WhatsApp introduces ads in its app(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
WhatsApp introduces ads in its app
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/technology/whatsapp-ads.html
1,053 comments
https://archive.md/L3W74
Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?
I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.
It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.
I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.
It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.
I remember when Whatsapp became a paid app, I can’t remember the details as I believe they varied by platform (iOS vs Android) but it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter.
I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it. This is coming from SMS costing €0.25 per message (text only!) and also coming from people who would gladly pay €3 for a Coke at a bar that they’d piss down the toilet an hour later. It didn’t matter if it only took 3 or 4 messages to make Whatsapp pay off for itself, as they were sending dozens if not hundreds of messages per day, either images, videos and whatnot (MMSs were much more expensive).
At that moment I realised many (most?) people would never pay for software. Either because it’s not something physical or because they’re stuck in the pre-Internet (or maybe music) mentality where copying something is not “stealing” as it’s digital data (but they don’t realise running Whatsapp servers, bandwidth etc cost very real money). And I guess this is why some of the biggest digital services are ad-funded.
In contrast, literally never someone has voiced privacy concerns, they simply find ads annoying and they’ve asked for a way to get rid of them (without paying, of course).
I should say, I’m from one of the European countries with the highest levels of piracy.
I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it. This is coming from SMS costing €0.25 per message (text only!) and also coming from people who would gladly pay €3 for a Coke at a bar that they’d piss down the toilet an hour later. It didn’t matter if it only took 3 or 4 messages to make Whatsapp pay off for itself, as they were sending dozens if not hundreds of messages per day, either images, videos and whatnot (MMSs were much more expensive).
At that moment I realised many (most?) people would never pay for software. Either because it’s not something physical or because they’re stuck in the pre-Internet (or maybe music) mentality where copying something is not “stealing” as it’s digital data (but they don’t realise running Whatsapp servers, bandwidth etc cost very real money). And I guess this is why some of the biggest digital services are ad-funded.
In contrast, literally never someone has voiced privacy concerns, they simply find ads annoying and they’ve asked for a way to get rid of them (without paying, of course).
I should say, I’m from one of the European countries with the highest levels of piracy.
When the Apple App store came along it was wild seeing how quickly software went from $10 down to 0.99c in the space of less than a year. And then it was only a matter of time before it dropped to zero. Once it hit zero, the tolerance for payment of any kind went to zero as well for a very large portion of people.
Apps and the internet in general, for most people, is considered almost weightless and zero cost. In the race for market dominance meant dropping the price as low as possible to drive out competition.
Apps and the internet in general, for most people, is considered almost weightless and zero cost. In the race for market dominance meant dropping the price as low as possible to drive out competition.
True. Yet, if you don't charge for the software itself, but instead you make that purchase only unlock a skin or some fake currency in that software, and worse, only have a small chance of being the one that user wants, suddenly people will pay 10, 20, or 100 dollars for your software, over and over again.
It's gambling at the core that's the issue here. We used to have robust regulation of it for decades (and it was recognized millennia ago that gambling is bad for societies anyway), the problem is that the global gambling industry moved far too fast for regulations to catch up - and now we're at a point where children, even toddlers are getting lured into gambling mechanisms. It's all lootboxes nowadays.
Personal take on it: that's all just preparing children for the inevitable fact that everything from education over employment and housing to dating is mostly depending on luck...
Personal take on it: that's all just preparing children for the inevitable fact that everything from education over employment and housing to dating is mostly depending on luck...
Agreed. Gambling laws are stuck at the notion that you need real cash payouts for an activity to be gambling when psychologically a database entry with enough lipstick can be just as enticing.
It's almost as if people are made of inconsistent meat
I'd really wish Apple would add a "Exclude apps with in-app purchase" filter to their app store. I don't mind paying for an app, I mind subscriptions and in-app purchases.
> I'd really wish Apple would add a "Exclude apps with in-app purchase" filter to their app store.
Unfortunately that would still exclude plenty of good apps. There are a ton which are “free” with limited options and then have a one-time in-app purchase to unlock the full thing.
Unfortunately that would still exclude plenty of good apps. There are a ton which are “free” with limited options and then have a one-time in-app purchase to unlock the full thing.
Many good apps use subscription models still to great effect, if their user base is of the right type. E.g. overcast the podcast app. It makes excellent money because of the type of user who pays for it is looking for a premium experience. The $0 app thing is for race to the bottom style app markets, which, let’s be honest, has always been that way.
> people would never pay for software.
I see this and not see this.
See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.
not see = Steam
I see this and not see this.
See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.
not see = Steam
>Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.
Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.
Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning).
I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.
Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.
Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning).
I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.
> Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.
That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
If you're routinely buying and throwing out $25 plates of food, then you're in a different income bracket than many people. And then, yes, avoiding a $3 app is more nonsensical than for most.
No one said you’re routinely doing it. It just happens for thing at orders of magnitude higher than what can be asked for software. One bad coffee, or meal or a %20 tip on a $40 order of pizza is far more than the 1.99 or 3.99 software can ask for, and it’s still too much.
Tipping $5 or a $10 is not a big deal, but a $1.99 app is like “ooof, is there like a free version?”
It’s not even a blanket statement on software. gamers have shown they are willing to pay, though their money comes with strings attached. Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users who are more willing to pay than Linux users.
It’s not even a blanket statement on software. gamers have shown they are willing to pay, though their money comes with strings attached. Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users who are more willing to pay than Linux users.
Yeah, I'm not claiming nobody pays for software. Clearly many do. Just that I understand people's default aversion - I encounter far more software than food that I would label "shit", despite eating far more food in total.
And software often requires you to enter payment info into who know what system (plus your phone number (plus make an account (plus opt into receiving spam from them until the universe dies))), if you're not using google play / the iOS app store. In a restaurant you put your card into the thing and you're done.
Also this:
>It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
Is something many pieces of software I've used cannot even dream of achieving. They solely wasted my time.
It's why I think it's a shame that demos are a dying breed.
And software often requires you to enter payment info into who know what system (plus your phone number (plus make an account (plus opt into receiving spam from them until the universe dies))), if you're not using google play / the iOS app store. In a restaurant you put your card into the thing and you're done.
Also this:
>It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.
Is something many pieces of software I've used cannot even dream of achieving. They solely wasted my time.
It's why I think it's a shame that demos are a dying breed.
In my experience, a free and ad-free app is often better, because it was written by someone who doesn't have profit as a motive (often just a hobby). There are tons of great paid apps too, but it's hard to know which paid app is actually good and which is a slipshod app designed to profit from the rare user who will buy an app without much thought.
Plenty of university students around me who will order a $8 boba tea and be disappointed that the boba is cooked poorly or the milk ratio isn't good, and then do it again a couple days later.
But the difference is that food elicits cravings - you buy it because you imagine how good it'll be if it's done right this time and your body pressures you to buy it. Apps don't do that.
But the difference is that food elicits cravings - you buy it because you imagine how good it'll be if it's done right this time and your body pressures you to buy it. Apps don't do that.
> Plenty of university students around me who will order a $8 boba tea
>What kind of normie uni student is buying 8 USD bubble teas? Ridiculous.
I can't speak to anywhere else, but these[0][1] are near Columbia University and $8 is pretty normal there, AFAICT. Presumably YMMV depending on where you are.
[0] https://order.gongchausa.com/
[1] https://www.trycaviar.com/store/tea-magic-new-york-841338/11...
I can't speak to anywhere else, but these[0][1] are near Columbia University and $8 is pretty normal there, AFAICT. Presumably YMMV depending on where you are.
[0] https://order.gongchausa.com/
[1] https://www.trycaviar.com/store/tea-magic-new-york-841338/11...
Even here in Barcelona a bubble tea is about 6 euro. It's not something I'd get every day, but it's a nice thing on a hot day. A treat like an ice cream.
And the purchasing power in America is about 3-4 times as high. Also, you don't really get poor students there. If you're poor in America you just don't get to go to college.
And the purchasing power in America is about 3-4 times as high. Also, you don't really get poor students there. If you're poor in America you just don't get to go to college.
> And the purchasing power in America is about 3-4 times as high.
> If you're poor in America you just don't get to go to college.
Ok, so my joke stands. Columbia University is in Manhattan -- incredibly expensive by any measure.
It’s also easier to pay for something that I feel I’m entirely getting as a treat for me. Sure, that snack is $5, but it’s all a “treat”. Software often doesn’t feel like a treat to own, outside of games that is, having to pay for apps you’d just use in every day life feels emotionally more like an annoying tax you have to pay to just continue existing, just like an electricity bill or something. I honestly think that’s the main psychological difference that people aren’t considering or even mentioning.
this probably goes back to the Steam counterexample - Game apps do elicit that craving.
I can't speak for others, but it is absolutely true for me. If I spend $1-3 on some item of food and it is so bad I can't or don't want to even eat it- it is pretty bad... and I am incredibly bummed out over it.
IMO the problem of many platforms is that they don't let you "own" the software (whatever that means).
Steam experience is closer to the feel of ownership because: - Most games don't just randomly upgrade. They are stable. - Steam is cross platform enough that you can use the software on different devices as if you were copying it. - Your steam account isn't the center of your digital life, it's access isn't subject to many associated risks.
Steam experience is closer to the feel of ownership because: - Most games don't just randomly upgrade. They are stable. - Steam is cross platform enough that you can use the software on different devices as if you were copying it. - Your steam account isn't the center of your digital life, it's access isn't subject to many associated risks.
I don’t buy that justification, most people have never and will never spare a thought for “software ownership”. I’d bet the truth is closer to “people don’t see games as software, but as entertainment. Paying for them is no different to paying to go to the movies, buy a song on iTunes, use Spotify, or Netflix”.
Apps (“software”) and games are fundamentally different in the public’s perception. Look at the App Store, it has two different tabs for games and Apple is even making a separate app for them.
Apps (“software”) and games are fundamentally different in the public’s perception. Look at the App Store, it has two different tabs for games and Apple is even making a separate app for them.
People aren't willing to pay for mobile games any more than for other apps.
It’s curious that you had to specify mobile games. That seems to indicate you understand those are their own class of product (often more slot machine with extra steps than software or game) than what the conversation is about (Steam, thus desktop games).
The App Store—which, by the way, I was thinking of the one on the Mac—was merely an example to represent how companies understand and separate games from other software. I could’ve also made the point of games being seen as entertainment rather than software by pointing out Netflix has movies, TV shows, and games, but not other apps.
The App Store—which, by the way, I was thinking of the one on the Mac—was merely an example to represent how companies understand and separate games from other software. I could’ve also made the point of games being seen as entertainment rather than software by pointing out Netflix has movies, TV shows, and games, but not other apps.
The accumulated loss, if some people lost their access to Steam is huge though. For some people that's thousands of euros.
Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. Plus there are frequent sales. Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of making people feel “I have to buy this now or the deal will be gone.”
I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent.
(The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)
I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent.
(The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)
> Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours.
I think it’s actually worldwide?
I think it’s actually worldwide?
Yes, but they did it because Australia forced them to.
I doubt that, EU consumer rights already stated that "the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract". Steam purchases count as "digital content" in that case.
[0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj#art_9.tit_1
[0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj#art_9.tit_1
You can doubt whatever you want but the fact is Steam did NOT offer refunds until they were sued in Australia and lost.
As for EU consumer rights, look at Article 16 (m) in the link you posted:
> Exceptions from the right of withdrawal
> Member States shall not provide for the right of withdrawal set out in Articles 9 to 15 in respect of distance and off-premises contracts as regards the following:
> [...]
> (m) the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent and his acknowledgment that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal.
As for EU consumer rights, look at Article 16 (m) in the link you posted:
> Exceptions from the right of withdrawal
> Member States shall not provide for the right of withdrawal set out in Articles 9 to 15 in respect of distance and off-premises contracts as regards the following:
> [...]
> (m) the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent and his acknowledgment that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal.
In practice I've sometimes encountered that in the form of "either waive your right of withdrawal or else wait 14 days to download your content/activate your licence/etc.", though.
I don’t think that would fly in any EU court?
It would and does. There is little (EU-wide) legal protection for consumers of digital content.
This is not true for digital purchases when you waive your rights to withdraw which you have to accept for digital storefronts. See under point 19).
Got a source for that?
They got sued (and lost) back in 2014 in Australia for not having a refund policy: https://www.techradar.com/news/heres-valves-official-stateme...
Sony does not follow this, how are they getting away with it?
My point is, this is just something Steam does, not something they are required to do (at least not everywhere).
Just for clarification: they are required to refund customers in some jurisdictions (apparently Australia was the reason, indeed), so they might have decided to do this for everybody
a) out of the kindness of their heart (i.e. good public image), or
b) just not to deal with complexity of introducing different refund schemas per region.
Probably a mixture of both.
a) out of the kindness of their heart (i.e. good public image), or
b) just not to deal with complexity of introducing different refund schemas per region.
Probably a mixture of both.
Also
c) to preempt additional regulation in more jurisdictions
Steams refund policies are still fairly weak IMO. For many games, two hours doesn't really tell you much about the quality of the game and Steam also knows that many users will not get around to even trying games they pick up within the two weeks that they grant refunds for.
Imagine you went to a physical store and bought something that turned out to be broken after a couple hours of use and the Store just said too bad. Absolutely unacceptable there but Steam reserves the right to and does often refuse refunds that are not within their stated limits.
You also don't have as much leverage with Steam as you do with some random store. If a merchant fucks you over you are supposed to be able to reverse the transaction but with Steam trying that with even one game will get you banned from the store completely - and with Steam being a not-quite monopoly that means many games will literally be unavailable to you.
AFAIK you also still cant refund Steam wallet "cash" into real money so if you bought a Steam wallet card in order to buy a Game and then want to refund that game you can effectively only exchange it for other Steam products which is not a real refund.
IMO Steam gets a lot of undue credit just for not being quite as terrible as the competition.
c) to preempt additional regulation in more jurisdictions
Steams refund policies are still fairly weak IMO. For many games, two hours doesn't really tell you much about the quality of the game and Steam also knows that many users will not get around to even trying games they pick up within the two weeks that they grant refunds for.
Imagine you went to a physical store and bought something that turned out to be broken after a couple hours of use and the Store just said too bad. Absolutely unacceptable there but Steam reserves the right to and does often refuse refunds that are not within their stated limits.
You also don't have as much leverage with Steam as you do with some random store. If a merchant fucks you over you are supposed to be able to reverse the transaction but with Steam trying that with even one game will get you banned from the store completely - and with Steam being a not-quite monopoly that means many games will literally be unavailable to you.
AFAIK you also still cant refund Steam wallet "cash" into real money so if you bought a Steam wallet card in order to buy a Game and then want to refund that game you can effectively only exchange it for other Steam products which is not a real refund.
IMO Steam gets a lot of undue credit just for not being quite as terrible as the competition.
> You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours.
The explicit rule is you can get a refund on any game for any reason if both of these are true:
* You have played for less than two hours.
* You bought it in the past two weeks.
https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/
The explicit rule is you can get a refund on any game for any reason if both of these are true:
* You have played for less than two hours.
* You bought it in the past two weeks.
https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds/
There's no problem getting a refund for apps in my experience, I've done it a handful of times when I've changed my mind and it was easy and fully automated.
Anecdotally, as a counterpoint, I asked for refunds on the iOS App Store maybe twice in a row and since then every purchase was met with a dialog where I had to confirm I waved my right to a refund.
This was over a decade ago, so may be very outdated. I don’t even think in-app purchases were yet a thing. I wasn’t trying to abuse the apps (I pay for software) and was in fact trying to use the refund policy to allow me to buy more apps because I could test without the fear of paying for duds. Their policy had the opposite effect and I basically stopped buying on the App Store.
This was over a decade ago, so may be very outdated. I don’t even think in-app purchases were yet a thing. I wasn’t trying to abuse the apps (I pay for software) and was in fact trying to use the refund policy to allow me to buy more apps because I could test without the fear of paying for duds. Their policy had the opposite effect and I basically stopped buying on the App Store.
> Thanks to Australian customer protection laws
Source? I always thought this was a general Steam policy, as it's available pretty much anywhere.
Source? I always thought this was a general Steam policy, as it's available pretty much anywhere.
