everything" platform in most of Europe. Do you open WhatsApp to play music, games, order takeout, order online, pay for rent? It is just a very popular chat application in most of Europe in contrast to a "everything" app like WeChat where you do all of those things.
[1] https://www.whatsapp.com/payments/in
[1] https://www.whatsapp.com/payments/in
Nope, but by that definition almost no countries have an “everything app”. There’s like, one example in a very unique market?
It’s the “everything app” for messaging, friends and groups.
It’s the “everything app” for messaging, friends and groups.
In China, WeChat supports messaging, payments, as well as:
- Booking trains on the national railway
- Booking flights
- Booking hotels
- Paying all your bills
- Buying stuff
- Ordering food
- Renting a bike
- Getting a rideshare
- Seeing a doctor
- Donating to charities
- Investing
- Reading e-books
- Pretty much everything else
A lot of it is done through their HTML5 "mini-app" ecosystem but it's all under one everything app.
- Booking trains on the national railway
- Booking flights
- Booking hotels
- Paying all your bills
- Buying stuff
- Ordering food
- Renting a bike
- Getting a rideshare
- Seeing a doctor
- Donating to charities
- Investing
- Reading e-books
- Pretty much everything else
A lot of it is done through their HTML5 "mini-app" ecosystem but it's all under one everything app.
Yes, but the question was “does this exist anywhere other than in China?”
China is a pretty specific and unique market. Perhaps the existence of such an “everything app” is related to that, explaining why it doesn’t exist elsewhere?
China is a pretty specific and unique market. Perhaps the existence of such an “everything app” is related to that, explaining why it doesn’t exist elsewhere?
Yes, they exist elsewhere. Check out Grab (southeast Asia), Line (Japan, Taiwan), Kakao (Korea), Gojek (Indonesia), PayTm (India) or any number of everything-apps.
Kaspi in Kazakhstan
Telegram moving in this direction very fast. At this moment, telegram is used as news, blogs, file transfer app, chat etc. Recently added miniapps with real payments integration, "stars" as internal currency
You're getting downvoted mysteriously, as this is indeed true. All of Telegram's recent updates have been toward this purpose.
Yes, very few countries have a app where you can do "everything" in it. "This clear definition is really hard to achieve, therefore it must mean something different" is not a counter-argument.
I observe that these applications which are everything apps almost always have integrated payments platforms. This is not always the case, but seems to be the stickiest part of the offering. My thesis is that a competitive application with a integrated payments platform will eventually outcompete the ones without. Payments are possible in China with WeChat which is dominant. Payments are possible in India and Brazil with WhatsApp which are their dominant markets.
Counter-examples would take the form of markets/countries where there are multiple-domain applications with payments platforms that rapidly lose or lost marketshare to multiple-domain applications without payments. Markets where no popular application has payments provide no information as to the relative value of a integrated payments platform.
I observe that these applications which are everything apps almost always have integrated payments platforms. This is not always the case, but seems to be the stickiest part of the offering. My thesis is that a competitive application with a integrated payments platform will eventually outcompete the ones without. Payments are possible in China with WeChat which is dominant. Payments are possible in India and Brazil with WhatsApp which are their dominant markets.
Counter-examples would take the form of markets/countries where there are multiple-domain applications with payments platforms that rapidly lose or lost marketshare to multiple-domain applications without payments. Markets where no popular application has payments provide no information as to the relative value of a integrated payments platform.
> I observe that these applications which are everything apps almost always have integrated payments platforms
But this is essentially a sample size of 1?
There’s definitely an advantage to having integrated payments if you want to do “everything” (most of which requires or is related to payment of some kind).
But IMO you’re missing the forest for the trees: adding a payment button to an app is essentially integrated from the PoV of the user - you can do it with Apple Pay or google wallet seamlessly. So why isn’t this good enough?
That lacks payments between friends, so that’s the most important factor? But then in most first-world countries you’re now competing against banks (old and new), who solve this really well, and a myriad of country-specific shit. That’s why they don’t exist.
So really, it’s not just “payments” - it’s becoming the common digital medium of exchange, and that can only happen now for very large, single currency markets that are starting to transition from an unbanked cash based society to a banked one.
You can’t just shove payments onto WhatsApp and expect people to use it to pay their utility bills in a market that has established and seamless ways to do this already. Why would companies make changes to support this?
But this is essentially a sample size of 1?
There’s definitely an advantage to having integrated payments if you want to do “everything” (most of which requires or is related to payment of some kind).
But IMO you’re missing the forest for the trees: adding a payment button to an app is essentially integrated from the PoV of the user - you can do it with Apple Pay or google wallet seamlessly. So why isn’t this good enough?
That lacks payments between friends, so that’s the most important factor? But then in most first-world countries you’re now competing against banks (old and new), who solve this really well, and a myriad of country-specific shit. That’s why they don’t exist.
So really, it’s not just “payments” - it’s becoming the common digital medium of exchange, and that can only happen now for very large, single currency markets that are starting to transition from an unbanked cash based society to a banked one.
You can’t just shove payments onto WhatsApp and expect people to use it to pay their utility bills in a market that has established and seamless ways to do this already. Why would companies make changes to support this?
Because if you integrate with Apple Pay or Google Wallet then iOS or Android become the platform that delivers tailored applications, not your "everything app". Almost like that is exactly how it currently works in much of the world.