I got one from the play store once - I called them. The conversation was a bit surreal ( they kept telling me it wasn’t their fault , before eventually suggesting a refund )
The ACCC did win a $3M AUD judgement against them for their refund policies:
* https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million... (not currently loading for me)
* https://archive.is/9mE7i#selection-4964.0-4978.0 (archive of the above)
> The Court held that the terms and conditions in the Steam subscriber agreements, and Steam’s refund policies, included false or misleading representations about consumers’ rights to obtain a refund for games if they were not of acceptable quality.
> In determining the appropriate penalty to impose on Valve, Justice Edelman noted that “even if a very small percentage of Valve’s consumers had read the misrepresentations then this might have involved hundreds, possibly thousands, of consumers being affected”.
> Justice Edelman also took into account “Valve’s culture of compliance [which] was, and is, very poor”. Valve’s evidence was ‘disturbing’ to the Court because Valve ‘formed a view …that it was not subject to Australian law…and with the view that even if advice had been obtained that Valve was required to comply with the Australian law the advice might have been ignored”. He also noted that Valve had ‘contested liability on almost every imaginable point’.
Valve's notice to consumers is archived here, and no longer on their live website: https://web.archive.org/web/20180427063845/https://store.ste...
I can find news articles saying that the court action began in late Aug/early Sep 2014.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/steamowner-v...
Here's an old reddit comment discussing how Valve failed to implement AUD and KRW pricing on schedule, and speculates that at least in Australia's case, it's because of local compliance reasons.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/38dlvd/the_real_reas...
But I can't find anything that definitively ties the rollout of refund policies to an attempt to get the ACCC off their back. The comments on the above reddit post show that GOG and Origin had active refund policies at this time.
* https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million... (not currently loading for me)
* https://archive.is/9mE7i#selection-4964.0-4978.0 (archive of the above)
> The Court held that the terms and conditions in the Steam subscriber agreements, and Steam’s refund policies, included false or misleading representations about consumers’ rights to obtain a refund for games if they were not of acceptable quality.
> In determining the appropriate penalty to impose on Valve, Justice Edelman noted that “even if a very small percentage of Valve’s consumers had read the misrepresentations then this might have involved hundreds, possibly thousands, of consumers being affected”.
> Justice Edelman also took into account “Valve’s culture of compliance [which] was, and is, very poor”. Valve’s evidence was ‘disturbing’ to the Court because Valve ‘formed a view …that it was not subject to Australian law…and with the view that even if advice had been obtained that Valve was required to comply with the Australian law the advice might have been ignored”. He also noted that Valve had ‘contested liability on almost every imaginable point’.
Valve's notice to consumers is archived here, and no longer on their live website: https://web.archive.org/web/20180427063845/https://store.ste...
I can find news articles saying that the court action began in late Aug/early Sep 2014.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/steamowner-v...
Here's an old reddit comment discussing how Valve failed to implement AUD and KRW pricing on schedule, and speculates that at least in Australia's case, it's because of local compliance reasons.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/38dlvd/the_real_reas...
But I can't find anything that definitively ties the rollout of refund policies to an attempt to get the ACCC off their back. The comments on the above reddit post show that GOG and Origin had active refund policies at this time.
Maybe one of the reasons is that buying software in general case is more complicated. Kebab around the corner does not ask you for credit card details, delivery address, probably will not want to track what you will be doing while digesting the kebab etc… In contrast buying a CD in 90’s was more like buying a food, but the price usually was too high. That grown into huge pirate software markets, like in eastern Europe. To extents like the other commenter said - “nobody ever will pay for software”.
I think it is because humans spent thousands, tens of thousands of years not doing much other than searching for food and trading one physical object for another physical object.
The idea of trading something valuable for an abstract piece of software or paper is still not really natural to us, and is a learned behavior.
The idea of trading something valuable for an abstract piece of software or paper is still not really natural to us, and is a learned behavior.
I buy almost everything with a piece of plastic that represents a company who's agreed to lend me money that represents absolutely nothing except the common agreement that it's valuable.
Yes and credit cards are a learned behavior, not an instinctual thing - and I think not buying an app for $1 is largely based on instinct.
People instinctively or factually know that there are other apps that do basically the same thing for free.
It's the case for messaging apps and for almost any other kind of app. It's hard to beat the price point of a free app, even if it might include tracking, advertising, spying inside their package.
If WhatsApp would start asking for money hundreds of millions of people would switch to something else in a few days, even to a free app created overnight to capitalize on the opportunity.
It's the case for messaging apps and for almost any other kind of app. It's hard to beat the price point of a free app, even if it might include tracking, advertising, spying inside their package.
If WhatsApp would start asking for money hundreds of millions of people would switch to something else in a few days, even to a free app created overnight to capitalize on the opportunity.
I think it depends on the demographic.
I still see a lot of people who are afraid of purchasing on the internet and give out their card number. My mother in law ask her daughters to call her a uber when she needs one because she is afraid of installing the app and giving her credit card number[1]. Yet she has all the social medias installed on her smartphone.
[1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.
I still see a lot of people who are afraid of purchasing on the internet and give out their card number. My mother in law ask her daughters to call her a uber when she needs one because she is afraid of installing the app and giving her credit card number[1]. Yet she has all the social medias installed on her smartphone.
[1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.
> [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.
That's not a fair assessment. Maybe she simply thinks heir daughter will be better at not getting scammed and she could very well be right about that.
That's not a fair assessment. Maybe she simply thinks heir daughter will be better at not getting scammed and she could very well be right about that.
Also, do people not pay for it because there are still so many free competing services?
If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?
If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?
There is a market for paid software services with a promise of not enshittifying. Kagi and Fastmail are two examples.
Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.
Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.
The problem is that there is also tons of services that promised not to enshittify but then changed their minds when they thought that fucking over their users would be more profitable. That includes even Google, look up their early views on ads. Because of this those promises are often (IMO rightfully) ignored as hot air. The only way to ensure that your software doesn't get enshittified is to legally guarantee that you are not dependent on a single vendor for future development - the most effective way to do that is insist on open source software.
Yeah I love open source. Daily Linux desktop user and open source code contributor here.
Open source doesn’t solve the problem “I need to be able to search the entire internet for a document.” Even “I want to safely receive email” is a challenge to do with open source software. At some point I need to use software as a service, and at that point I’d prefer to give money to the service directly than having the service target advertising at me.
Open source doesn’t solve the problem “I need to be able to search the entire internet for a document.” Even “I want to safely receive email” is a challenge to do with open source software. At some point I need to use software as a service, and at that point I’d prefer to give money to the service directly than having the service target advertising at me.
That's not the only way. Wikipedia has avoided it through a non-profit, donation and volunteer based structure.
> people would never pay for software.
I mostly share your conclusion, but I think there is a specific twist: most people will pay for on the spot transactions.
We see it in spades for games: in-app purchases and season passes have a lower barrier of acceptance. I assume buying stones to unlock a character must be thought at the same level as buying coffee, as just a one-time purchase that doesn't require further calculations.
I mostly share your conclusion, but I think there is a specific twist: most people will pay for on the spot transactions.
We see it in spades for games: in-app purchases and season passes have a lower barrier of acceptance. I assume buying stones to unlock a character must be thought at the same level as buying coffee, as just a one-time purchase that doesn't require further calculations.
A big part of that is having payment methods on file so the transaction is as frictionless as possible.
If somebody has never purchased an app, setting up payments in the app might be seen as “too much work, especially just for this one app”. But once you get the payments in there, each subsequent 0.99 payment is painless
If somebody has never purchased an app, setting up payments in the app might be seen as “too much work, especially just for this one app”. But once you get the payments in there, each subsequent 0.99 payment is painless
at least for some of it what's nice is that you are getting exactly what you paid for on the tin, and most importantly you are not getting locked into some god-awful subscription with a cancellation process akin to pulling teeth.
the urge to buy goes down if the subscription is cheap enough ($.99 songs versus $12 a spotify subsscription) but having been through my fair share of attempting contract cancellations this isn't surprising.
the urge to buy goes down if the subscription is cheap enough ($.99 songs versus $12 a spotify subsscription) but having been through my fair share of attempting contract cancellations this isn't surprising.
It'd be interesting to see open data about this.
My understanding is games with microtransactions optimise for "whales", people who spend inordinate amounts of money. While the majority of users don't pay anything, or at most very little.
My understanding is games with microtransactions optimise for "whales", people who spend inordinate amounts of money. While the majority of users don't pay anything, or at most very little.
My understanding is whales make the mobile gaming industry the juggernaut it is, but without whales it would still be a sizeable market.
My mental image of it is looking at Apple when the iPhone was 2 or 3 years old, and today's Apple: its current size dwarfs the Apple of back in the days, but it wasn't some small also-ran company, it's impact on the whole industry was still pretty big.
AppsFlyer's data on this was interesting, while not straightforward to interpret from our angle.
https://www.appsflyer.com/resources/reports/app-marketing-mo...
My mental image of it is looking at Apple when the iPhone was 2 or 3 years old, and today's Apple: its current size dwarfs the Apple of back in the days, but it wasn't some small also-ran company, it's impact on the whole industry was still pretty big.
AppsFlyer's data on this was interesting, while not straightforward to interpret from our angle.
https://www.appsflyer.com/resources/reports/app-marketing-mo...
You need a funnel to find the whales. Free users < sometimes pay a bit < regularly $10/week < whale
[deleted]
On the other hand, I did pay the $1 for Whatsapp back in the day and I was promised it'd be ad free. Want that $1 back, I actually even deleted my account and uninstalled Whatsapp!
I feel a bit for Brian Acton - iirc he refused to sell because the 500M users paying $500M dollars was more than enough to fund his tiny team (of 30?), but when the offer went up to 19B$ it's just kind of hard to turn down - there's extreme opportunity cost there. Most people would sell before that, 19B$ of principle is quite a lot.
I think it's just if you're empire building - and Zuck is insanely good at this, one of the best - then it'll never be optimal to charge vs. grow massively and then monetize the larger attention base.
Zuck is also in a trench warfare competition with other social media players, it's far from a monopoly. He's historically been more inclined to do things that were worse for growth, but better for users when they had more of a dominant position - but he can't do that anymore.
Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat. Instead they're going to be stuck with the modern equivalent of BBM while Zuck and Meta erase their only remaining stronghold in the US as iPhone users continue to move to WhatsApp.
I think it's just if you're empire building - and Zuck is insanely good at this, one of the best - then it'll never be optimal to charge vs. grow massively and then monetize the larger attention base.
Zuck is also in a trench warfare competition with other social media players, it's far from a monopoly. He's historically been more inclined to do things that were worse for growth, but better for users when they had more of a dominant position - but he can't do that anymore.
Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat. Instead they're going to be stuck with the modern equivalent of BBM while Zuck and Meta erase their only remaining stronghold in the US as iPhone users continue to move to WhatsApp.
Now Brian Acton has a huge pile of money to help fund Signal, so I don't think he has to feel too terrible about selling out.
> Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat.
Google also had the opportunity to do this. Around the same time iMessage launched, Google made Hangouts the default SMS app on Android with a similar capability to upgrade to Internet-based messaging when all parties to a conversation had it. Hangouts was cross-platform. Rumor has it carriers whined and Google caved.
I'm kind of glad Google doesn't have a dominant messaging service, but it's only true due to their own lack of commitment.
> Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat.
Google also had the opportunity to do this. Around the same time iMessage launched, Google made Hangouts the default SMS app on Android with a similar capability to upgrade to Internet-based messaging when all parties to a conversation had it. Hangouts was cross-platform. Rumor has it carriers whined and Google caved.
I'm kind of glad Google doesn't have a dominant messaging service, but it's only true due to their own lack of commitment.
I used Hangouts including the dogfood versions internally at Google. Problem was it was too complicated because it was designed by Googlers for Googlers. So it supported desktop and mobile, work email and personal email and phone numbers, text and video, and so on. In short, every single complexity conceivable was crammed into the app.
Whereas Whatsapp was simple - only phone numbers to sign up, only text and images, only mobile phones. That simplicity meant my parents could onboard smoothly and operate it without having to navigate a maze of UX. I literally saw Whatsapp winning in real time vs Hangouts and other alternatives.
Whereas Whatsapp was simple - only phone numbers to sign up, only text and images, only mobile phones. That simplicity meant my parents could onboard smoothly and operate it without having to navigate a maze of UX. I literally saw Whatsapp winning in real time vs Hangouts and other alternatives.
Thanks for the insider perspective.
I used Hangouts for a while and had a bunch of contacts on it when it was Android's default SMS app. Many of them were not particularly technical, including one of my parents whom I don't recall telling to use it. If you were using an Android phone, you were probably already logged in to a Google account. iPhone users had to work a little harder for it (install the app and remember the password to the Gmail account they probably already had).
I don't recall the UX on the mobile client having extra complexity over other messaging apps if I didn't go digging in the settings, but it's been a while.
I used Hangouts for a while and had a bunch of contacts on it when it was Android's default SMS app. Many of them were not particularly technical, including one of my parents whom I don't recall telling to use it. If you were using an Android phone, you were probably already logged in to a Google account. iPhone users had to work a little harder for it (install the app and remember the password to the Gmail account they probably already had).
I don't recall the UX on the mobile client having extra complexity over other messaging apps if I didn't go digging in the settings, but it's been a while.
A lot of people have a google account because it is created when they setup the smartphone or enter the playstore for the first time for the first time but don't even realize it is not only a "smartphone account" and it gives them access to google workspace/gmail.
I think the concept of a user having an existing Gmail account if they aren't in the Google ecosystem is a bit of hubris.
There are many people I run across who bypassed the whole Gmail and Google Workspace ecosystems and have rolled along merrily with me.com and other email providers.
It's not a given that users will have bothered to register for a Google account unless they grew up in the Bay Area after a certain time period.
Wind back the clock to when Google tried to roll out Hangouts and the Gmail penetration rate was even lower among the non-Android users out there.
There are many people I run across who bypassed the whole Gmail and Google Workspace ecosystems and have rolled along merrily with me.com and other email providers.
It's not a given that users will have bothered to register for a Google account unless they grew up in the Bay Area after a certain time period.
Wind back the clock to when Google tried to roll out Hangouts and the Gmail penetration rate was even lower among the non-Android users out there.
I'm just thinking of my own friends and family, who are mostly not tech nerds and none of whom live in the Bay area. Gmail launched with so much more storage than any other free email service everyone thought it was an April Fools joke (no doubt in part because it was launched on April 1). Everybody wanted it, and nobody who got an invite code before I did would give me theirs.
This is all anecdotal of course. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but how quickly they gave up was weird.
This is all anecdotal of course. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but how quickly they gave up was weird.
Gmail as a product was simple - a better version of Yahoo or Hotmail where you don't have to worry about storage size nor have to sort emails into various folders. Search worked magically and spam filters were better than anyone else. In short, UX was superior.
Hangouts UX sucked big time. I remember lots of frustrating sessions with my parents about why video calls weren't going through, or how can some random family member join our family thread when they don't have a Gmail account etc.
Hangouts UX sucked big time. I remember lots of frustrating sessions with my parents about why video calls weren't going through, or how can some random family member join our family thread when they don't have a Gmail account etc.
> Search worked magically
Funny because now it doesn't. It routinely fails to surface emails that exist.
Funny because now it doesn't. It routinely fails to surface emails that exist.
I didn't intend a comparison between Gmail and Hangouts, just to say a whole lot of people already had the required account.
You definitely had a rougher experience with it than I did, but my main point is Google launched it, didn't seriously iterate on it, and gave up its strongest distribution channel at the first sign of pressure from carriers. Since they keep launching messaging products, I must conclude they want to be in that space and it was foolish of them to squander their best opportunity.
You definitely had a rougher experience with it than I did, but my main point is Google launched it, didn't seriously iterate on it, and gave up its strongest distribution channel at the first sign of pressure from carriers. Since they keep launching messaging products, I must conclude they want to be in that space and it was foolish of them to squander their best opportunity.
I remember laughing with colleagues as the first edition of the evening standard came in with the 1G gmail on the front page. I remember the exact location I saw it too.
couldn’t believe they had fallen for an April fools.
But that was a limited time window when gmail massively outweighed the 10-20mbit of things like hotmail with effectively unlimited storage.
couldn’t believe they had fallen for an April fools.
But that was a limited time window when gmail massively outweighed the 10-20mbit of things like hotmail with effectively unlimited storage.
> If you were using an Android phone, you were probably already logged in to a Google account.
Sure. But is it the same Google account that your relatives email you on, or a different one that only that phone is using? When you drop this phone are you going to sign into that same Google account or make a new one? The answers for non-technical users are non-obvious.
Sure. But is it the same Google account that your relatives email you on, or a different one that only that phone is using? When you drop this phone are you going to sign into that same Google account or make a new one? The answers for non-technical users are non-obvious.
For technical users too. I always make a dedicated account for each phone (if I have to).
But then again I would likely opt out of Hangouts, so it’s not a problem.
But then again I would likely opt out of Hangouts, so it’s not a problem.
It's possible to use Android as bundled with a Pixel device without a Google account, but it's a hassle because you can't use Play Store. You can use Aurora Store as an anonymous client, F-Droid for open source apps, APKs from download sites, or the like if you're so inclined, but all of those add significant effort or unreliability.
I’m actually using Aurora and F-Droid. The only reason I have a Google account on my phone is for the Wallet (though it doesn’t work for me anyway :’)
(And to be honest, things were working much smoother for me when I was on microG [0].)
[0]: https://microg.org/
(And to be honest, things were working much smoother for me when I was on microG [0].)
[0]: https://microg.org/
I tried to daily a phone with MicroG for a while and had lots of trouble with location accuracy and speed. I tried out several third-party NLPs but never got acceptable results.
Is there any data that shows people in the US are switching to WhatsApp? The only people I've ever seen use it are people with family in other countries. The statistics I've seen indicate that iPhone usage amongst American teenagers is high and still increasing(1), which almost certainly would lead to higher iMessage usage.
(1) https://www.pipersandler.com/teens
(1) https://www.pipersandler.com/teens
how do imessage and android users communicate with each others? Do android users really still use sms to reach apple users? Don't they have group chats everywhere?
Here in europe every club/association/group has a whatsapp group chat. For instance here since the official app provided by the government has a super clunky UX most people get information from primary school through a whatsapp group chat managed by the parent's representative who has exclusive access to teaching group.
Here in europe every club/association/group has a whatsapp group chat. For instance here since the official app provided by the government has a super clunky UX most people get information from primary school through a whatsapp group chat managed by the parent's representative who has exclusive access to teaching group.
Yes, I text my brother who has an iphone. Thats our primary communication when not speaking.
As a counter to your question I've never used whatsapp and never saw a reason. What group chats? Are they groups of personal friends or mostly things you would 'follow' like a football club?
As a counter to your question I've never used whatsapp and never saw a reason. What group chats? Are they groups of personal friends or mostly things you would 'follow' like a football club?
There is the parent's group for the school mentionnned above, my cycling club to discuss the upcoming rides/events and share pics (replace cycling with any kind of hobby you can think of), we have a family group chat with my parents and siblings, which are leaving in a different country as mine, an extended family in law group chat, comprised mostly of people living in another continent. At a former job we had a group chat that was meant to discuss anything not related to work, arrange out of office meetups. It sporadically served to share valuable information relative to work when there has been natural disaster so that people don't try to reach the office and stay at home. Much quicker than calling all employees.
Additionally whenever there is a social event a group chat is created so that people can discuss the organization, and after the event share their sentiments, pictures, videos.
It is never mandatory to participates in all those group chats but a lot of info go through them and they are usually useful. And the family group chats are great when you only get the chance to meet them more than a couple times a year.
Additionally whenever there is a social event a group chat is created so that people can discuss the organization, and after the event share their sentiments, pictures, videos.
It is never mandatory to participates in all those group chats but a lot of info go through them and they are usually useful. And the family group chats are great when you only get the chance to meet them more than a couple times a year.
Thanks for that information - it does seem to provide some good utility. And now that you mentioned it I recall my father uses it to talk to our polish relatives as that's the most convenient platform. I am not in that circle tho as I don't know polish haha.
Glad to hear they aren't mandatory, that would be my fear for certain things.
Glad to hear they aren't mandatory, that would be my fear for certain things.
> 500M users paying $500M dollars
There's no way they actually earned $500M/year. Even if Whatsapp had 100 employees making $200k/year on average, that's $20M on salaries. Add an another very generous $80M on infra/admin etc costs and they'd have been making $400M profit. With that much profit achieved within such a short period, in the QE funny money era they could have IPO'd at $50-100 billion easily.
There's no way they actually earned $500M/year. Even if Whatsapp had 100 employees making $200k/year on average, that's $20M on salaries. Add an another very generous $80M on infra/admin etc costs and they'd have been making $400M profit. With that much profit achieved within such a short period, in the QE funny money era they could have IPO'd at $50-100 billion easily.
They only had 55 employees when facebook bought them. I suspect their infrastructure costs were much less than you've suggested too. There's a reason whatsapp only supported one device: they didn't store messages after they were delivered.
Correct. I used Android phones back then and so did all my family members and most of my friends. No one I knew paid a dime for Whatsapp.
I remember that the grace period was extended one or two times when it was time to pay, and then Facebook bought it.
I remember people being angered and threatening to leave if they had to pay that 1$/€ fee per year. And now here we are with ads.
The average person would rather view 100 adverts than pay 1 cent to get rid of them. We see it time and again.
The average company would rather charge that 1 cent and still show adverts. We see that time and again.
The average company would rather charge that 1 cent and still show adverts. We see that time and again.
Do we see that? What I see again and again is companies pretending to make that offer and then adding ads anyway. You can only fool people so often.
I have not had someone ask me to use WhatsApp in nearly ten years, I deal with people on iMessage every day...
I can predict the country you live in with reasonable reliability from this comment alone.
This would not be true most places outside of the USA and maybe Canada. In a few countries/regions it might be a different third-party messaging app.
This would not be true most places outside of the USA and maybe Canada. In a few countries/regions it might be a different third-party messaging app.
Obviously, but the parent talks about Apple losing its US market to WhatsApp. Not sure that's remotely realistic, and them adding advertising only makes it even less realistic.
There was a recent interview (iirc maybe with Ben Thompson or at least he mentioned it) where Zuck said they were seeing their growth continue to accelerate in the US and it sounded like they’d be on track to overtake iMessage in a couple years if the rate continued.
Growth like that happens slowly and then quickly. I’m using WhatsApp more now and I didn’t use it before, so empirically I’ve seen the expansion personally.
Growth like that happens slowly and then quickly. I’m using WhatsApp more now and I didn’t use it before, so empirically I’ve seen the expansion personally.
Africa runs on WhatsApp.
Went to South Africa on vacation last year. United lost our luggage on the first leg of the trip, which then became South African Airways responsibility to sort out because they handled our final leg.
I communicated directly with the SAA baggage agent over WhatsApp. Then communicated over WhatsApp with the courier delivering our bags . Best customer service ever.
Went to South Africa on vacation last year. United lost our luggage on the first leg of the trip, which then became South African Airways responsibility to sort out because they handled our final leg.
I communicated directly with the SAA baggage agent over WhatsApp. Then communicated over WhatsApp with the courier delivering our bags . Best customer service ever.
Meanwhile in Europe it’s the opposite.
You can still survive without Facebook-crap perfectly. On the other hand it's hard to survive without either an Android or iPhone device.
Though doing without WhatsApp is getting dicey with a preschooler in a couple of activities, and it will probably get even harder to keep my heels dug in once he's in school...
Whatsapp is essential unless you’re a hermit and don’t have kids.
New drama club my youngest has joined only sends messages out on Facebook, which is even worse.
New drama club my youngest has joined only sends messages out on Facebook, which is even worse.
Survive, yes, but you will loose out on connections with other people. For some of us that is a price worth paying but it is still a price.
its pretty easy to "survive". Why do you make it seem like life and death??
Soon I will not be able to pay taxes without such a device. As everyone knows, without taxes, the only other remaining certainty is death.
i dont believe you. I bet there is a way, if you really press the authorities. They are so greedy for money that its certainly possible.
Are you in North America? I’ve found this to be true in the US, but not in Europe or Asia.
The problem with paying a small fee for a service is not the fee itself. It is the friction for paying for the service and the hassle that comes after the payment.
Now the credit card company knows what service I am buying; I would get endless marketing emails from the service for buying additional things; my info as a person willing to pay for such a service would get sold to other companies; my credit card info would get leaked/stolen, ...
If the whole experience was literally as simple as handing someone a $1 bill, I promise I would pay for many many internet services.
Now the credit card company knows what service I am buying; I would get endless marketing emails from the service for buying additional things; my info as a person willing to pay for such a service would get sold to other companies; my credit card info would get leaked/stolen, ...
If the whole experience was literally as simple as handing someone a $1 bill, I promise I would pay for many many internet services.
I can guarantee none of your concerns apply to the people I was talking about, particularly the privacy ones. These people would pay for their meal at a restaurant using their debit/credit card without hesitation, and they still do, and that’s arguably more likely to get your card details stolen, and the issuer knowing about your life. Those worries you’re citing never crossed their minds. They just didn’t want to pay a tiny amount of money for an “abstract” thing.
I don't disagree. I am mostly talking about my hesitations for not willing to pay small amounts of fees for bunch of internet services. I am afraid that the "cost" of paying for these services would end up being a lot more than the actual amount of money.
Incidentally, this is also the reason, as much as I would like to, for not donating to public/non-profit organizations. Anybody who has donated to a political party or an organization like ACLU would know what I am talking about...
Incidentally, this is also the reason, as much as I would like to, for not donating to public/non-profit organizations. Anybody who has donated to a political party or an organization like ACLU would know what I am talking about...
I was just thinking about this the other day -- hotels so badly want me to book directly with them instead of using, say Booking.com.
But then to book directly and get the "guaranteed cheapest!" price, I have to sort through even more options than on an aggregator, I have to create an account, and now I'm getting spammed from ANOTHER entity I never plan to do business with again. At least with the aggregators I have one company whose privacy settings I've already dealt with.
But then to book directly and get the "guaranteed cheapest!" price, I have to sort through even more options than on an aggregator, I have to create an account, and now I'm getting spammed from ANOTHER entity I never plan to do business with again. At least with the aggregators I have one company whose privacy settings I've already dealt with.
I book with hotels directly almost all the time and never receive marketing spam just regular mail about my upcoming start. Also booking with the hotel lets me select options not available on booking sites like king vs 2 queen bed options, ADA compliant rooms and even floor options. Also if you have AAA or some other memberships, those codes can easily beat discount sites like Booking.com
> I book with hotels directly almost all the time and never receive marketing spam just regular mail about my upcoming start.
What's your secret? Even the hotel in privacy-conscious Austria I stayed with once four years ago spams me.
> booking with the hotel lets me select options not available on booking sites like king vs 2 queen bed options, ADA compliant rooms and even floor options
If their booking system works. Usually faster and more reliable to send a message on booking.com.
> if you have AAA or some other memberships, those codes can easily beat discount sites like Booking.com
Maybe if your time is worthless.
What's your secret? Even the hotel in privacy-conscious Austria I stayed with once four years ago spams me.
> booking with the hotel lets me select options not available on booking sites like king vs 2 queen bed options, ADA compliant rooms and even floor options
If their booking system works. Usually faster and more reliable to send a message on booking.com.
> if you have AAA or some other memberships, those codes can easily beat discount sites like Booking.com
Maybe if your time is worthless.
Not much of a secret, but clicking the unsubscribe links in emails helps. Anything new I sign up to I'm pretty religious about it. Some new email I didn't ask for -> instant unsubscribe. Works way better than one might expect.
Very noticeable when using custom domain and emails where I might sign up to the same service several times.
Very noticeable when using custom domain and emails where I might sign up to the same service several times.
> Not much of a secret, but clicking the unsubscribe links in emails helps. Anything new I sign up to I'm pretty religious about it. Some new email I didn't ask for -> instant unsubscribe. Works way better than one might expect.
I usually do that and it works for a lot of things, but small hotels are one of the things that seems to slip through. And even when it works, I still resent having to do it at all, and would rather book via a big aggregator where I've already done the unsubscribe years ago.
I usually do that and it works for a lot of things, but small hotels are one of the things that seems to slip through. And even when it works, I still resent having to do it at all, and would rather book via a big aggregator where I've already done the unsubscribe years ago.
Yep, fair enough. You are right, funnily enough it's small businesses who are the worst with this. The big ones spam a lot if you let them, but they do tend to respect the unsubscribe.
In these cases they get a dedicated email rule and anything they send goes straight to the bin.
In these cases they get a dedicated email rule and anything they send goes straight to the bin.
A lot of hotels allows you to book room without creating an account and I don't remember receiving spam from those I visited. It would only make sense for chains which have a foot in every major city.
> It is the friction for paying for the service and the hassle that comes after the payment.
I don't know. Paying for streaming services seems very natural nowadays.
I don't know. Paying for streaming services seems very natural nowadays.
I really don't buy that the reason is the "tracking".
It's the friction of paying for something at all. There is no free sandwich, so people don't generally expect it, on the other hand there's plenty of free software.
It's the friction of paying for something at all. There is no free sandwich, so people don't generally expect it, on the other hand there's plenty of free software.
Similar situation as flights. People complain about lack of space, misc fees etc. But when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.
I think the other factor is a bit of anchoring. I know this impacts me anyways. If there is a "free" alternative, then that's where I'm anchored at. I can watch youtube for free so paying for it seems like a bad deal. Where as there is no free alternative to Coke that still gets your Coke (as opposed to say water).
I think the other factor is a bit of anchoring. I know this impacts me anyways. If there is a "free" alternative, then that's where I'm anchored at. I can watch youtube for free so paying for it seems like a bad deal. Where as there is no free alternative to Coke that still gets your Coke (as opposed to say water).
> when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.
Flight comparators don't show "avaliable legroom" in their metrics.
As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.
Flight comparators don't show "avaliable legroom" in their metrics.
As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.
> As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more
In my anecdotal experience, the people complaining about leg room are precisely those who are not paying for additional leg room. (Similar to how people who compare modern air travel with service in the 1960s aren't purchasing the inflation-adjusted equivalent ticket, which would almost always be a lay-flat seat today if not Wheels Up.)
In my anecdotal experience, the people complaining about leg room are precisely those who are not paying for additional leg room. (Similar to how people who compare modern air travel with service in the 1960s aren't purchasing the inflation-adjusted equivalent ticket, which would almost always be a lay-flat seat today if not Wheels Up.)
Google flights does - at least as well as they can base don the airline and plane. They'll also compare this to the average. All airlines charge more for exit rows and their extra legroom, typically as "premium economy" seats.
Premium economy is usually separate from exit row surcharges for economy class seats. Both are also relatively recent trends and I am not so sure that all airlines have caught up to the exit row squeeze.
> As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.
Unfortunately those prices are usually not even close to proportional to the additional space (and even that would ignore that seating space is only part of the service).
Unfortunately those prices are usually not even close to proportional to the additional space (and even that would ignore that seating space is only part of the service).
> People complain about lack of space, misc fees etc. But when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight.
This is true. One thing I note is that with the same dollar amount, you get even less legroom, luggage, etc. today than you used to back 10-15 years ago on traditional airlines. Granted the airline costs rose over time, but it's hard to imagine they went up to the scale traditional airfare has increased at equivalent service levels... Also the fact that things that used to be included are now considered "extra" looks like a good excuse for folks to complain about.
This is true. One thing I note is that with the same dollar amount, you get even less legroom, luggage, etc. today than you used to back 10-15 years ago on traditional airlines. Granted the airline costs rose over time, but it's hard to imagine they went up to the scale traditional airfare has increased at equivalent service levels... Also the fact that things that used to be included are now considered "extra" looks like a good excuse for folks to complain about.
I guess the point being Youtube versus Youtube without ads is as different as Coke versus water. But you're point holds in that people think they are the same service, as the ads bit, no matter how integral, is seen as 'other' than the service. This is a big win for the service provider. I remember when RyanAir charged £5 per flight plus £50 unavoidable add-ons, you ask anyone how much they paid, they said £5. Seems like the same thing here - we give the service provider too much kudos, it's as though consuming a service makes it part of us, so we big it up no matter if it's taking us for a ride.
For the most part, people are not who make the airline the most profitable, companies paying employees to fly do.
Even then the second most profitable line of business for airlines are credit cards and the banks who buy miles in bulk for their customers. Of course this is a US perspective.
Even then the second most profitable line of business for airlines are credit cards and the banks who buy miles in bulk for their customers. Of course this is a US perspective.
People pick the cheapest flights because price is a simple number they can understand.
How to you qualify the comfort of a seat with 20cm of legroom vs 30cm? Until we have a quality metric for flights that's also a single number we can't.