You are arguing in the wrong direction. You think I am arguing that supporting payments is a compelling feature for get customers. So, logically, you just need to add the ability to do payments in some way. My argument is actually that a robust payments platform is the moat needed to prevent your "everything" app from fragmenting by preventing your users from going around or under you. A lower level platform that provides a low friction means of payments for delivered services undercuts the coherency of the higher level platform since applications can be delivered around you.
So your examples actually support my argument. Payment platforms like Apple Pay and Google Wallet attached to their service delivery platforms, the app stores + OS, make it hard to lock people into "everything" apps because the OS is the "everything" app. Efficient inter-account transfers prevent "everything" apps from locking users into their payment ecosystem. If you do not have the payment moat, you are left with actually competing on features and delivery of services which is really hard to do across "everything", so you are better off focusing instead of trying to make a "everything" app.
You are arguing in the wrong direction. You think I am arguing that supporting payments is a compelling feature for get customers. So, logically, you just need to add the ability to do payments in some way. My argument is actually that a robust payments platform is the moat needed to prevent your "everything" app from fragmenting by preventing your users from going around or under you. A lower level platform that provides a low friction means of payments for delivered services undercuts the coherency of the higher level platform since applications can be delivered around you.
So your examples actually support my argument. Payment platforms like Apple Pay and Google Wallet attached to their service delivery platforms, the app stores + OS, make it hard to lock people into "everything" apps because the OS is the "everything" app. Efficient inter-account transfers prevent "everything" apps from locking users into their payment ecosystem. If you do not have the payment moat, you are left with actually competing on features and delivery of services which is really hard to do across "everything", so you are better off focusing instead of trying to make a "everything" app.
WeChat is most definitely an "everything" app in the sense of this discussion: messaging, shopping, money transfers, bill payments, cab hailing, transportation (planes, trains, etc.), utilities, hospital appointments, customer service, news, etc. etc.
Source: I used it for years in China at the time it evolved into the "everything" app
Source: I used it for years in China at the time it evolved into the "everything" app
Yes, and that's exactly why it's factually incorrect to paint WhatsApp as the "everything app" for either a specific market or even "the world excluding the US".
> It’s the “everything app” for messaging, friends and groups.
I'd call that a "some things app" :)
> It’s the “everything app” for messaging, friends and groups.
I'd call that a "some things app" :)
> It succeeded because it was around at the time where SMS messages where expensive, but smart phones where exploding in popularity.
Not sure that’s true everywhere. In Slovenia we had unlimited texting way before we had smartphones.
By around 2005 all carriers offered a “teenager” plan with unlimited texting and near zero phone minutes. Data was not yet a selling point.
Not sure that’s true everywhere. In Slovenia we had unlimited texting way before we had smartphones.
By around 2005 all carriers offered a “teenager” plan with unlimited texting and near zero phone minutes. Data was not yet a selling point.
SMS is one part of the story, group messaging is the other one.
WhatsApp let you send pictures. They came up with MMS but by then everyone was already on WhatsApp.
Now that I think about it WhatsApp really took the country by storm- the only thing that I can compare it with was Napster and Kazaa. And just like those it was all done by word of mouth! No commercials or ads. It was all organic.
Now that I think about it WhatsApp really took the country by storm- the only thing that I can compare it with was Napster and Kazaa. And just like those it was all done by word of mouth! No commercials or ads. It was all organic.
WhatsApp appears to support payments in India, and nowhere else.
India and Brazil [1]. Only their two biggest markets [2].
[1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/1293279751500598
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/whatsapp-...
[1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/1293279751500598
[2] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/whatsapp-...
The usage of the payment feature in Brazil is very, very low. I never heard about anyone using it. The Central Bank launched a national payment system (Pix) at the same time whatsapp wanted to launch their solution so they made Meta wait a few more months to get authorization. Now everybody uses Pix.
Meanwhile no-KYC cryptocurrency exchange sites are mostly hosted by or proxied through Cloudflare, a US company.
It’s the first time I hear that Whatsapp is already an everything app. Ive used Whatsapp for about 14 years or so on a daily basis as my main app. But it’s just chat for me, and about 30% of my non-professional calls. And I use the share location feature a lot when meeting friends. But that’s about it.
But banking, social media, ID/login, maps, albums, browsing etc I all do outside of whatsapp.
But banking, social media, ID/login, maps, albums, browsing etc I all do outside of whatsapp.
Yup, that claim went a bit far. I mean, the company account API exists and you can do buttons and automation and lots of companies do support this way. (All my contact with Dell support was over WhatsApp) So the tech is there, but the actual deployment of it isn't that big.
Depends on your country.
A particular banking service option I use is only available on WhatsApp
A particular banking service option I use is only available on WhatsApp
Here's where the comparison with WeChat maybe breaks down.
I lived in China for years, right during the time that WeChat (WeiXin) came out and evolved to become the "everything" app (vanquishing Weibo and others).
But I've only used WhatsApp for text messages and didn't even know that it had all these other features until I read this article.
So maybe it isn't really comparable to WeChat in that sense -- or maybe it is, I don't really know actually.
I lived in China for years, right during the time that WeChat (WeiXin) came out and evolved to become the "everything" app (vanquishing Weibo and others).
But I've only used WhatsApp for text messages and didn't even know that it had all these other features until I read this article.
So maybe it isn't really comparable to WeChat in that sense -- or maybe it is, I don't really know actually.
Honestly, it was just what it enabled. U.S. had cheap/free texting, so the network effect of just staying where you are was huge. Outside the US, there was only expensive texting so there was a latent need.
A friend asked me to use it first. She's not a techie, but she wasn't earning much and my first instinct was a mild annoyance that she was being cheap and trying to get me to use this other weird thing. What I had "worked" and had everyone on it. But ok, I'll try it. Became an early-ish adopter, spoke with her and a few people, over time it grew and utterly replaced texts. For friends, work, groups. If you try texting there, you're a dinosaur. We had no sense of social stigma of blue/green ticks. Everyone had the same ticks.
Moved to Australia and now I have to check. It's mostly WhatsApp but still some texts, and I have to check if someone is on WhatsApp rather than assume. Once or twice I've had to send on both channels. But there are WhatsApp groups everywhere, so no idea why this texting thing is still alive.
Notice and compare your own instincts when you read this. You might have the opposite reaction depending on where you are.
And for startups, it's whether you can land and enable a benefit before the existing company builds it. Speed vs distribution. Texting was so big a source of revenue that the local network providers kept the price high and basically lost it all. They could have dropped the price to where network effects prevented movement. The comfort of having the buttons and features and network where you expect them is massive.
A friend asked me to use it first. She's not a techie, but she wasn't earning much and my first instinct was a mild annoyance that she was being cheap and trying to get me to use this other weird thing. What I had "worked" and had everyone on it. But ok, I'll try it. Became an early-ish adopter, spoke with her and a few people, over time it grew and utterly replaced texts. For friends, work, groups. If you try texting there, you're a dinosaur. We had no sense of social stigma of blue/green ticks. Everyone had the same ticks.
Moved to Australia and now I have to check. It's mostly WhatsApp but still some texts, and I have to check if someone is on WhatsApp rather than assume. Once or twice I've had to send on both channels. But there are WhatsApp groups everywhere, so no idea why this texting thing is still alive.
Notice and compare your own instincts when you read this. You might have the opposite reaction depending on where you are.
And for startups, it's whether you can land and enable a benefit before the existing company builds it. Speed vs distribution. Texting was so big a source of revenue that the local network providers kept the price high and basically lost it all. They could have dropped the price to where network effects prevented movement. The comfort of having the buttons and features and network where you expect them is massive.
For one, in other countries, people are perfectly okay with doing real business over a messaging app. I saw a doctor in Indonesia once and everything from appointment scheduling to follow up with the doctor was done on WhatsApp. They were okay sending medical tests, records, and bills on WhatsApp as well.
In China, same thing, on WeChat.
In the US, they want you to register some stupid MyHealth thing, sign some paper documents, and mail follow up shit to your residential address. They won't give you medical records on anything other than a fucking CD-ROM, even in 2024. Somehow in the US, a messaging app isn't "official" enough, and there's going to be the one first amendment brat* that doesn't want to install WhatsApp for privacy reasons.
* I say this jokingly, and do think we need to be harsher on corporations. However, my point is that in collectivist countries like Indonesia/China, if you don't install WhatsApp/WeChat or whatever is the chosen national app, you'll be the outcast and nobody will help you. The collectivist societies tend to embrace these apps for their convenience, rather than question their terms and conditions.
In China, same thing, on WeChat.
In the US, they want you to register some stupid MyHealth thing, sign some paper documents, and mail follow up shit to your residential address. They won't give you medical records on anything other than a fucking CD-ROM, even in 2024. Somehow in the US, a messaging app isn't "official" enough, and there's going to be the one first amendment brat* that doesn't want to install WhatsApp for privacy reasons.
* I say this jokingly, and do think we need to be harsher on corporations. However, my point is that in collectivist countries like Indonesia/China, if you don't install WhatsApp/WeChat or whatever is the chosen national app, you'll be the outcast and nobody will help you. The collectivist societies tend to embrace these apps for their convenience, rather than question their terms and conditions.
"In the US, they want you to register some stupid MyHealth thing, sign some paper documents, and mail follow up shit to your residential address. They won't give you medical records on anything other than a fucking CD-ROM, even in 2024. Somehow in the US, a messaging app isn't "official" enough, and there's going to be the one first amendment brat* that doesn't want to install WhatsApp for privacy reasons."
That is because you don't have any good online ID authenticator. Something like BankId in Sweden is so incredibly practical in a lot of ways.
That is because you don't have any good online ID authenticator. Something like BankId in Sweden is so incredibly practical in a lot of ways.
bankid.com: "To get a BankID, you must have a Swedish personal identity number"
What do non-citizens use in Sweden to get around?
The "everything apps" of places that have them aren't usually restricted to only citizens (though some admittedly have shitty UIs for non-citizens)
What do non-citizens use in Sweden to get around?
The "everything apps" of places that have them aren't usually restricted to only citizens (though some admittedly have shitty UIs for non-citizens)
Everyone who's a permanent resident in Sweden gets a personal identity number, it's not tied to your citizenship. That would be illegal anyway, at least for citizens of other EU countries.
There's a lower-level, different number, which is less powerful, but easier to get.
There's a lower-level, different number, which is less powerful, but easier to get.
> Everyone who's a permanent resident in Sweden gets a personal identity number, it's not tied to your citizenship
Same in Denmark too. You get a "CPR" number, and can login to most government services (as well as some commercial ones) with "MitID" (my ID). It's quite convenient. I can even use my MitID to buy alcohol without having to interact with another human being in Rema 1000 using their self-checkout app.
Ireland—where I moved from—has a similar "PPS" number that all residents can get, although the online aspect is not nearly as well integrated as it is here in Denmark; it's slowly improving.
Same in Denmark too. You get a "CPR" number, and can login to most government services (as well as some commercial ones) with "MitID" (my ID). It's quite convenient. I can even use my MitID to buy alcohol without having to interact with another human being in Rema 1000 using their self-checkout app.