How to you qualify the comfort of a seat with 20cm of legroom vs 30cm? Until we have a quality metric for flights that's also a single number we can't.
The price is one of the few things that's always available when choosing between flights. Journey time is the other, and people will pay for a shorter journey or shorter layovers.
Strangely, some of my colleagues have 'paid' (work's money, their time) extra to avoid Ryanair, when Ryanair has the only direct connection. This I find strange.
Given the choice, I've long paid a little more if it means an Airbus plane, as I think the cabin is quieter. However, that's rarely shown on flight booking sites.
Strangely, some of my colleagues have 'paid' (work's money, their time) extra to avoid Ryanair, when Ryanair has the only direct connection. This I find strange.
Given the choice, I've long paid a little more if it means an Airbus plane, as I think the cabin is quieter. However, that's rarely shown on flight booking sites.
Ryanair are notorious for a) nickel-and-diming and b) general nastiness (e.g. charging a big fee to print a boarding pass at the airport, flying to an airport 70km from the city name they advertised, telling the press that they're going to start charging for the toilet). They're one of the few airlines whose reputation is big and extreme enough that it's percolated into the public consciousness.
It's easy to see where the flight is going.
Meanwhile, I get half a day free in Gdansk or Budapest or wherever while my colleague wanders around Munich Airport.
Meanwhile, I get half a day free in Gdansk or Budapest or wherever while my colleague wanders around Munich Airport.
I'll happily pay more for an Airbus plane or even an older Boeing model because I prefer not to crash and die.
Yeah, I pretty much prefer to be surprised whenever the flight I’m on is scheduled on an A320neo compared to being surprised whenever a B737-Max is scheduled for my flight. That’s why I avoid flying with the airline that has a Boeing fleet in my country.
[deleted]
>> I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it.
To be fair, that was in era when pirating was such a normal thing. Everybody at least knew about it. Cheap pirated DVD's were super common (I received them as gifts even) and everyone knew someone selling them. With people accustomed to paying for Netflix, music streaming, Office 365, etc. maybe a subscription version of WhatsApp would be more palatable. The problem is nobody will pay as long as the tech behemoths are offering the same thing for free.
To be fair, that was in era when pirating was such a normal thing. Everybody at least knew about it. Cheap pirated DVD's were super common (I received them as gifts even) and everyone knew someone selling them. With people accustomed to paying for Netflix, music streaming, Office 365, etc. maybe a subscription version of WhatsApp would be more palatable. The problem is nobody will pay as long as the tech behemoths are offering the same thing for free.
Interestingly, the pendulum at least in my friend group starts to kinda swing in the other direction, i.e. non-technical friends start to indirectly ask (me as the tech guy) about blatant piracy for (visual, Spotify is still very much accepted) media and (TOS-violating[1]) ad blockers for ad-supported streaming.
I cannot overstate how unexpected this was and is to me, we talk about people in their mid-twenties with jobs - maybe (video) streaming / subscriptions services actually overplayed their hand in the current economic climate.
Doesn't make me super optimistic in this regard.
[1] even if most of it is void in my jurisdiction anyway
I cannot overstate how unexpected this was and is to me, we talk about people in their mid-twenties with jobs - maybe (video) streaming / subscriptions services actually overplayed their hand in the current economic climate.
Doesn't make me super optimistic in this regard.
[1] even if most of it is void in my jurisdiction anyway
Number of competing video services with distinct libraries has kinda put it back in vogue, I think. No one I've ever talked to is really happy about paying for more than 1-2 streaming services, especially if some of them only have one show they're interested in. If that show is really tempting it becomes tempting to just pirate Severance or what have you instead of signing up to one new service for it on top of Netflix et al.
In my experience people tend to just move between services. A month on Netflix, then a month with Disney etc. The convenience of having those apps built-in to TV's and easily installed on phones shouldn't be overlooked. If you want easy access to your pirated content from all your devices (including TV's, phones, tablets) you have to have a bit more tech experience and be willing to deal with a bit more inconvenience. For most just rotating services subscribed to is much easier.
Hell, VHS tapes and DVDs often had brief clips shown before the movie talking about how you can get free movies by pirating.
> ... Whatsapp became a paid app ... it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter ...
Interestingly, WhatsApp put up paid plans to slow down user acquisition [0].
On Androids, in some countries, WhatsApp continued to work even if you didn't pay the $1/year fee.
[0] https://youtu.be/8-pJa11YvCs?t=952
Interestingly, WhatsApp put up paid plans to slow down user acquisition [0].
On Androids, in some countries, WhatsApp continued to work even if you didn't pay the $1/year fee.
[0] https://youtu.be/8-pJa11YvCs?t=952
In Spain, most people who didn't pay in the first few days after the free period expired then received a free renewal.
In my case I don't remember having to let the trial period expire, it just got renewed automatically a couple times before WhatsApp became free.
I don't know any Android users who paid back then, only iPhone owners did.
I don't know any Android users who paid back then, only iPhone owners did.
I don't think you can make the conclusion you make.
In this case the service started as free (and thereby training people that it costs nothing) and and only later tried to pull the rug out under people after locking them in via network effects. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to financially reward such tactics.
It's also that people already pay ridiculous amounts of money for their own internet connection. There is no reason why with A paying for internet and B paying for internet that A and B should pay again just to be able to talk to each other. Of course the technical reality is different but that's at least partially due to how WhatsApp designed their system.
In this case the service started as free (and thereby training people that it costs nothing) and and only later tried to pull the rug out under people after locking them in via network effects. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to financially reward such tactics.
It's also that people already pay ridiculous amounts of money for their own internet connection. There is no reason why with A paying for internet and B paying for internet that A and B should pay again just to be able to talk to each other. Of course the technical reality is different but that's at least partially due to how WhatsApp designed their system.
A lot of normal consumers pay $20 a month for ChatGPT. I think most software gets bid down in price bc the marginal costs are zero. Where it’s not (llm token generation) prices don’t plummet and consumers build a different expectation.
Please define "a lot". In term of percentage of users connected to the internet worldwide, I don't even think it reaches a percent.
Sounds like my memories of being the computer guy in Italy.
Or because back then only credit card payment was possible?
all my family paid happily for Whatsapp. Then we got refunded because Facebook bought them. Now we get ads. Yay :)
Consumer stance on paying for software has changed drastically now because of AI. Even outside of utility software like Chat GPT, people are paying for image generators etc.
I that paying for software or paying for a service? When I pay Netflix it’s not because of their app.
Theres hundreds of apps utilising AI for simple consumer apps. And yes people are paying
https://app.sensortower.com/overview/6449750416?country=US
https://app.sensortower.com/overview/6449750416?country=US
I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach.
The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many people in the “a fee instead of ads” crowd consumes YT for hours a day, but so far I’ve only met one person (not counting myself) who actually pays for YT Premium.
And yes, a major chunk of the people I talked about this with were FAANG engineers, so it isn’t like they cannot afford it. But it felt like they were more interested in complaining about the ad-funded-services landscape and muse on their stances around it, as opposed to actually putting their money where their mouth is.
All I can say is, I am not paying for YT Premium out of some ideological standpoint or love for Google (not even close). It has genuinely been just worth it for me many times over in the exact practical ways I was expecting it to.
The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many people in the “a fee instead of ads” crowd consumes YT for hours a day, but so far I’ve only met one person (not counting myself) who actually pays for YT Premium.
And yes, a major chunk of the people I talked about this with were FAANG engineers, so it isn’t like they cannot afford it. But it felt like they were more interested in complaining about the ad-funded-services landscape and muse on their stances around it, as opposed to actually putting their money where their mouth is.
All I can say is, I am not paying for YT Premium out of some ideological standpoint or love for Google (not even close). It has genuinely been just worth it for me many times over in the exact practical ways I was expecting it to.
I am conflicted because to some extent, paying for some of these services feels like paying a blackmailer, spying on you, holding a whole ecosystem hostage and even jeopardising mental health and the public discourse.
I pay for email and some other services. Some other services, not so much. I find it hard to support some companies financially because I don't agree with their basic modus operandi. It's not the money; it's who it goes to.
If only we could convince large crowds to choose more free alternatives.
I pay for email and some other services. Some other services, not so much. I find it hard to support some companies financially because I don't agree with their basic modus operandi. It's not the money; it's who it goes to.
If only we could convince large crowds to choose more free alternatives.
To be devil's advocate, this is the kind of all-talk argument the parent was referring to. Once the paid option is available, people will demand it to be [cheaper / better / someone else] and still not pay.
While I don't love my money going to Google, I find YouTube's overall quality astronomically higher than Instagram/Twitter/TikTok/etc. and the amount of censorship/"moderation"/controversy has been relatively limited. When I find something I really want to keep I have always been able to download it without much trouble.
While I don't love my money going to Google, I find YouTube's overall quality astronomically higher than Instagram/Twitter/TikTok/etc. and the amount of censorship/"moderation"/controversy has been relatively limited. When I find something I really want to keep I have always been able to download it without much trouble.
I got divorced last year, had a rough period, watched some self-help videos, Youtube found out and started increasingly serving unwanted content. I did not appreciate the attempt at pushing my proverbial buttons. I do not need gender war content when I look for a guitar review. Youtube is excellent and has replaced television for me the last 10 years. But I just don't trust or want an algorithm trying to hook me, and I'm generally already old and wise enough to unplug when I need to. To me, this goes a bit beyond being choosy. I don't want to be profiled.
You can pay for an ad-free experience and switch off your watching history to avoid being preyed upon by the algorithm. That’s what I do.
> You can [...] switch off your watching history
Yup, and, for those who don't know, you can toggle an option in your Google account settings to do the same for your recommendations in search and for any Google-served ads you will see on all websites.
Disclaimer: I tried that with the ads, and ended up reverting that setting after a few days. Even if my personalized ads were hit or miss, non-personalized ads were just nightmare fuel of the most random things ever that I absolutely had no interest in and felt actually annoyed upon seeing.
Yup, and, for those who don't know, you can toggle an option in your Google account settings to do the same for your recommendations in search and for any Google-served ads you will see on all websites.
Disclaimer: I tried that with the ads, and ended up reverting that setting after a few days. Even if my personalized ads were hit or miss, non-personalized ads were just nightmare fuel of the most random things ever that I absolutely had no interest in and felt actually annoyed upon seeing.
I agree with the premise of your argument but just have to point out we seem to have been given 'unalived' and a few other new terms thanks to youtubes aggressive demonetization. They haven't been amazing on censorship but still probably better than those others.
Now whether someone who is putting out an opinion should care about getting paid is another thing, but it kills your video traffic usually too.
Now whether someone who is putting out an opinion should care about getting paid is another thing, but it kills your video traffic usually too.
Taking the YouTube example, and many others like it, I only use it because it is free.
If YouTube was subscription only, hypothetically, I would just not use it, and my life would be same as it is now.
There are a great many services that are nice to have, but very few I would bother paying for out of my wallet. Given the choice of paying for them or not using them, I would just walk away from most of them.
If YouTube was subscription only, hypothetically, I would just not use it, and my life would be same as it is now.
There are a great many services that are nice to have, but very few I would bother paying for out of my wallet. Given the choice of paying for them or not using them, I would just walk away from most of them.
On the flip side, I’ll pay $10/month for 10 streaming services I never use (and have forgotten about), but on a Saturday night if a movie isn’t available and I have to pay $3.99 to rent it I never pay that. Instead I’ll drive to the corner store and spend $20 on snacks, and come home and watch YouTube with ads.
People are curious creatures indeed.
People are curious creatures indeed.
I paid like $2 to rent a movie about three years ago and didn't watched it entirely and boy it still hurts.
The biggest problem with paid services is that they are often not satisfied with just being paid. Why not add small ads for your own services - you're just letting users know what's available to them. Then why not an ad when you're not actively watching. Then it's constant obtrusive ads. Then it's a pay even fucking more to remove ads. Then it's ads even on the no ads tier.
It's more money. Why would they refuse more money? It's so fucking frustrating too.
It's more money. Why would they refuse more money? It's so fucking frustrating too.
This would be fine if you also don't use Adblock. You can't say I use the bakery for free as long as I have the backdoor access key and therefore "free".
Let's imagine if there was a free bakery though. But being free they were always struggling and sometimes the bread was a bit late. Then BigBakeryCo moves into town and also provides free bread as long as you also take one of their magazines and promise to read it. Not most people will go to BigBakeryCo because their funds from selling magazine space means they can provide a more professional service. Now there is almost no one going to the original free bakery so the owner decides to close shop. Suddenly your only option for free bread is BigBakeryCo. Now BigBakeryCo complains that people are throwing their magazines into the trash without reading them and people like you call out those people for taking advantage of poor BigBakeryCo.
The truth is that Youtube is a parasite. They don't create free content, they have inserted themselves between regular people creating free videos and you and are demanding that you pay them for access to what would have existed without them.
The truth is that Youtube is a parasite. They don't create free content, they have inserted themselves between regular people creating free videos and you and are demanding that you pay them for access to what would have existed without them.
Only if you consider hosting the entire infrastructure for concurrent video streaming to millions of users as 'inserting themselves'. Before Youtube there was no way to distribute your home video to a large audience beyond sending the entire physical video file (too large to email, for starters) and the recipients having to deal with whatever mostly proprietary formats it had to be made in.
From the viewers' side, there was no place to go and browse videos, you were limited to short embedded clips or had to download the entire file first.
Youtube was a game changer when it first appeared and Google hadn't yet acquired it.
From the viewers' side, there was no place to go and browse videos, you were limited to short embedded clips or had to download the entire file first.
Youtube was a game changer when it first appeared and Google hadn't yet acquired it.
What would you replace YouTube with? To my its educational value is unmatched. I owe so much of my learning to it.
YouTube's educational value can be unmatched, but it doesn't follow that 99% of time spent on YouTube is educational or even useful.
I'd bet the ratio of time I have spent legit learning something useful vs just using it as distraction/entertainment ("educational" channels are often just entertainment for nerds like us)/background, it has to be something like 1000 to 1. I wouldn't need to replace the 999 at all. I guess I would read books a bit more, probably get a lot more done on personal projects, go out a bit more etc.
Not clear at all my life would be worse off except in that pinch where I need to know how to disassemble & fix the thing, right now.
I'd bet the ratio of time I have spent legit learning something useful vs just using it as distraction/entertainment ("educational" channels are often just entertainment for nerds like us)/background, it has to be something like 1000 to 1. I wouldn't need to replace the 999 at all. I guess I would read books a bit more, probably get a lot more done on personal projects, go out a bit more etc.
Not clear at all my life would be worse off except in that pinch where I need to know how to disassemble & fix the thing, right now.
IMO if youtube was an actual paid service, I would also expect a lot of the advertiser driven demonitization actions to go away when your in paid mode, but it isn't so I still miss out on a lot of potentially interesting topics or things that could be talked about, but are not, due to the chilling effects of the demonitization & deboosting police.
> it isn't
It is though. Videos with "limited ads" (as it's technically called in YouTube Studio) applied to them still get paid out of Premium views.
It is though. Videos with "limited ads" (as it's technically called in YouTube Studio) applied to them still get paid out of Premium views.
Creators avoid making their videos tagged as such because it significantly reduces their reach and promotion by the algorithm. So it doesn't matter if you still get paid by premium views, the chilling effect still exists.
I don't know what I would replace YouTube with, because YouTube is free so I have never needed to consider alternatives.
But for the most part - probably nothing. For everything else, it'd just be either some other free option, or like going back to the internet of the early 2000s, which would be good and bad in its own ways.
But for the most part - probably nothing. For everything else, it'd just be either some other free option, or like going back to the internet of the early 2000s, which would be good and bad in its own ways.
Can you elaborate on your learning journey? How did you separate out the worthless content from quality education programs? Very few Unis post lectures anymore, so it’s all hit or miss for me.
I have completely disabled the history feature, so when I navigate to the homepage there's no "recommended" content. I rely on search exclusively to find what I need. Also I don't have the YouTube app installed, if I need it I just use the browser. This helps minimising the distractions a lot.
As for content, it depends what you're looking for. For me, I'm mostly into maths and physics and there are so many channels and lecture series that were immensely helpful. For example, I recently went through this playlist on Lie Groups [0].
[0] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN_4R2IuNuuRgJb00X2J53Iq9...
As for content, it depends what you're looking for. For me, I'm mostly into maths and physics and there are so many channels and lecture series that were immensely helpful. For example, I recently went through this playlist on Lie Groups [0].