Ireland—where I moved from—has a similar "PPS" number that all residents can get, although the online aspect is not nearly as well integrated as it is here in Denmark; it's slowly improving.
What is a collectivist country?
>But I'm curious as to why such as "super-app" hasn't taken root in the US like it has elsewhere.
because there's a lot more traditional banking and business infrastructure in the US or Europe than there is in China or India, so the latter just leapfrogged over it and the experience of using Alipay or running your business of Whatsapp is just much better than any legacy institution in those countries. People in countries with more established ways of doing things are both too used to and don't have that much of an incentive to switch because most stuff works sort of okay.
Same reason why WhatsApp adoption itself is lower in the US and sms based messaging held out so long. The US had cheap sms plans earlier so people were less eager to switch while everyone else just jumped to internet based messaging.
because there's a lot more traditional banking and business infrastructure in the US or Europe than there is in China or India, so the latter just leapfrogged over it and the experience of using Alipay or running your business of Whatsapp is just much better than any legacy institution in those countries. People in countries with more established ways of doing things are both too used to and don't have that much of an incentive to switch because most stuff works sort of okay.
Same reason why WhatsApp adoption itself is lower in the US and sms based messaging held out so long. The US had cheap sms plans earlier so people were less eager to switch while everyone else just jumped to internet based messaging.
When Facebook bought WhatsApp, either Facebook or WhatsApp was the top social network in just about every country. It was a critical purchase for Facebook that locked out competitors globally for years. I can’t find the map now; if anyone knows what I’m talking about I hope they can share it.
Free or cheap texting hamstrung WhatsApp’s growth in some countries like the US. It was better in countries where cell plans were expensive because data didn’t meter per communication like SMS and WhatsApp was efficient.
WhatsApp isn’t an everything app like WeChat.
Free or cheap texting hamstrung WhatsApp’s growth in some countries like the US. It was better in countries where cell plans were expensive because data didn’t meter per communication like SMS and WhatsApp was efficient.
WhatsApp isn’t an everything app like WeChat.
This isn't really what an "everything app" is. WhatsApp is a chat app (+ some barebones community stuff, which Telegram and Discord also have).
To be an everything app, it needs to have, at the very least, a built-in payment system, fully featured social media content (ie. proper feeds and comments, at least on the level of Twitter), and non-trivial integration with other apps, businesses, and/or government entities. (This isn't even getting into eg. paying rent, ordering takeout, playing games, etc.)
Calling WhatsApp is just kind of missing the point of the definition.
To be an everything app, it needs to have, at the very least, a built-in payment system, fully featured social media content (ie. proper feeds and comments, at least on the level of Twitter), and non-trivial integration with other apps, businesses, and/or government entities. (This isn't even getting into eg. paying rent, ordering takeout, playing games, etc.)
Calling WhatsApp is just kind of missing the point of the definition.
Yeah I fear this is the case really. At most, WhatsApp is a way to communicate with businesses while keeping a separation of concerns for those running them.
It is simply better than SMS and is dead simple. You can have a business app that makes this be a separate thing from your personal life while using the same phone.
I have seen it used as a way to contact restaurants or local stores, order stuff, but that was the extent of it. Just communication, nothing else.
For me, at least, it has only been the messaging app I'm willing to use to be in touch with non-techie friends.
It is simply better than SMS and is dead simple. You can have a business app that makes this be a separate thing from your personal life while using the same phone.
I have seen it used as a way to contact restaurants or local stores, order stuff, but that was the extent of it. Just communication, nothing else.
For me, at least, it has only been the messaging app I'm willing to use to be in touch with non-techie friends.
> The description of WhatsApp here is exactly what Elon wanted X to become
I don't know what an "everything app" is, but that's not my experience with WhatsApp in Europe. It's just how you text or call everyone or businesses, but there's no payments or anything else going on beyond perhaps the occasional business chatbot. But even then, most 'businesses' I interact with over WhatsApp is just some person with a phone.
I don't know what an "everything app" is, but that's not my experience with WhatsApp in Europe. It's just how you text or call everyone or businesses, but there's no payments or anything else going on beyond perhaps the occasional business chatbot. But even then, most 'businesses' I interact with over WhatsApp is just some person with a phone.
I think Elon's target was WeChat, and the article implied that WhatsApp had essentially the same functionality as WeChat, but that may not actually be the case, or maybe only in some countries like Brazil.
Being the rare American Android person, I use it, Signal and Telegram to communicate with Iphone people since IMessage SMS integration is badly crippled.
It seems to be quite variable over the world. WhatsApp is massive here in the UK but pretty much only as a chat app.
I'm in a place where WhatsApp is everywhere - "call/text me" is basically assumed to mean call or send me a message on WhatsApp.
But, somehow I don't view it as a "cultural force" the way other social media sites are.
I guess because it's just people talking/chatting/sending-pics with their contacts, so there's no algorithm driving/changing peoples' behavior. It's like the cultural force of everyone having cell phones with free (and improved) SMS (which of course is a big change in society).
I've also never used WA to meet people, engage with strangers, or try to impress strangers. It's just people I've met in real life.
Although, a lot of this article is about the broadcast and "channels" features that I don't really use.
But, somehow I don't view it as a "cultural force" the way other social media sites are.
I guess because it's just people talking/chatting/sending-pics with their contacts, so there's no algorithm driving/changing peoples' behavior. It's like the cultural force of everyone having cell phones with free (and improved) SMS (which of course is a big change in society).