[0] https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLN_4R2IuNuuRgJb00X2J53Iq9...
What did you learn thanks to it?
I did learn how to diagnose car problems and how to fix them. these were relatively minor tasks - replace the spark plugs and replace light bulbs. Also Subaru Forester has a problem if the battery gets disconnected too long-I found out about that and what to do about it on YouTube. I also learned how to cook some foods.
That being said, lately YT has way too many ads for my liking; thus I am using Reddit more and more for these things.
That being said, lately YT has way too many ads for my liking; thus I am using Reddit more and more for these things.
How to open my computer
YouTube announced in March that they have 125 million premium subscribers.
I think they are carefully riding the balance between being free for the masses with ads while milking those who have the funds to get rid of ads.
I reckon they will continue to increase their subscriber base where other streaming services are plateuing.
Certainly, YouTube Premium has been worth it for me. A big quality of life improver.
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/20-years-125-million-sub...
I think they are carefully riding the balance between being free for the masses with ads while milking those who have the funds to get rid of ads.
I reckon they will continue to increase their subscriber base where other streaming services are plateuing.
Certainly, YouTube Premium has been worth it for me. A big quality of life improver.
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/20-years-125-million-sub...
My site has about 30k active registered users a day. The vast majority are long term members that have been on the site for years, so they're quite dedicated to the service. Even so, only about 50 of them pay to remove advertising.
This is really interesting. Can you say how much it costs the user to remove ads?
How much do you make per user on ads, and how much is the subscription?
It only generates about 15k a year in ad revenue. It's fairly low revenue because:
1. Users are spread around the world. This isn't a site with 70% US visitors.
2. The majority of users run ad block, and this continues to rise.
3. Ad rates plummet each year. I earn about 5x less on the site now, than in the past, with the same number of active users, and 3x as many advertisements.
I've tried all the major advertising networks. I setup header bidding and signed direct deals with large networks, such as AppNexus, Amazon, Yahoo, AOL, etc. At the end of the day, ads do not pay well for my audience.
Users can pay $3/mo to remove advertising. Yes, I'm aware that's $36/yr, when the average registered user is generating less than $0.50/yr in ad revenue. About 30% of paying users choose to pay higher than $3/mo for no additional benefit (they can pay any amount they wish). I also have some individuals that have paid thousands of dollars.
What would happen if I offered a $1/yr plan for an ad free experience, so it's more inline with ad revenues? I honestly don't know, but I would guess I would lose a few of the $3/mo paying users, and gain less than 100 users paying $1/yr, so it would likely be net negative.
1. Users are spread around the world. This isn't a site with 70% US visitors.
2. The majority of users run ad block, and this continues to rise.
3. Ad rates plummet each year. I earn about 5x less on the site now, than in the past, with the same number of active users, and 3x as many advertisements.
I've tried all the major advertising networks. I setup header bidding and signed direct deals with large networks, such as AppNexus, Amazon, Yahoo, AOL, etc. At the end of the day, ads do not pay well for my audience.
Users can pay $3/mo to remove advertising. Yes, I'm aware that's $36/yr, when the average registered user is generating less than $0.50/yr in ad revenue. About 30% of paying users choose to pay higher than $3/mo for no additional benefit (they can pay any amount they wish). I also have some individuals that have paid thousands of dollars.
What would happen if I offered a $1/yr plan for an ad free experience, so it's more inline with ad revenues? I honestly don't know, but I would guess I would lose a few of the $3/mo paying users, and gain less than 100 users paying $1/yr, so it would likely be net negative.
This illustrates a bit the price discrimination "problem" that is solved via ads. With ads, higher-income people probably earn you more money automatically.
With the fee to remove advertising, you'd need to use all the price discrimination tricks to maximize revenue. E.g., have sales, have discount codes, etc., and it would still not be close to the price discrimination possible via ads.
I also wonder what the income of OP's bubble was when they were not paying for WhatsApp.
With the fee to remove advertising, you'd need to use all the price discrimination tricks to maximize revenue. E.g., have sales, have discount codes, etc., and it would still not be close to the price discrimination possible via ads.
I also wonder what the income of OP's bubble was when they were not paying for WhatsApp.
So you are overcharging paid users by over 500% and complaining that not many take that deal? See that's the problem with all these "people won't pay for ad-free services" arguments. It almost always boils down this kind of abusive pricing.
And honestly, what you could make from users through ads is not what I care about. You are making zero from me through ads because I block them everywhere and that is not negotiable. A reasonable price would be costs + modest margin not how much you could grab out of my pocket.
And honestly, what you could make from users through ads is not what I care about. You are making zero from me through ads because I block them everywhere and that is not negotiable. A reasonable price would be costs + modest margin not how much you could grab out of my pocket.
I'm a little confused where you're trying to go with this comment. I develop and maintain a service that has been used by millions of people. I make less net profit than a part-time McDonald's employee. Is this not "costs + modest margin"? Where is the abusive pricing?
I know lots of people that pay for YT premium. Lots of people pay for Spotify too. I even pay for Kagi.
Kagi has a little over 50k paying users.
Hacker news has 5 million monthly unique users [1].
Given how hacker news constantly complain about google’s decline and the constant virtue signaling on the need to pay for software, you would expect a sizable chunk of the users (the vocal ones, at least) here pay for Kagi. And yet we are here. GP is absolutely right about it being all-talk.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33454140
Hacker news has 5 million monthly unique users [1].
Given how hacker news constantly complain about google’s decline and the constant virtue signaling on the need to pay for software, you would expect a sizable chunk of the users (the vocal ones, at least) here pay for Kagi. And yet we are here. GP is absolutely right about it being all-talk.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33454140
In general, 95% of users in any site are passive lurkers. So that leaves Hacker News with 250k active monthly users that comment and engage (which is likely still a massive overestimate). Of those, in the wide variety of comments and discussions, complaints about search and google in particular are again about 5% at most (being generous with numbers once more). That leaves us with 12500 people on HN who should potentially pay for Kagi. Seems like four times that many are doing it by your numbers.
Spotify I get because the Spotify free experience is HORRID.
Youtube is also moving into that direction.
Youtube is also moving into that direction.
It's unclear to me how the paid Spotify experience compares with free, but you still get ads with the paid one. Also, you need to curate heavily because Spotify's algorithm will push certain types of content. If you listen to a podcast once, it is hard to get rid of it, as it will keep popping into your feed, or whatever they call their interface.
I rage quit my Spotify subscription after my first "sponsored" in the mobile app. Some people may tolerate ads in their paid subscriptions but many of us won't.
Just to clarify for those who might've been as confused as I was upon reading that, this seems to be a thing with podcasts on Spotify. I only ever used it for music, so I genuinely had no idea (as I am yet to encounter a single ad while listening to music in around a decade of subbed usage)
Omg I literally puke with Shopify ads in podcasts.
Whats the point of paid, premium service like Spotify if I keep being served those stupid, dishonest and bordeline illegally deceiving Shopify ads every 15 minutes.
Whats the point of paid, premium service like Spotify if I keep being served those stupid, dishonest and bordeline illegally deceiving Shopify ads every 15 minutes.
Because the ad has literally nothing to do with Spotify? Podcasters can say or sell whatever.
Spotify has enough power to say that podcasters should have ad free feed for premium subscribers or get deplatfromed. Obviously I would expect Spotify to pay podcasters.
The idea of paid, premium service with ads is ridiculous.
The idea of paid, premium service with ads is ridiculous.
> Obviously I would expect Spotify to pay podcasters.
Are you willing to pay more for your subscription so that Spotify can also pay podcasters? Because that's what you are asking, it won't ever be able to dilute even more the royalties pot, you'd need to pay more for your subscription so that podcasters can also be paid.
Are you willing to pay more for your subscription so that Spotify can also pay podcasters? Because that's what you are asking, it won't ever be able to dilute even more the royalties pot, you'd need to pay more for your subscription so that podcasters can also be paid.
If I can avoid retarded Shopify ads, I would seriously consider. It would be nice change from bunch of individual Patreon subscriptions.
I think a good amount of people pay for Youtube just to be able to listen to audio with the screen off, which is a completely artificial restriction they added to the free version.
Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.
Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.
> Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.
That's because the core product is not anywhere near worth what they charge for it. The youtube interface is a nightmare for users and creators alike. I have very little controls over what I do and don't see, how I can filter or search for content, or how I can search for new content. History of both videos and comments are effectively non existent and impossible to reasonably search or archive.
It's not a service so much as it is a copyright clearinghouse.
If they had an actual experience with worthwhile features to offer then they wouldn't have to artificially degrade the free experience to convince you.
That's because the core product is not anywhere near worth what they charge for it. The youtube interface is a nightmare for users and creators alike. I have very little controls over what I do and don't see, how I can filter or search for content, or how I can search for new content. History of both videos and comments are effectively non existent and impossible to reasonably search or archive.
It's not a service so much as it is a copyright clearinghouse.
If they had an actual experience with worthwhile features to offer then they wouldn't have to artificially degrade the free experience to convince you.
I feel the exact opposite. YouTube is the only streaming service I pay for, and it's well worth it. I have no trouble finding things I want to watch and there's a huge amount of it. Other services don't have nearly as much good stuff, and it's too hard to find among the crap.
Managing subscriptions and blocking (or unblocking) channels are subpar. Watch history, search history and comment history are all afterthoughts and it shows. Managing playlists and watching through playlists are unusual and glitchy. Search filters are weak. The audio only experience is just a gaping hole in the video player.
Youtube music is fine-ish. Search is pretty weak and prefers recommendations over results. The controls for playlist Play, Play with Shuffle, and Play with Autoadd are fairly confusing especially between the app and the desktop version. Creating and managing multiple playlists is a frustrating experience and not thought out at all. It constantly feeling the need to change the album art on my playlists.
You pay to not be annoyed. You're not paying for a "premium" product in any way.
Youtube music is fine-ish. Search is pretty weak and prefers recommendations over results. The controls for playlist Play, Play with Shuffle, and Play with Autoadd are fairly confusing especially between the app and the desktop version. Creating and managing multiple playlists is a frustrating experience and not thought out at all. It constantly feeling the need to change the album art on my playlists.
You pay to not be annoyed. You're not paying for a "premium" product in any way.
And? Yeah, I’m paying to get rid of ads. Of course I am. I like watching the stuff, I hate ads, and it’s well worth the price to get rid of them.
It makes sense because YouTube's income is from being paid to deliver video ads. They can't fulfill that if the screen is off.
I believe they are rolling out audio ads.
I believe they are rolling out audio ads.
Getting my work to pay for Kagi was an easy conversation compared to how I’d imagine me asking them to pay for YouTube or Spotify would go.
I pay for Kagi and Fastmail. I used to have YT Premium, but given that Google and Meta are both abusive monopolies that shouldn't exist in the first place, I don't see any ethical problems with circumventing their paywalls where possible, and if it it incurs measurable economic damage to them, so much the better.
I'm honestly pretty damn pissed that even though I pay for the top tier of Spotify I still now get ads in podcasts on the platform. Yes, I can skip them for now, but when you're driving that's not always easy, and I have no doubt the "you can't skip them" is coming.
Absolute bullshit.
Absolute bullshit.
> met one person [...] who actually pays for YT Premium.
I dont like that while the ad revenue barely extracts a dollar from me, my subscription suddenly expects $10-30 per month regardless of my usage.
Thats not "we need to charge you to continue our services", thats "we need to charge you and then 20x times again just because we can".
I dont like that while the ad revenue barely extracts a dollar from me, my subscription suddenly expects $10-30 per month regardless of my usage.
Thats not "we need to charge you to continue our services", thats "we need to charge you and then 20x times again just because we can".
I am not interested in paying Google for anything. It's a company too big and powerful through immoral business (ads)
I block all ads and wish commercial ads would cease to exist even though it would mean I couldn't use somethings anymore without payment.
I block all ads and wish commercial ads would cease to exist even though it would mean I couldn't use somethings anymore without payment.
I can understand weapons industry or alcohol industry as being immoral. However I do not understand how ads are immoral. It is annoying for some, while for some it is informative. Businesses inform the public about their services through ads.
Or do you mean how Google implemented its ads?
Or do you mean how Google implemented its ads?
You may disagree on this, but many people believe that the current state of affairs wrt online ads (i.e. massive privacy violations and using ads to get people literally addicted) in general is the inevitable end result of any predominantly ad-supported ecosystem.
Commercial unrequested ads in general, they are designed to manipulate you to make you buy products you wouldn't have bought otherwise.
Additionally, a related negative side effect is consumerism.
Additionally, a related negative side effect is consumerism.
Would you tolerate a human being following you around, telling you to buy things you don't need and that you are worth less if you don't. That's what ads do, except it's not just one person but a whole team of professional psychologists that know just what buttons to push to make you cave in. Pretending that they are simply businesses informing you is beyond dishonest.
YT Premium is pretty expensive. I think it costs as much for one user for a multi-device plan on Netflix?
They don’t create nor curate much content.
I am curious about the poster who has learned so much from YouTube — I have tried learning many topics from science to programming to home repairs, and finding a quality program can be very challenging, and there are a lot of programs which are actually elaborate sales pitches.
They don’t create nor curate much content.
I am curious about the poster who has learned so much from YouTube — I have tried learning many topics from science to programming to home repairs, and finding a quality program can be very challenging, and there are a lot of programs which are actually elaborate sales pitches.
I'm not sure there's a ton of real full programs on YouTube that would really leave you with, say, a college level understanding of something. No doubt there's some, but it's def not the norm. Even for those courses you lack the ability to interact with the instructor.
Learning on YouTube 10 yrs ago meant supplementing your guitar skills cuz you didn't have a teacher. Or learning how a compressor works so you can use it yourself in music. It was always supplemental tidbits from numerous creators that helped me hone skills. Learned a ton about tools and woodworking too, but it was always me working for awhile then going back to get more information. Much more difficult to do in like, biology(probably don't have a bio lab) or a high risk repair like plumbing.
Pretty much any computer skill is going to have a cache of resources where filtering out trash is going to be the harder part. There are fantastic coding and modeling guides from very experienced people. Most financial things you should be very wary of except top professionals with proven credentials.
Asking a community who their favorite creators are can be a good place to start.
I bought one 14 part video course and the resources/assets it had were more valuable than the info. I exercise caution with that stuff now.
And I entirely agree YouTube asks too much for premium.
Learning on YouTube 10 yrs ago meant supplementing your guitar skills cuz you didn't have a teacher. Or learning how a compressor works so you can use it yourself in music. It was always supplemental tidbits from numerous creators that helped me hone skills. Learned a ton about tools and woodworking too, but it was always me working for awhile then going back to get more information. Much more difficult to do in like, biology(probably don't have a bio lab) or a high risk repair like plumbing.
Pretty much any computer skill is going to have a cache of resources where filtering out trash is going to be the harder part. There are fantastic coding and modeling guides from very experienced people. Most financial things you should be very wary of except top professionals with proven credentials.
Asking a community who their favorite creators are can be a good place to start.
I bought one 14 part video course and the resources/assets it had were more valuable than the info. I exercise caution with that stuff now.
And I entirely agree YouTube asks too much for premium.
There's great content on YouTube but there's a lot of garbage. AI-generated slop, clickbait thumbnails/titles that actually don't payout, sales pitches, and plain old low-quality garbage. The lack of a thumbs down really makes it hard to avoid these. I realize that thumbs down is also used to punish "wrong" political viewpoints and companies, so it's a hard problem. But as a viewer who never uploads content, it only makes my experience worse.
There's a "I don't want to see content like this" option you can signal on content and I find it works quite well
If only they would respect that when you tell them to hide shorts. Drives me crazy that they utterly refuse to let you turn those off.
Get a browser extension that does it, I finally looked for one after clicking the "not interested" button one too many times.
If you're at getting a browser extension level, you're not too far off from also getting an adblocker and not having to pay for premium.
My recommended feed mostly consists of chess, machining, Mario Maker, fighter jets, and assorted other things like that, which is exactly what I want to see. There's some dumb stuff in there, but it's easy to skip over and it learns to recommend what I actually watch. And there is a thumbs-down button, at least for me.
Well when normal news like NBC just got immediate front page stuff with super low engagement people downvoted the crap outta it because it was showing such preferential treatment. Feels like they deserved it, they bought their way in.
Little did we know how far YouTube would go for them.
Little did we know how far YouTube would go for them.