I've also never used WA to meet people, engage with strangers, or try to impress strangers. It's just people I've met in real life.
Although, a lot of this article is about the broadcast and "channels" features that I don't really use.
WhatsApp is basically a conduit or utility at this point. It's a more usable layer on top of raw TCP/IP. Its completely unlike any of the social media services, even telegram.
I agree, there is nothing cultural about it. I think its because there are no "discovery" features. You cant search for groups or people or whatever. You need to know someone well enough that they have your mobile number, in order to invite you to social groups etc.
I agree, there is nothing cultural about it. I think its because there are no "discovery" features. You cant search for groups or people or whatever. You need to know someone well enough that they have your mobile number, in order to invite you to social groups etc.
The cultural aspect is that I can't really extend my refusal to use Meta technology to WhatsApp because so many family members and important family data are only available via WhatsApp.
All the things you discuss are exactly why Whatsapp is such a great application.
How is it different to Telegram? Telegram has some discovery features but they are extremely poor, to the point I still only find out about groups when people send me a link.
Whatsapp has zero mechanisms to find groups. Someone needs to invite you, or you need to have link that was given to you by someone.
That's pretty much how Telegram works. Technically you can search public groups but the search function doesn't really work so you can't find anything without a link.
There are stories like on FB and Instagram. Also, you don't need to know all the people you communicate with - there's often groups for clubs, schools, events, etc.
Whatsapp is such a big cultural force that many of my non technical friends and family members refuse to use anything else. No mail for full res photos is one thing, but you can't make them use anything else. Everything lives in Whatsapp. Todos, notes, reminders, sharing stuff (airdrop is the only exception if everyone involved has iOS). It is less because of whatsapp features (Nobody uses any features like payments), and more because of the simplicity and ease of use.
I didn’t even know it could do things other than send messages. How do they do all that other stuff? Bots? Plain text chats?
Plain text chats only, pinned chats for todos. Named empty groups for notes. The fact that Whatsapp has no features is a plus for such users as they find doing whatever they want very simple.
The above are just two examples but people really do almost everything within Whatsapp without using any special features.
The above are just two examples but people really do almost everything within Whatsapp without using any special features.
Uuh, where do you live? I haven't met a single person (technical or non technical) with such an attachment to a single app in my life.
There are many examples all over the world. Plenty of countries have people that have attachments to apps like whatsapp, telegram, etc.
All of my friends in brazil, for instance, are entirely attached to whatsapp.
I agree with the other reply. Where do you live? I'm surprised that you haven't encountered any. Every city in the US that I visited and every city that I visited internationally has people that attach themselves to one of either whatsapp, telegram, imessage, etc.
(I'm kind of excluding wechat here because wechat seems to be forced, but there are plenty of people who have this attachment to wechat as well because of its status as an omni app)
All of my friends in brazil, for instance, are entirely attached to whatsapp.
I agree with the other reply. Where do you live? I'm surprised that you haven't encountered any. Every city in the US that I visited and every city that I visited internationally has people that attach themselves to one of either whatsapp, telegram, imessage, etc.
(I'm kind of excluding wechat here because wechat seems to be forced, but there are plenty of people who have this attachment to wechat as well because of its status as an omni app)
The question is where you live where this is not the case. You're the outlier here.
I think it's not as prominent as this in the US - probably because the equivalent is Apple messaging systems, if your family / friend group is all in that?
Yes the US is one of the only rare places where Whatsapp is not omnipresent (and it is the only presence where RCS has any meaningful chance of ever being used.
What worries me is FB is in charge. It’s allegedly secure, but closed source.
What’s their profit model here anyway?
What’s their profit model here anyway?
Hey, I am one of the editors on this story, and we had the same question. Sharing with you a separate story from this package that explains the math/finance of WhatsApp. Hope this answers your question: https://restofworld.org/2024/how-whatsapp-for-business-chang...
Whatsapp Business. $0.03-0.06 per conversation / authentication (multiple messages within 24hs) depending if it's transactional or marketing.
SMS providers are unreliable and expensive, it's eating their business.
SMS providers are unreliable and expensive, it's eating their business.
> SMS providers are unreliable and expensive, it's eating their business.
Is it actually though? At least in the UK I still get every business message (delivery notifications, booking confirmations etc.) via SMS. I haven't received a single one via WhatsApp. And WhatsApp has 100% penetration here so that isn't a barrier.
Is it actually though? At least in the UK I still get every business message (delivery notifications, booking confirmations etc.) via SMS. I haven't received a single one via WhatsApp. And WhatsApp has 100% penetration here so that isn't a barrier.
I can speak for LATAM, here WhatsApp it's much more reliable and faster than SMS
They bought WhatsApp to keep businesses on Facebook and to prevent it from being an actual "everything app", though in the end they started offering WhatsApp Business anyway.
A lot of this became public from FTC vs Meta: https://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-facebook-lawsuit-makes-z...
A lot of this became public from FTC vs Meta: https://www.businessinsider.com/ftc-facebook-lawsuit-makes-z...
It collects people's contacts and social graphs, which are then used to influence ad targeting in Meta's other platforms.
That's why it insists so badly on having full access to your contacts.
That's why it insists so badly on having full access to your contacts.
This is absolutely not true and would immediately trigger lawsuits across the globe. WhatsApp and Meta data separation is extremely strict. Source: I work at WhatsApp and also https://faq.whatsapp.com/1303762270462331
> We need your contacts to provide the service, but don’t share your contacts with Meta.
> We need your contacts to provide the service, but don’t share your contacts with Meta.