I'm about to start paying for YouTube for the first time ever. Of course, they make it complicated because I don't actually want their bundled music service. And the "lite" version says most videos are ad-free. But what's preventing them from changing that deal the day after I sign up? And of course, once I become a customer, now I'm hooked, and I'm subject to their arbitrary price increases.
Of course, as a "free" customer I'm already subject to their whims whenever they decide to add another advertising layer.
Of course, as a "free" customer I'm already subject to their whims whenever they decide to add another advertising layer.
Don't start, please
Amazon prime had a lot of customers but they started to put ads to paying customers as well.
So the alternative seems to be "free, with ads" or "paid, with ads"
So the alternative seems to be "free, with ads" or "paid, with ads"
By far the choice of most marginally savvy and above internet users is an ad-model where they themselves ad-block. Which somehow is spun to be morally righteous.
I accidentally browsed a site without ads this morning from my work profile.
Literally on the first link I clicked on on cbs the advertiser somehow figured out how to make my browser redirect to some super-sketchy site saying I was the 5 billionth google search and won blah blah blah.
Browsing without adblock is an unacceptable security risk so long as google et all refuse to audit and comprehensively secure the code they demand to run on my laptop.
Literally on the first link I clicked on on cbs the advertiser somehow figured out how to make my browser redirect to some super-sketchy site saying I was the 5 billionth google search and won blah blah blah.
Browsing without adblock is an unacceptable security risk so long as google et all refuse to audit and comprehensively secure the code they demand to run on my laptop.
Once google's shareholders have wet their beak, the on-campus sushi bars and manicurists and $400k pay packets are paid for and the Taylor Swifts of the world are paid off there isnt much left of your subscription to pay for the long tail of content creators who dont have Taylor Swift's leverage.
Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for exposure, I make my money elsewhere".
Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for exposure, I make my money elsewhere".
Youtube has a 55/45 (creator/google) split with content creators. YT premium views also pay substantially more. Most of the money youtube makes goes to creators.
With some creators. Casual uploaders (which IMO produce the majority of worthwhile videos) don't get squat. The "professional content creators" produce watered down crap that I close as soon as I see the youtube-face thumbnail designed to game the algorithm.
Morally Righteous? I think it's more they don't have to so they don't. It's like the DVR days where you'd just fast forward ads. It wasn't a moral high ground, it was just easy to do and was better than the alternative.
I do actually think that putting ads in front of children at least is immoral, and it is neglectful not to block ads for kids in the same way that it is to just hand them an unfiltered violence-and-porn device.
It's probably at least irresponsible to not block ads for an elderly parent who's starting to experience cognitive decline.
It's probably at least irresponsible to not block ads for an elderly parent who's starting to experience cognitive decline.
Dutifully watching the ads doesn't seem moral either, it seems insane.
Given the downright illegal tactics adtech companies like Google and Meta resort to it has become morally righteous.
Surely it has to be somewhat ideological given that adblockers exist? Have you seen your high paid engineer friends actually watching the ads?
I would rather pay a fee than watch ads, but as long as “do neither of those” is an option I’ll be picking that. If they remove that as an option I’ll either pay or not watch YouTube.
Probably not watch.
I pay for email, and was paying for search until something about the way kagi integrates with safari annoyed me. I’ve been paying more for a seedbox than Netflix costs for longer than Netflix has existed. That’s part for ad avoidance as in it initially replaced free to air tv but ad avoidance is just one factor in the best experience for my time and money trade off I’m trying to make. So i know I’m willing to both pay for things i can get ad supported from Google and also pay for a better media experience.
When it comes to that best experience for my time and money trade off though, even with money being set at zero, the vast majority of the YouTube i watch is already in the negative. Most things i watch on there, i regret the cost of just the time it took to watch the content before ads or money even gets in to it.
Which i think is a big part of the issue with ad supported internet going fee based. YouTube and so many ad supported sites and games are already just super low value and derive most of their consumption not from people making intentional lifestyle choices of “i want to be the kind of person who watches garbage all day while playing crap” but rather people making bad short term vs long term trade offs and falling in to holes of recommendations and fun looking thumbnails.
Paying for something leads to asking yourself “is this worth $x?” And i know that for at least myself $x is a large negative number. I’d pay more than the current cost of YouTube premium to definitely NOT be able to watch YouTube.
I would rather pay a fee than watch ads, but as long as “do neither of those” is an option I’ll be picking that. If they remove that as an option I’ll either pay or not watch YouTube.
Probably not watch.
I pay for email, and was paying for search until something about the way kagi integrates with safari annoyed me. I’ve been paying more for a seedbox than Netflix costs for longer than Netflix has existed. That’s part for ad avoidance as in it initially replaced free to air tv but ad avoidance is just one factor in the best experience for my time and money trade off I’m trying to make. So i know I’m willing to both pay for things i can get ad supported from Google and also pay for a better media experience.
When it comes to that best experience for my time and money trade off though, even with money being set at zero, the vast majority of the YouTube i watch is already in the negative. Most things i watch on there, i regret the cost of just the time it took to watch the content before ads or money even gets in to it.
Which i think is a big part of the issue with ad supported internet going fee based. YouTube and so many ad supported sites and games are already just super low value and derive most of their consumption not from people making intentional lifestyle choices of “i want to be the kind of person who watches garbage all day while playing crap” but rather people making bad short term vs long term trade offs and falling in to holes of recommendations and fun looking thumbnails.
Paying for something leads to asking yourself “is this worth $x?” And i know that for at least myself $x is a large negative number. I’d pay more than the current cost of YouTube premium to definitely NOT be able to watch YouTube.
I don't use YT much, but if I did and paid for premium, I'd assume they'd still track me, monetize the data and utilize dark patterns and enshittified UX.
What I mean is that, IMO, ads by themselves are only a small part of the puzzle. Paying for YT premium doesn't sound enticing if it only gets rid of the ad part and not the surveillance machinery.
I do pay for my email that does no tracking and has good UX. I allow ads on duckduckgo because they actually respect my privacy and don't try to trick me all the time. I also pay for Spotify premium and have donated to Signal and Mozilla, but I won't support the likes of Google and Meta.
What I mean is that, IMO, ads by themselves are only a small part of the puzzle. Paying for YT premium doesn't sound enticing if it only gets rid of the ad part and not the surveillance machinery.
I do pay for my email that does no tracking and has good UX. I allow ads on duckduckgo because they actually respect my privacy and don't try to trick me all the time. I also pay for Spotify premium and have donated to Signal and Mozilla, but I won't support the likes of Google and Meta.
Exactly. The earlier post is overlooking the insanity of giving Google money, and acting as if they wouldn’t just track you harder now that you have to be logged in with an account connected to your real identity and a credit card. I wouldn’t pay for YouTube for the same reason I wouldn’t pay for Gmail. But I’m happy to pay for another email provider.
I pay for YT Premium and Protonmail. Very happy to do so.
> I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk.
Depends on the price.
I'm guessing lots of folks are paying $1/month to Apple to upgrade from the free 5GB tier of iCloud storage to get to the 50GB tier.
WhatsApp charged people $1 per year before being acquired by Facebook:
* https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/
Supposedly about a billion people paid for that at the time. Even if they went to $1 per month, that'd be fairly cheap (and WhatsApp ran fairly lean, personnel-wise: fifty FTEs).
Depends on the price.
I'm guessing lots of folks are paying $1/month to Apple to upgrade from the free 5GB tier of iCloud storage to get to the 50GB tier.
WhatsApp charged people $1 per year before being acquired by Facebook:
* https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/
Supposedly about a billion people paid for that at the time. Even if they went to $1 per month, that'd be fairly cheap (and WhatsApp ran fairly lean, personnel-wise: fifty FTEs).
> Supposedly about a billion people paid for that at the time.
(I worked for WhatsApp from 2011-2019)
From that article, user count was about 900 Million when the fee was ended; user count was about 450 M in Feb 2014 when the acquisition was announced [1]. Either way, it is a mistake to think everyone was paying.
A) Some people still had lifetime accounts from when the app was $1 for iPhone, or from the typical late December limited time free for iPhone promotions. Windows Phone got marked as lifetime for a while due to a bug/oversight that took a while to get noticed.
B) Enforcement was limited. A lot of users wouldn't have had a payment method that WhatsApp could accept; demanding payment when there's no way to pay isn't good for anybody. For a long time, we didn't even implement payment enforcement; we'd go through and extend subscriptions for a year, initially by manual script, then through automation. When we did build payment enforcement, I think we only set it on for Spain and maybe the US. Everywhere else would get the reminders that the account was going to expire, and then on the day of, it would silently extend the account and not bug you again for a while. Even where payment enforcement was on, it would only lock you out for I think a week, then your account would be extended and maybe you'd pay next time.
Adding on, for a lot of users, the hassle of paying $1 is a bigger deal than the actual $1; but so for people in lower income countries, it's both --- a) it's hard to pay $1 to a US country for a large number of people, b) there are countries with significant number of people living on a dollar a day; I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to forgo a days worth of living to pay for a messenger.
I don't remember numbers, and there's not a lot of financial reporting, because WhatsApp numbers are so small compared to the rest of FB/Meta, but there's a first half 2014 report [2] that shows revenue of $15M. Assuming payments are even over the year (probably not a good assumption, but we don't have good numbers), that'd be maybe 30 Million paying users (some users bought multiple years though), or less than 10%.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26266689
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
(I worked for WhatsApp from 2011-2019)
From that article, user count was about 900 Million when the fee was ended; user count was about 450 M in Feb 2014 when the acquisition was announced [1]. Either way, it is a mistake to think everyone was paying.
A) Some people still had lifetime accounts from when the app was $1 for iPhone, or from the typical late December limited time free for iPhone promotions. Windows Phone got marked as lifetime for a while due to a bug/oversight that took a while to get noticed.
B) Enforcement was limited. A lot of users wouldn't have had a payment method that WhatsApp could accept; demanding payment when there's no way to pay isn't good for anybody. For a long time, we didn't even implement payment enforcement; we'd go through and extend subscriptions for a year, initially by manual script, then through automation. When we did build payment enforcement, I think we only set it on for Spain and maybe the US. Everywhere else would get the reminders that the account was going to expire, and then on the day of, it would silently extend the account and not bug you again for a while. Even where payment enforcement was on, it would only lock you out for I think a week, then your account would be extended and maybe you'd pay next time.
Adding on, for a lot of users, the hassle of paying $1 is a bigger deal than the actual $1; but so for people in lower income countries, it's both --- a) it's hard to pay $1 to a US country for a large number of people, b) there are countries with significant number of people living on a dollar a day; I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to forgo a days worth of living to pay for a messenger.
I don't remember numbers, and there's not a lot of financial reporting, because WhatsApp numbers are so small compared to the rest of FB/Meta, but there's a first half 2014 report [2] that shows revenue of $15M. Assuming payments are even over the year (probably not a good assumption, but we don't have good numbers), that'd be maybe 30 Million paying users (some users bought multiple years though), or less than 10%.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26266689
[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
This is the story from the point of view of a user:
One day the app asked me to pay. It was less than 1 Euro per year, I think. I never associated a credit card to the app store (Android) so I did not pay and waited to see what would happen.
It kept asking for money for a few days but it kept working, so I thought they were not serious about it. Then it stopped asking. It started asking for money again after a few months but I remembered what happened before so I waited again. It kept working and eventually stopped asking for money. This pattern repeated a few times until maybe the time FB bought it.
I believe that if it stopped working people would have switched en masse to another app, maybe Telegram? We also had Viber and probably FB messenger too.
Switches happened many times in the 90s and early 2000s. I remember AIM, ICQ, MSN, then Skype. Whole networks of people moved to the next one or used more than one to message different friends. WhatsApp never had a chance to earn money directly from its users IMHO.
One day the app asked me to pay. It was less than 1 Euro per year, I think. I never associated a credit card to the app store (Android) so I did not pay and waited to see what would happen.
It kept asking for money for a few days but it kept working, so I thought they were not serious about it. Then it stopped asking. It started asking for money again after a few months but I remembered what happened before so I waited again. It kept working and eventually stopped asking for money. This pattern repeated a few times until maybe the time FB bought it.
I believe that if it stopped working people would have switched en masse to another app, maybe Telegram? We also had Viber and probably FB messenger too.
Switches happened many times in the 90s and early 2000s. I remember AIM, ICQ, MSN, then Skype. Whole networks of people moved to the next one or used more than one to message different friends. WhatsApp never had a chance to earn money directly from its users IMHO.
> Windows Phone got marked as lifetime for a while due to a bug/oversight that took a while to get noticed.
Huh, is that what it was... I had a Windows Phone 2012-2013 and I think I signed up for WhatsApp on it and I remember chatting with a friend on it and he was talking about the $1 per year thing and I went to check, and it said I have lifetime and I was confused how I ended up with that, but was using it so lightly that I didn't bother to look into why. I figured maybe there was a promotion the day I signed up or something.
Huh, is that what it was... I had a Windows Phone 2012-2013 and I think I signed up for WhatsApp on it and I remember chatting with a friend on it and he was talking about the $1 per year thing and I went to check, and it said I have lifetime and I was confused how I ended up with that, but was using it so lightly that I didn't bother to look into why. I figured maybe there was a promotion the day I signed up or something.
You're welcome. :) IIRC, the check was written so that if the platform was one of the enumerated platforms (android, s60, s40, bb) give a 1 year, otherwise give a lifetime, which was intended to be iPhone gets lifetime, but then windows phone happened.
IIRC, you had to have signed up with windows phone, switching phones to windows phone wouldn't grant you lifetime (switching to iPhone while the app was paid on iOS would; a delay on that was added to avoid abuse of borrow your friend's iPhone, re-register and then switch back).
IIRC, you had to have signed up with windows phone, switching phones to windows phone wouldn't grant you lifetime (switching to iPhone while the app was paid on iOS would; a delay on that was added to avoid abuse of borrow your friend's iPhone, re-register and then switch back).
Time to make it a public app and remove it from the private sector.
> When we did build payment enforcement, I think we only set it on for Spain and maybe the US.
Can I ask why Spain specifically?
Can I ask why Spain specifically?
IIRC, user count / population was very high and users were likely to have payment methods we could accept, and $1/year is not a significant amount for most residents of Spain. I don't remember if maybe Spain had a high voluntary payment rate too?
The US never had a high user count, but it was chosen because US tech journalism sets the narrative. If you want people to pay around the world, convince US tech journalists that payment enforcement is on, and the knowledge that you need to pay filters through the world in a way that it doesn't by just enforcing payment in Spain.
See also: the invisibility of Nokia phones when they pissed off US carriers with SIP clients and left the US market; despite being the top selling phone manufacture of both feature phones and smart phones, there were no media stories about them.
The US never had a high user count, but it was chosen because US tech journalism sets the narrative. If you want people to pay around the world, convince US tech journalists that payment enforcement is on, and the knowledge that you need to pay filters through the world in a way that it doesn't by just enforcing payment in Spain.
See also: the invisibility of Nokia phones when they pissed off US carriers with SIP clients and left the US market; despite being the top selling phone manufacture of both feature phones and smart phones, there were no media stories about them.
If I recall right, WhatsApp tookaway our lifetime subscriptions like a year after buying it, saying it wasn't necessary or something and put everyone all on the same plan.
Not to dismiss your point about pricing numbers (as it is valid and makes sense to me), but I don’t think iCloud comparison is that applicable to my argument, given there is no option to pay for larger iCloud storage with ad exposure.
What I was talking about was paying by being exposed to ads vs. paying directly, and increased iCloud storage has no former option.
What I was talking about was paying by being exposed to ads vs. paying directly, and increased iCloud storage has no former option.
> crowd is mostly all-talk.
I want to pay the small fee, through a simple to use portal, that makes it obvious how to cancel, and if I'm being obligated to a multi month term or not. I also want my payment card details to be perfectly secure and for none of my private information or usage to be sold to third parties.
> who actually pays for YT Premium.
Have you ever asked them "why don't you?" Or "what would it take to get you to pay?" Or even, "would you take a free month to see if it's worth it?"
Point being I don't think the problem is nearly as black and white as you've apparently surmised.
I want to pay the small fee, through a simple to use portal, that makes it obvious how to cancel, and if I'm being obligated to a multi month term or not. I also want my payment card details to be perfectly secure and for none of my private information or usage to be sold to third parties.
> who actually pays for YT Premium.
Have you ever asked them "why don't you?" Or "what would it take to get you to pay?" Or even, "would you take a free month to see if it's worth it?"
Point being I don't think the problem is nearly as black and white as you've apparently surmised.
Good news: Youtube Premium is trivial to cancel, comes with no multi-month obligations, and if you don't trust Google with your credit card you can pay for it with Google Play gift cards.
I pay for YT Premium. Not because I care for stupid videos, but because you get YT Music for free with it... Spotify is the hottest of garbage in my opinion, constantly trying to push podcasts at me.
Why more people don't cancel Spotify and just pay for YT Premium - you get ad-free videos and all the music of Spotify.
Plus with YT Music you can upload your own FLAC/MP3s to it, so all that odd werid music you've got that isn't on Spotify you can have anywhere you're logged into your YT Music account.
Its baffling how bad YT Music reccomendations are for me though (personally). My personal email account is something I have had since 2008 and there is probably history going back till then and even then somehow YT Music just gives bad reccomendations
Yea, recommendations aren't great, but then Spotify wasn't much good either. This is an area where I hope their work in AI can help. Instead they seem to be focusing on stupid integrations like in the Play Store - now I can ask the Play Store about an app... wtf?
I pay for both YouTube Premium and Spotify Premium, because I don't think that Google's music offerings have ever been that good.
There's no desktop app for YouTube Music for starters.
There's no desktop app for YouTube Music for starters.
What would you want/need a desktop app for? If you use Chrome (and yes, I'm aware some people use Firefox) you can install it as an App that way, so it appears in your start menu/finder. It can cast to your local devices etc.
I can't think of a single reason I'd want/need a standalone app over having the Chrome version of the app, which to all intents and purposes appears as a standalone app anyway.
So I'm curious, what's the use-case for a Desktop App to stream music? Even with the webapp you can download music for offline play.
I can't think of a single reason I'd want/need a standalone app over having the Chrome version of the app, which to all intents and purposes appears as a standalone app anyway.
So I'm curious, what's the use-case for a Desktop App to stream music? Even with the webapp you can download music for offline play.
> you can upload your own FLAC/MP3s to it, so all that odd werid music you've got that isn't on Spotify you can have anywhere you're logged into your YT Music account.
FYI you can also do this with Spotify[0].
[Ø]: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
FYI you can also do this with Spotify[0].
[Ø]: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
I don't think that's the same, is it? That's just Spotify letting you play files on your local device.
With YT Music you upload them from one device to the YT Music cloud, and then any device can access them/stream from the YT Cloud. You can't upload your music to Spotify, only use it to access media that's stored locally on your device.
Last time I tried, I was able to load the local file on desktop, and then sync that playlist on mobile (to listen to the "desktop song" on mobile even when offline). So I'd argue it provided similar functionality.
Spotify seems to rely more on cross-device sync. As the name of the feature suggests, it depends on having the actual media file stored locally. In contrast, YouTube Music stores everything in the cloud.
Local files work fine if you're always playing music on devices you own and that have local storage. But if you're using media devices like a Chromecast (unless you're casting directly from a device that has access to the local files), or on machines where you don’t have sync privileges—like a work computer—YouTube Music will work, but Spotify won’t.
Local files work fine if you're always playing music on devices you own and that have local storage. But if you're using media devices like a Chromecast (unless you're casting directly from a device that has access to the local files), or on machines where you don’t have sync privileges—like a work computer—YouTube Music will work, but Spotify won’t.
I pay for both because YT Music sucks, a lot.
The problem with YT premium is that they simply do not have content worth paying for. Even the very best content (say, videos where people give music lessons) is not actually something I would pay for. I don't mind paying for a streaming service - I pay for Netflix and will for the foreseeable future. But that's because Netflix has stuff where I actively want to watch it and would miss it if it was gone; YT does not.
Depends on your perspective I guess, personally I find YT far more valuable than any streaming platform. University lectures from hundreds of professors, conference recordings, music videos, millions of independent creators covering nearly any niche you could think of - YouTube's service of hosting that and making it available is worth so much more to me than whatever shows Neflix currently has on rotation.
But since I have the option to not pay, I don't. If it was paywalled I'd be willing to pay probably 3-5x what a normal streaming service charges though.
But since I have the option to not pay, I don't. If it was paywalled I'd be willing to pay probably 3-5x what a normal streaming service charges though.
University professors are already (often publicly) funded and should be sharing videos on university infrastructure, not ad-funded commercial platforms.
Solving this properly probably means solving how to pay for open source. I think it needs a somewhat complex scheme of pooling money together into an ad-hoc fund like entity and distributing it to service providers by someone elected for the task.
If only society had a structure like that, for taking care of things that need to be done for the benefit of everyone.
I think it's a very different problem than what welfare usually solves for us. Paying a doctor to treat patients is different from paying someone to build an MRI machine. We don't pay individual engineers there.
So I don't think solving such complex problems within a welfare system is a solved problem at all.
In Sweden we pride ourselves in health care for everyone. But we are quite bad at buying software systems for our welfare institutions.
So I don't think solving such complex problems within a welfare system is a solved problem at all.
In Sweden we pride ourselves in health care for everyone. But we are quite bad at buying software systems for our welfare institutions.
I don’t want to pay for YouTube because the official app, even without ads, has a much worse UX than Tubular.
[deleted]
$13.99 /month is hardly a small fee IMO. But more importantly it's an arbitrary price point set by Google. Pretending that people are not willing to pay just because they choose not to accept a particular set of conditions is dishonest.
Paying for YT Premium is a no brainer. Especially for someone like myself with ADHD.
I love paying for ad-removal. Take. My. Money.
I love paying for ad-removal. Take. My. Money.
Everyone else just uses newpipe, mpv, and so on
I value good content, or maybe it's not even that good, but it's valuable. I appreciate paying people for their time to make things that teach me new things.
Then pay for their patreon. Paying youtube just makes google money.
> I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk.
That's because micropayments are still fucking annoying to do on both sides of any transaction:
- credit cards: cheap-ish at scale (2-5%), but users don't want to give random apps their CC details and integrating with Stripe/Paypal/whatever has the cost of UX flow break due to account details and 2FA compliance bullshit. In addition, every service paid-for by CC has the problem that only people with a CC can pay for it (so people in countries like Europe where "classic" bank accounts prevail are out of luck, and so are people in countries deemed too poor and/or fraud-affiliated are locked out entirely), and you gotta deal with tax and other regulatory compliance around handling payments as well. Oh and people will try to use your service to validate stolen payment credentials because a 1$ charge (especially for a well known service like Whatsapp) is most likely to be ignored by the accountholder even if fraudulent in nature, which in turn will lead to issues with chargebacks or, worst case, getting dropped entirely by the payment processor.
- in-app purchases: expensive (30% cut for the platform provider), serious headache to do when a significant chunk of the user base doesn't run phones with properly licensed Google Play Store (e.g. Huawei who aren't allowed to embed Play Store on their phones)
- bank transfer: possible, but restricted to the economic zones where there's enough customer base to justify the expenses of setting up a local company with a bank account (i.e. US, EU, India, possibly China), and transaction fees from the banks may end up being >>50% of the transaction's face value at such low amounts
- crxptxcurrency: even more of a hassle for customers to acquire, questionable legality / KYC issues, no realtime authorization due to mandatory waiting time for mining to confirm transactions
- pay by phone bill, premium numbers: possible, but need bureaucracy in each country, fraud / "my kid did it" complaints will run rampant, premium number calls are by default blocked in most if not all modern phone contracts ever since the early '00s and "dialer" fraud malware, difficult to associate with customer's phone number in the backend
In the end, if you truly want to capture a global audience with microtransaction payments, be prepared to deal with a loooooooooooooooooot of bullshit just to get started.
Long story short, we desperately need a global government effort to standardize payments at low fees. There's absolutely zero reason why banks and other intermediaries should be allowed to skim off more than 5% of any kind of transaction. ZERO.
That's because micropayments are still fucking annoying to do on both sides of any transaction:
- credit cards: cheap-ish at scale (2-5%), but users don't want to give random apps their CC details and integrating with Stripe/Paypal/whatever has the cost of UX flow break due to account details and 2FA compliance bullshit. In addition, every service paid-for by CC has the problem that only people with a CC can pay for it (so people in countries like Europe where "classic" bank accounts prevail are out of luck, and so are people in countries deemed too poor and/or fraud-affiliated are locked out entirely), and you gotta deal with tax and other regulatory compliance around handling payments as well. Oh and people will try to use your service to validate stolen payment credentials because a 1$ charge (especially for a well known service like Whatsapp) is most likely to be ignored by the accountholder even if fraudulent in nature, which in turn will lead to issues with chargebacks or, worst case, getting dropped entirely by the payment processor.
- in-app purchases: expensive (30% cut for the platform provider), serious headache to do when a significant chunk of the user base doesn't run phones with properly licensed Google Play Store (e.g. Huawei who aren't allowed to embed Play Store on their phones)
- bank transfer: possible, but restricted to the economic zones where there's enough customer base to justify the expenses of setting up a local company with a bank account (i.e. US, EU, India, possibly China), and transaction fees from the banks may end up being >>50% of the transaction's face value at such low amounts
- crxptxcurrency: even more of a hassle for customers to acquire, questionable legality / KYC issues, no realtime authorization due to mandatory waiting time for mining to confirm transactions
- pay by phone bill, premium numbers: possible, but need bureaucracy in each country, fraud / "my kid did it" complaints will run rampant, premium number calls are by default blocked in most if not all modern phone contracts ever since the early '00s and "dialer" fraud malware, difficult to associate with customer's phone number in the backend
In the end, if you truly want to capture a global audience with microtransaction payments, be prepared to deal with a loooooooooooooooooot of bullshit just to get started.
Long story short, we desperately need a global government effort to standardize payments at low fees. There's absolutely zero reason why banks and other intermediaries should be allowed to skim off more than 5% of any kind of transaction. ZERO.
Europe isn't a country. And we have credit cards here.
Wow. Way to flippantly shit on the paragraphs of explanation they gave of their own free time.
Europe though, yeah they’re killing it.
Europe though, yeah they’re killing it.
Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards? What reason would I have to presume the content of said paragraphs is better informed, given they have trivially disprovable rubbish up front?
> Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards?
I'm German, so I'm basing my statement on almost 34 years of living here. In case you want some more details from an actual bank, read this [1].
Basically, we don't need credit cards, not even for renting cars, because we have robust regulation and our own national cashless payment schemes plus SEPA. Direct debit is just fine for us.
[1] https://n26.com/en-de/blog/taboo-of-credit
I'm German, so I'm basing my statement on almost 34 years of living here. In case you want some more details from an actual bank, read this [1].
Basically, we don't need credit cards, not even for renting cars, because we have robust regulation and our own national cashless payment schemes plus SEPA. Direct debit is just fine for us.
[1] https://n26.com/en-de/blog/taboo-of-credit
You might want to have a look at the usage stats of payment cards (here specifically credit cards) globally. You would realise that usage is low in Europe, compared to the US. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/people_with_credit.... Most payments are done with regular banking and/or bank specific cards. The latter are not accepted by online platforms, the former has indeed transfer fees in many countries. The grandparents explanations are valid.
"Bank specific cards" are actually debit cards. As an EU-based end user I see basically no practical difference between the two (I have both a MasterCard credit card and a Visa debit card), except that many US-based online stores' payment processors refuse to work with a debit card.
> except that many US-based online stores' payment processors refuse to work with a debit card
I have never encountered even that. My debit card also works great for in-person payments in the US, with the only exception perhaps being rentals.
I have never encountered even that. My debit card also works great for in-person payments in the US, with the only exception perhaps being rentals.
> "Bank specific cards" are actually debit cards.
Yes, but not necessarily MasterCard/Visa debit cards. Germany's Girocard for example is a national debit card scheme that does not use any of the American grifters. Unfortunately, it's being phased out in favor of MC/Visa because the EU fee cap on national schemes is much lower than for MC/Visa and so banks can make more money off of you.
We're just standing by and watch our dependence on American grifter megacompanies larger every day.
Yes, but not necessarily MasterCard/Visa debit cards. Germany's Girocard for example is a national debit card scheme that does not use any of the American grifters. Unfortunately, it's being phased out in favor of MC/Visa because the EU fee cap on national schemes is much lower than for MC/Visa and so banks can make more money off of you.
We're just standing by and watch our dependence on American grifter megacompanies larger every day.
I literally do not know anyone without an EMV-based payment method, usually Visa or MasterCard. I have also never used the Girocard my bank provides in addition to the Visa debit- (and in the past actual credit-) card.
I also see more people paying with their phone/smartwatch than any physical card these days.
I also see more people paying with their phone/smartwatch than any physical card these days.
I've lived in the EU my entire life, in three different countries. I have visited and have friends in many more countries. Literally everybody I know has either a visa or mastercard debit card. Yes, people dont use credit cards specifically, they use debit cards, but it literally does not matter, the infrastructure is the same. Seeing ignorant Americans talk about Europe online like it's some backwater that doesn't even have card payment, is frankly offensive.
German here. As I've written in another comment in the thread [1], Europe as a whole has markedly lower adoption for the international credit/debit cards than the US, as most countries have had their own schemes for decades (e.g. Germany's Girocard) so there was no need in practice to get one of the international ones. For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.
And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.
And on the bank side, here in Europe we also don't really have that "debt holders can just sell off defaulted debts" thing, so banks can't offload the risk of defaults to someone else. And if that's not enough, we also got very strict laws on who can get approved for a credit card and for which limits - stuff like 20 year olds with 20, 30k of credit card debt are truly rare unless the parents of said young people are rich enough to back such a massive CC limit.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296338
And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.
And on the bank side, here in Europe we also don't really have that "debt holders can just sell off defaulted debts" thing, so banks can't offload the risk of defaults to someone else. And if that's not enough, we also got very strict laws on who can get approved for a credit card and for which limits - stuff like 20 year olds with 20, 30k of credit card debt are truly rare unless the parents of said young people are rich enough to back such a massive CC limit.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296338
> For vacation, we were used to going to money exchanges anyway so there was no need to get a bank card that worked outside of one's primary country.
Strong disagree, being able to withdraw cash at corner stores or pay with cards directly beats having to guess how much cash you need to exchange beforehand. And a number German banks have offered free credit or debit cards for decades.
> And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.
True but that doesn't affect their usefulness as payment methods - EU customers can largely pay with "credit" cards just fine.
Strong disagree, being able to withdraw cash at corner stores or pay with cards directly beats having to guess how much cash you need to exchange beforehand. And a number German banks have offered free credit or debit cards for decades.
> And even for those who have credit cards, they are "pay in full at the end of each month" cards, not American-style revolving credit cards. And stuff like the "cashback" cards of Americans, that's also not very common here since the "cashbacks" are actually paid for by the merchant on top of the interchange fee - but there's an EU law that places a hard cap of IIRC 1% on the merchant fees, so there is barely any way for banks to incentivise people to use credit cards.
True but that doesn't affect their usefulness as payment methods - EU customers can largely pay with "credit" cards just fine.
>The latter are not accepted by online platforms
This is not true.
This is not true.
Depends! If you only have a classic Girocard in Germany, iDEAL in Netherlands, Przelewy24/BLIK in Poland, Bancontact in Belgium for example, you will only be able to use it on services that support them. Amazon and PayPal support these schemes (as well as SEPA Direct Debit), but other than these, it's rare for non-domestic services to be accepted.
International payments are a huge huge goddamn mess and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with their peculiarities.
International payments are a huge huge goddamn mess and I do not envy anyone who has to deal with their peculiarities.
Right, I think I understand the nuance of your original point more now. As a Brit, with Visa, MasterCard and Amex, this is really a non-issue.
>Way to flippantly shit on
o_O
o_O
I can say from experience and from others who have been in this position (not email, but general services); its around 1-2% of people.
Nebula, the answer to the tyranny of Youtube (who works for advertisers), has a <1% conversion rate despite tons of huge Youtubers pushing it. Vid.me, the previous answer to youtubes tyranny, went bankrupt because people hate ads and also hate subscriptions, nor do they donate.
I could write pages about this, but I wish I could violently shake all the children (many who are now in their 40's) that so deeply feel entitled to free content on the internet, and scream "If you are not paying directly for the product, you have no right to complain about the product".
In reality the ad model is not going anywhere. Given the choice, people overwhelmingly chose to let the advertisers steer the ship if it means "free" entry.