Under "How We Work With Other Meta Companies" in the privacy policy describes a usage almost identical to what the parent suggests:
> improving their services and your experiences using them, such as making suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), personalizing features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Meta Company Products;
https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/privacy-policy
> improving their services and your experiences using them, such as making suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), personalizing features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Meta Company Products;
https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/privacy-policy
I would be very careful about making such statements.
It is absolutely true that WhatsApp collects your contacts' phone numbers and your social graph. Unless WhatsApp has stopped doing that, in which case it should make a big announcement.
I don't know if the social graph is used outside WhatsApp, so that part may not be true, but it is within the privacy policy to do so (at least the one I see, EU may have a different one), the privacy policy says WhatsApp may share information with Meta to among other things:
> improving their services and your experiences using them, such as making suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), personalizing features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Meta Company Products;
And there have been waves of policy updates, notifications etc specifically to get these terms. That doesn't mean Find my Friends gets this information, but I thought there was at least discussion of it.
It is absolutely true that WhatsApp collects your contacts' phone numbers and your social graph. Unless WhatsApp has stopped doing that, in which case it should make a big announcement.
I don't know if the social graph is used outside WhatsApp, so that part may not be true, but it is within the privacy policy to do so (at least the one I see, EU may have a different one), the privacy policy says WhatsApp may share information with Meta to among other things:
> improving their services and your experiences using them, such as making suggestions for you (for example, of friends or group connections, or of interesting content), personalizing features and content, helping you complete purchases and transactions, and showing relevant offers and ads across the Meta Company Products;
And there have been waves of policy updates, notifications etc specifically to get these terms. That doesn't mean Find my Friends gets this information, but I thought there was at least discussion of it.
This is not me making some grand new commitment. It's right in the privacy policy and also summarized here: https://faq.whatsapp.com/1303762270462331
> We need your contacts to provide the service, but don’t share your contacts with Meta.
I'm frustrated that people even at HN allow themselves to indulge in conspiracy theories that would be immediately whistle-blowed or reported on. There are thousands of people that work on or with WhatsApp and related products within Meta who would notice, not to mention all the data separation audits that happen.
> We need your contacts to provide the service, but don’t share your contacts with Meta.
I'm frustrated that people even at HN allow themselves to indulge in conspiracy theories that would be immediately whistle-blowed or reported on. There are thousands of people that work on or with WhatsApp and related products within Meta who would notice, not to mention all the data separation audits that happen.
> We need your contacts to provide the service, but don’t share your contacts with Meta.
There are plenty of ways to make this statement 100% factual and still effectively leak the user's address book, at least in a form useful to Meta. It is true that Meta doesn't need your raw contacts, it just needs certain inferences made from them. WhatsApp can perfectly well make those inferences and only share those, with some trivially-reversed "anonymization" on top as an extra layer of obfuscation.
There are plenty of ways to make this statement 100% factual and still effectively leak the user's address book, at least in a form useful to Meta. It is true that Meta doesn't need your raw contacts, it just needs certain inferences made from them. WhatsApp can perfectly well make those inferences and only share those, with some trivially-reversed "anonymization" on top as an extra layer of obfuscation.
Your company has been knowingly in breach of the GDPR since it went into effect and shows no signs of stopping despite multiple adverse rulings and fines. There is no reason to trust a company whose entire business model is based on breaching privacy regulations and lying about it.
What you're saying is either an outright lie you are telling us, or a lie you have been told and are yourself choosing to believe to feel better about working for them, or to not put yourself at risk by digging deeper and finding adverse information (which once you know it you may be required to blow the whistle or find yourself legally complicit in the matter).
Basic economics suggests there is no reason Meta (then-Facebook) would pay what it had paid for WhatsApp for "just" a messaging app, especially before it was as entrenched as it is now (and so could trivially be dethroned by Facebook's own offering). They did so because unlike Facebook, people trusted WhatsApp with access to their contacts and that information is extremely important for Meta.
What you're saying is either an outright lie you are telling us, or a lie you have been told and are yourself choosing to believe to feel better about working for them, or to not put yourself at risk by digging deeper and finding adverse information (which once you know it you may be required to blow the whistle or find yourself legally complicit in the matter).
Basic economics suggests there is no reason Meta (then-Facebook) would pay what it had paid for WhatsApp for "just" a messaging app, especially before it was as entrenched as it is now (and so could trivially be dethroned by Facebook's own offering). They did so because unlike Facebook, people trusted WhatsApp with access to their contacts and that information is extremely important for Meta.
Whatsapp has been audited several times, and to say that an engineer at meta “has been lied to” is laughable given he/she has access to the entire codebase
Source: also worked at meta and had full access to WhatsApps codebase, like most engineers at meta
Source: also worked at meta and had full access to WhatsApps codebase, like most engineers at meta
A conspiracy involving thousands of people lying and no one speaking up over many years (it's been over 9 years since the acquisition) is incredibly unrealistic. Your hypothesis that WhatsApp shares the addressbook with Meta is not at all probable.
I don't think it makes money. My best guess is it just was bought so no-one else bought it and linked a billion users into their social network.
>What’s their profit model here anyway?
users data, perhaps? your data feed into FB's machine. I'm sure they will figured out how to make money.
users data, perhaps? your data feed into FB's machine. I'm sure they will figured out how to make money.
Drives users to FB, IG, and therefore ... ads.
Does it? I’m a regular WhatsApp user and haven’t touched any other Meta app in a long time. Easy to forget that they’re connected.
I’ve used Whatsapp since 2012.
Driving force with 20-30 somethings in early Whatsapp days in Europe was simply the first viable group messaging and sharing photos.
And the simplicity of onboarding! It immediately checked all your contacts to see who uses whatsapp. All other apps used usernames and invites. This worked immediately.
It worked on both phones, so everyone could join the group.
Free SMS was ok, but operators offered typical packages 500,1000 or 3000 free /month so it wasn’t an issue for anyone with a job. But for some it was great.
Combine these three factors and it spread like wildfire in few years.
Driving force with 20-30 somethings in early Whatsapp days in Europe was simply the first viable group messaging and sharing photos.
And the simplicity of onboarding! It immediately checked all your contacts to see who uses whatsapp. All other apps used usernames and invites. This worked immediately.
It worked on both phones, so everyone could join the group.
Free SMS was ok, but operators offered typical packages 500,1000 or 3000 free /month so it wasn’t an issue for anyone with a job. But for some it was great.
Combine these three factors and it spread like wildfire in few years.
Free international messages/calls as well. That's how most of my friends and I started using it: studying abroad is pretty common in Europe with Erasmus, or even simply vacationing.
Before that, we were using Skype, but I remember WhatsApp being so much more convenient/better, especially on mobile.
If it would have been very costly to send an SMS/call a different US state, I bet WhatsApp would have taken in the US.
Before that, we were using Skype, but I remember WhatsApp being so much more convenient/better, especially on mobile.
If it would have been very costly to send an SMS/call a different US state, I bet WhatsApp would have taken in the US.
Another reason that the article and other comments here are missing is the zero-rating deals that WhatsApp has with virtually all mobile providers, at least in Mexico. Your phone's plan will cover calls and an internet connection up to a certain data cap, but WhatsApp's data usage is uncapped. So, if you want to chat with a less mainstream app you'd end up paying more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
Which is ridiculous! The internet shouldn’t be able to give preference to some services over others. Bandwidth should be neutral.
Whatsapp is the only app (or any piece of software for that matter) you will actually see embedded in the physical world, in the form of street signs for neighborhood watch groups.
Very unfortunate given its now part of an adtech conglomerate. The defacto messaging app for such uses should be Signal.
Very unfortunate given its now part of an adtech conglomerate. The defacto messaging app for such uses should be Signal.
No, it shouldn't be another walled garden. Go with an actual standardized protocol.
I see many people in this thread thinking that WhatsApp took off because of SMS costs, and while that may be true in some countries, at least here in Finland I think the biggest factor were group chats. By 2013-2014 basically every high school and college class had their own whatsapp group chat since it made sharing of videos/photos and keeping in touch with everyone so much easier. By 2017 i'd say the vast majority of smartphone users under 60 years old were using whatsapp and nowadays even my almost 90-year old grandma uses it primarily for video calls and to receive photos/videos.
This got me wondering if people in US do not typically have such group chats or whats the alternative?
This got me wondering if people in US do not typically have such group chats or whats the alternative?
I live in California. For me, group chats are predominantly iMessage. FaceTime for video chat. I only know a handful of people with Android phones and they just suffer with poor quality media.
I suspect it’s both regionally and class dependent however.
I suspect it’s both regionally and class dependent however.
What do you mean by poor quality media?
WhatsApp and similar offer exactly the same kind of media transfers that iMessage offers.
WhatsApp and similar offer exactly the same kind of media transfers that iMessage offers.
I mean SMS media.
That’s exactly why everyone uses third-party messaging instead of SMS/MMS: iMessage, WhatsApp, Telegram etc.
I suspect the prevalence of iMessage and its weird mix with SMS/MMS results in people not realizing that it is a third-party service.
I suspect the prevalence of iMessage and its weird mix with SMS/MMS results in people not realizing that it is a third-party service.
Recent and related:
How WhatsApp for business changed the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42366753 - Dec 2024 (163 comments)
How WhatsApp for business changed the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42366753 - Dec 2024 (163 comments)
WhatsApp in India is inescapable, but also quite useful, primarily because of network effects. But you really have to be careful and sparing with it, else it becomes a nuisance. Thankfully they've done some work to that effect.
Example, adding an option to have to seek your permission to join a particular group is a godsend, since family members are all too happy to add you to their group where every post is a nonsensical forward, or random people add you to their "investments" group (pump and dump schemes). Also, considering the scale of WhatsApp, I get far fewer spam than I get in direct phone/SMS communication. Also I can block businesses permanently if they start abusing their messaging privileges.
I just wish they had kept it a more chat-focused platform rather than adding other stuff (channels, status, AI agents, etc). It's a pain that I can't disable features I don't need (eg. I don't want to use Meta AI, but I still have to see that annoying icon). But it's Meta, and they don't necessarily respect people not wanting something, so don't think you can do much about it.
Example, adding an option to have to seek your permission to join a particular group is a godsend, since family members are all too happy to add you to their group where every post is a nonsensical forward, or random people add you to their "investments" group (pump and dump schemes). Also, considering the scale of WhatsApp, I get far fewer spam than I get in direct phone/SMS communication. Also I can block businesses permanently if they start abusing their messaging privileges.
I just wish they had kept it a more chat-focused platform rather than adding other stuff (channels, status, AI agents, etc). It's a pain that I can't disable features I don't need (eg. I don't want to use Meta AI, but I still have to see that annoying icon). But it's Meta, and they don't necessarily respect people not wanting something, so don't think you can do much about it.
I was surprised when I returned to the US that not everybody uses WhatsApp. I was also using WeChat a lot in Asia. What has become very powerful in my opinion, and it used a lot by larger groups is Telegram.
This is the problem I keep mentioning with the very poor definition of "social media".
You wouldn't have said old flip phone was a social media, even if effectively whatsapp does the same stuff.
There is a big difference between an app pushing you toward "brand yourself" and with algorithm-controlled content and a contacting-app with none of the previous stuff. Yes, they are both "social" in the sense that they allow us to reach other humans, but that's where it ends.
I'm sure there are features I don't know about whatsapp though.
You wouldn't have said old flip phone was a social media, even if effectively whatsapp does the same stuff.
There is a big difference between an app pushing you toward "brand yourself" and with algorithm-controlled content and a contacting-app with none of the previous stuff. Yes, they are both "social" in the sense that they allow us to reach other humans, but that's where it ends.
I'm sure there are features I don't know about whatsapp though.
I feel like I am missing something. It is a chat app, one of many, with some features like communities (which feel like extremely large groups) and status updates (which almost every other app does).
The thing you’re missing is network effects.
I use WhatsApp because all my family and friends are on it. We’re all on it because it’s the dominant chat network in the UK.
It might seem like SMS must be an option because everyone has it, because if you have WA then you’ve got a number and can receive SMS, but that’s not how people view it. SMS is an app like every other (to most people), but it’s an app that doesn’t have their other chats in (only 2FA codes and spam), and one that mostly doesn’t sync to their other devices as well.
I use WhatsApp because all my family and friends are on it. We’re all on it because it’s the dominant chat network in the UK.
It might seem like SMS must be an option because everyone has it, because if you have WA then you’ve got a number and can receive SMS, but that’s not how people view it. SMS is an app like every other (to most people), but it’s an app that doesn’t have their other chats in (only 2FA codes and spam), and one that mostly doesn’t sync to their other devices as well.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I do use WhatsApp for friends, family, coworkers and even some business chats. That was my point, it is not a everything app, it is just a chat app.
Ah apologies, yeah I think there were multiple definitions of that floating around. Some people here are clearly using it to mean "everything" chat, i.e. having no other networks of any significance (which I think WhatsApp is in many places). Others are suggesting it's got aspects of an everything app, with businesses doing support over it, etc, but that's perhaps a naive interpretation of what a WeChat-style everything app is, which in my opinion is the true definition of an everything app, and certainly something that WhatsApp is not.
[deleted]
I still feel like WhatsApp had a stronger position to do better in both developing countries and developed countries. But for some reason unknown, it did not roll out plans and positions fast enough.
Small discussion (10 points, 13 hours ago, 5 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42387220
While WhatsApp started as a way to set status ("Can't talk, text only", "Urgent calls only", "At school", "Busy"), the eventual razor-sharp focus by Jan Koum & Brian Acton to replace SMS (not MSN/Y! Messenger, not BBM, not IRC), in my eyes, made it the juggernaut that it became, inspite of the many regional/global clones.
- No logins. No sign-ups. Mobile phone number was the username; SIM card, the password.
- No central database of messages. No backup & restore. No stickers. No web-based access. Only fast text-based relays. For phones.
- Aggressive cross platform focus. Including clients for Blackberry & Symbian, not just mainstream OSes.
- Little to no perceptible downtime. Worked just fine in all sorts of flaky networks. Consistently and reliably.
- No ads, no spam.
- As cheap or cheaper than SMS (£1/yr), but works & roams globally.
- Voice notes and media to expand beyond the Anglosphere.
Another tidbit I find interesting: Jan used the fact that every time an app's title / description was changed, it would show up at the top in the "new" category of the iOS App Store, to help reach a wider install base.
In short, being laid off from Yahoo! to being rejected by Facebook, brought the best out of Jan & Brian. They ran a very unconventional SV startup and got a lot of the details exactly and deliberately right. Not many stood a chance, as evidenced by their eventual £22bn exit.
- No logins. No sign-ups. Mobile phone number was the username; SIM card, the password.
- No central database of messages. No backup & restore. No stickers. No web-based access. Only fast text-based relays. For phones.
- Aggressive cross platform focus. Including clients for Blackberry & Symbian, not just mainstream OSes.
- Little to no perceptible downtime. Worked just fine in all sorts of flaky networks. Consistently and reliably.
- No ads, no spam.
- As cheap or cheaper than SMS (£1/yr), but works & roams globally.
- Voice notes and media to expand beyond the Anglosphere.
Another tidbit I find interesting: Jan used the fact that every time an app's title / description was changed, it would show up at the top in the "new" category of the iOS App Store, to help reach a wider install base.
In short, being laid off from Yahoo! to being rejected by Facebook, brought the best out of Jan & Brian. They ran a very unconventional SV startup and got a lot of the details exactly and deliberately right. Not many stood a chance, as evidenced by their eventual £22bn exit.
... and one ring to bind them.
Even if it were an open source app with open governance, the shaping of culture happens at a different layer. And that shaping sometimes is guided and not in the best interest of the users.
Even if it were an open source app with open governance, the shaping of culture happens at a different layer. And that shaping sometimes is guided and not in the best interest of the users.
unnamed76ri(2)
Don’t forget that WhatsApp worked on every single mobile platform - even feature phones. This gave it a universal appeal.
Posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42375926
You mean 4 days ago?
The description of WhatsApp here is exactly what Elon wanted X to become (which clearly didn't and almost certainly now won't happen). But I'm curious as to why such as "super-app" hasn't taken root in the US like it has elsewhere.