Nebula, the answer to the tyranny of Youtube (who works for advertisers), has a <1% conversion rate despite tons of huge Youtubers pushing it. Vid.me, the previous answer to youtubes tyranny, went bankrupt because people hate ads and also hate subscriptions, nor do they donate.
I could write pages about this, but I wish I could violently shake all the children (many who are now in their 40's) that so deeply feel entitled to free content on the internet, and scream "If you are not paying directly for the product, you have no right to complain about the product".
In reality the ad model is not going anywhere. Given the choice, people overwhelmingly chose to let the advertisers steer the ship if it means "free" entry.
Nebula just doesn't have a product I want. I don't care for early access to Youtube videos.
Maybe this isn't the case for you, but a number of creators I watch have some videos that they only upload to Nebula. So it's worth it for me to see those videos I otherwise wouldn't ever get to see.
I pay for Nebula and still use Youtube a ton. Nebula is nice but it doesn’t have all channels I watch.
Video is impossible to break into because of how expensive it is. Even YouTube by all accounts is just breaking even. And that is with Google's entire infrastructure and advertising machinery behind it. A new entrant simply doesn't stand a chance.
Hold on... A ton of broadcasters, production companies, and individuals have done it and are doing it.
YouTube have many competitors and some of them are enormous, such as Netflix and cable TV. Production companies are popping up all the time and are making some of the world's highest quality material. The same for individuals who are making videos.
Or do you mean that YouTube needs a competitor that does exactly the same thing as YouTube?
YouTube have many competitors and some of them are enormous, such as Netflix and cable TV. Production companies are popping up all the time and are making some of the world's highest quality material. The same for individuals who are making videos.
Or do you mean that YouTube needs a competitor that does exactly the same thing as YouTube?
All of them are based on the traditional media production model. The companies were all well established in the industry (minus Netflix) and the only change was to go from broadcast/cable/theater to streaming. YouTube pioneered user generated videos and independent content creators. Its only competitor is probably Twitch, but that itself is owned by Amazon and losing a ton of money.
All of them have the technical infrastructure to host user uploaded videos, so it's not impossible to compete with YouTube.
No one does video even remotely close to the scale YT does it. YT has by far the deepest market penetration (close to 3 billion monthly users), and has by far the most hosted content, and critically, youtube adds over a half-million hours of video a day.
Essentially, youtube adds more video every single day than the entirety of every other streaming service offers combined.
Youtube is in it's own category, and it's unsurprising no else wants to touch it.
Essentially, youtube adds more video every single day than the entirety of every other streaming service offers combined.
Youtube is in it's own category, and it's unsurprising no else wants to touch it.
Counted in number of hours watched, I'm pretty sure that Netflix, cable TV and satellite TV, can compete with YouTube.
But everybody has to start somewhere. Would it be impossible for Netflix to start adding for example 100 000 hours of user generated video per day?
But everybody has to start somewhere. Would it be impossible for Netflix to start adding for example 100 000 hours of user generated video per day?
Serving user generated content is very expensive in terms of infrastructure. More expensive in many ways than streaming studio generated content.
The scales of the two models are very different. Ingesting content is more complicated with user generated content because there's few guarantees about formats (encoding, color, file formats). Serving the content is also more complicated because it's not as friendly to edge caches as studio content. Part of the expense of YouTube is the long tail of content. Popular content might live in edge caches but YouTube serves up old unpopular stuff too.
The scales of the two models are very different. Ingesting content is more complicated with user generated content because there's few guarantees about formats (encoding, color, file formats). Serving the content is also more complicated because it's not as friendly to edge caches as studio content. Part of the expense of YouTube is the long tail of content. Popular content might live in edge caches but YouTube serves up old unpopular stuff too.
Those things do not sound like a very big hurdle for a massive company like Netflix, in my opinion. They could simply demand a certain encoding, color and file format from uploaders. As for edge caching, not my specialty, but if Google can do it so could probably Netflix.
The most difficult part, and one that Youtube has struggled with since the beginning, would be content moderation. It's a technical, legal, and PR nightmare and there's no reason for Netflix to wade into that mess.
Then why is there reason for YouTube to be in that mess? Netflix currently has no problem in broadcasting and selling some of the vilest and most offensive stuff imaginable, including outright child pornography.
Would it be practical and economical is the right question to ask.
Providers would be more than happy to sell Netflix the build out
Providers would be more than happy to sell Netflix the build out
[deleted]
I've got a Nebula lifetime membership and it's neat. I actually discovered channels through it (Not Just Bikes, WonderWhy, 12tone,...) which I hadn't heard of before. I also paid for YT Premium Lite in the past. The full YT Premium is too expensive for me, though.
But I feel a better example of paying for convenience is the Twitch subscriber system. They make it work in a way that others fail at by tying it in to various things like emotes and channel points and the general sense of supporting the creators. I know YT memberships exist, but I don't know how widely those are used and they just don't seem to get pushed as much.
But I feel a better example of paying for convenience is the Twitch subscriber system. They make it work in a way that others fail at by tying it in to various things like emotes and channel points and the general sense of supporting the creators. I know YT memberships exist, but I don't know how widely those are used and they just don't seem to get pushed as much.
Twitch also lets people pay more than just the service price. So you'll they some people paying for themselves, but you'll also get whales paying for hundreds of other people. No other site I know of lets you do that really.
And it's not just that they pay for other people and that money goes to the particular streaming they're watching - they gift subs which can they be given to any other streamer if they want. Twitch does seem to have quite a versatile and user-friendly model for supporting creators.
(I think? I'm not very well-versed in Twitch stuff)
(I think? I'm not very well-versed in Twitch stuff)
Vis a vis nebula, this is definitely a product issue. Dropout.tv seems to be extremely successful and has a similar value proposition
re: rebula
I'm someone willing to shell out for SaaS and I don't see nebula being significantly better than just paying for youtube premium (which I do). They have some exclusive content but paying to watch a subset of content ad-free is just not going to work out (on a large scale, I know they're worth like $200m but that's much less than $1t)
I'm someone willing to shell out for SaaS and I don't see nebula being significantly better than just paying for youtube premium (which I do). They have some exclusive content but paying to watch a subset of content ad-free is just not going to work out (on a large scale, I know they're worth like $200m but that's much less than $1t)
I remember WhatsApp costing money, 1$ per year or per lifetime or something. I paid for it, I think it was a WinRar situation though, where deleting and reinstalling the app gave it to you for free or something.
I'm guessing most people didn't pay though, since they scraped the fee (even before FB bought them). I guess it was just too little money to be worth the effort.
I'm guessing most people didn't pay though, since they scraped the fee (even before FB bought them). I guess it was just too little money to be worth the effort.
Other way round. Facebook bought them in 2014, and they dropped the fee in early 2016.
The fee wasn't enforced in many developing countries, and some users elsewhere will have been jumping through the delete-and-reinstall hoops (which was painful because it lost chat history) to avoid paying.
But with 1bn active users at the time the fee was dropped, it would still have been bringing in more than enough revenue to have sustained Whatsapp as an independent business if they had chosen not to sell to FB.
The fee wasn't enforced in many developing countries, and some users elsewhere will have been jumping through the delete-and-reinstall hoops (which was painful because it lost chat history) to avoid paying.
But with 1bn active users at the time the fee was dropped, it would still have been bringing in more than enough revenue to have sustained Whatsapp as an independent business if they had chosen not to sell to FB.
Pre acquisition Whatsapp had 450M users. Even accounting for half the revenue of 1$ going away for payment fees (30%) and taxes (20%), that would still have been a nice cushy 200 million $ a year in almost pure profit - WA had 55 (!) employees at acquisition and 550 servers [1].
That's nothing at this scale of users and speaks volumes for the ingenuity of their staff.
The only ones driving even leaner than that are StackOverflow with just nine servers [2].
[1] https://highscalability.com/how-whatsapp-grew-to-nearly-500-...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34950843
That's nothing at this scale of users and speaks volumes for the ingenuity of their staff.
The only ones driving even leaner than that are StackOverflow with just nine servers [2].
[1] https://highscalability.com/how-whatsapp-grew-to-nearly-500-...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34950843
That fee wasn't really enforced. I was in India at the time and no one paid because no one had credit cards tied to their account. Everyone still used WhatsApp just fine.
I was on Android back then and never paid for Whatsapp. Neither did any of my family or friends who used Android phones back in 2012-13
"There must be a way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy."
Internet is a paid service.
When I first accessed the internet in the 1980s, the only paid "service" necessary to use it was internet service. There was not the plethora of VC-funded third parties trying to act as intermediaries. The term "internet" amongst younger generations usually means only www sites, maybe app "endpoints" and _nothing else_. This is such a waste of potential.
Today's internet is more useful than the 1980s internet. But I do not attribute that to third party intermediaries that only seek to profit from other peoples' use of it. I attribute the increased utility to technological improvements in hardware, including networking equipment. I do not attribute the increased utility to "improvements" in software, and certainly not the proliferation of software distributed for free as a Trojan Horse for those seeking to profit from data collection, surveillance and advertising services.
The idea of paying for what these intermediaries try to call "services" makes no sense to me. Certainly, paying these intermediaries will not prevent them from data collection and surveillance for commercial purposes. (There are already examples.) It only subsidises this activity. Perhaps people believe these intermediaries engage in data collection, surveillance and ad services because "no one will pay for their software" instead of considering that they do so because they can, because there are few laws to prevent them. It was unregulated activity and is stilll grossly underregulated activity. It is more profitable than software licensing.
Internet is a paid service.
When I first accessed the internet in the 1980s, the only paid "service" necessary to use it was internet service. There was not the plethora of VC-funded third parties trying to act as intermediaries. The term "internet" amongst younger generations usually means only www sites, maybe app "endpoints" and _nothing else_. This is such a waste of potential.
Today's internet is more useful than the 1980s internet. But I do not attribute that to third party intermediaries that only seek to profit from other peoples' use of it. I attribute the increased utility to technological improvements in hardware, including networking equipment. I do not attribute the increased utility to "improvements" in software, and certainly not the proliferation of software distributed for free as a Trojan Horse for those seeking to profit from data collection, surveillance and advertising services.
The idea of paying for what these intermediaries try to call "services" makes no sense to me. Certainly, paying these intermediaries will not prevent them from data collection and surveillance for commercial purposes. (There are already examples.) It only subsidises this activity. Perhaps people believe these intermediaries engage in data collection, surveillance and ad services because "no one will pay for their software" instead of considering that they do so because they can, because there are few laws to prevent them. It was unregulated activity and is stilll grossly underregulated activity. It is more profitable than software licensing.
> Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services
Rounded to the nearest meaningful number - 0%
Rounded to the nearest meaningful number - 0%
I don't know, I expect it to be at least %3 as this is the general conversion rate for "free" users AFAIK.
There must be some some number that makes it viable to have free users and paid users. For games, the free users are usually those who provide the "content".
People usually demonize freemium games but IMHO its much more benign than extracting huge sums by artificially making it worse and sell attention.
There must be some some number that makes it viable to have free users and paid users. For games, the free users are usually those who provide the "content".
People usually demonize freemium games but IMHO its much more benign than extracting huge sums by artificially making it worse and sell attention.
Most of those are tricked into it by manipulative UI or nearly impossible to cancel trials or forgotten monthly subscriptions.
How is it possible to have impossible to cancel trails? On AppStore it's in your account and takes 2 taps to cancel regardless of what the developer does.
Are you talking for direct, by credit card payments that somehow you can't cancel? Can you explain a bit?
Are you talking for direct, by credit card payments that somehow you can't cancel? Can you explain a bit?
The abuse was so rampant that even the US has had to legislate. US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) introduced a new regulation, known as the “click to cancel” rule.
As for the darkest of dark patterns - give Adobe some money and see what happens.
As for the darkest of dark patterns - give Adobe some money and see what happens.
Right, my rule of thumb is to stick with AppStore and when that's not an option use a Virtual card that I can just abandon if I don't want to use the service.
Play Store also does this now and it's a fundamentally radical departure from the era where if you give the company your card info directly theres a high chance you aren't going to be able to get out of it without paying at least some amount more than you should.
Think gyms where you refuse to cancel even when you are physically there in person with someone to yell at and imagine trying to do the same online where there's not a phone number, or a phone number with a 1 hour wait and a CSR paid based on if they can successfully not give you what you want
Think gyms where you refuse to cancel even when you are physically there in person with someone to yell at and imagine trying to do the same online where there's not a phone number, or a phone number with a 1 hour wait and a CSR paid based on if they can successfully not give you what you want
you're being too generous, as if people were on whatsbook because of a value they get.
they are just there for the captive network effect, which will take a hit the second or becomes a freemium or ad ridden service.
they are just there for the captive network effect, which will take a hit the second or becomes a freemium or ad ridden service.
Yeah, nobody uses Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, or Google anymore now that they’re “ad-ridden”
none of those are blasting "encryption! only you can read your messages" as their main message and marketing.
those are literal public forums people go to expose themselves. you don't have a very good point.
those are literal public forums people go to expose themselves. you don't have a very good point.
Whatsapp is messaging-focused, but I'm willing to bet the quotation you just gave is not even 10% of the reason people choose to use it.
If I understand it correctly, people use it mainly because MMS was a dumpster fire and WA was the first platform which got critical mass in most countries, which it achieved by being both pretty good overall and by being cross-platform.
The encryption is a nice bonus that everybody likes, but you can't prove that is a primary or even major reason why plumbers in India, tour guides in Dubai, and school parent groups in the US all choose to communicate with it, personally and professionally. If anything, I feel like Signal must have by now poached a good number of the people whose main concern is "How encrypted is it?"
Also, Gmail is not a public forum and people don't mind that it's 'ad-ridden' either.
If I understand it correctly, people use it mainly because MMS was a dumpster fire and WA was the first platform which got critical mass in most countries, which it achieved by being both pretty good overall and by being cross-platform.
The encryption is a nice bonus that everybody likes, but you can't prove that is a primary or even major reason why plumbers in India, tour guides in Dubai, and school parent groups in the US all choose to communicate with it, personally and professionally. If anything, I feel like Signal must have by now poached a good number of the people whose main concern is "How encrypted is it?"
Also, Gmail is not a public forum and people don't mind that it's 'ad-ridden' either.
I don't think anybody in my non-tech circle even knows that messages are encrypted. It's just a convenient way to message people and share pictures from android phones. At some point in the past it was viber and before that fb messenger. I know older people who wouldn't know how to attach a document to an email but can share vacation photos via whatsapp, and we have group chats between friends and family. People also care about their chat history, and if they don't know that the data is encrypted and needs to be backed up, they loose it when transferring to a new device. It's happening all the time, a lot of common users would expect chats to just stay in the cloud somewhere and be available.
Gmail is the least ad ridden property on google ever.
i don't think people join because it's encrypted, but they wouldn't use when it's not. it too can became the dumpsterfire that sms was/is.
i don't think people join because it's encrypted, but they wouldn't use when it's not. it too can became the dumpsterfire that sms was/is.
I pay a third party to host my email, and wouldn’t mind paying an honest service provider to host something like an XMPP service.
I wouldn’t pay Meta or similar companies for messaging services. And especially not for siloed messaging networks.
I wouldn’t pay Meta or similar companies for messaging services. And especially not for siloed messaging networks.
HN crowd has never been representative in this regard.
Sure, it’s easy to get some 20 or 30-something year old with a cushy 6 figure salary to pay 20 USD or similar per month for some digital service (esp. when they are building some digital service themselves, so they know what it entails). For someone strugling to make ends meet, there’s many higher priority things than some digital service when there’s free alternatives, let alone email.
And your privacy concerns? In my experience, absolutely non-existent in the real world. Actually I only ever hear about them in HN, not even my software development coworkers. Just the other day there was some raffle where there was some weekend trip to somewhere as a prize, but you had to give all your personal details, there was a big queue, they would’ve given their blood type details (if not literally a few ccs of their blood) and told them all about their kinkiest fantasy if they’d asked for it. Literally, I’m not joking.
Sure, it’s easy to get some 20 or 30-something year old with a cushy 6 figure salary to pay 20 USD or similar per month for some digital service (esp. when they are building some digital service themselves, so they know what it entails). For someone strugling to make ends meet, there’s many higher priority things than some digital service when there’s free alternatives, let alone email.
And your privacy concerns? In my experience, absolutely non-existent in the real world. Actually I only ever hear about them in HN, not even my software development coworkers. Just the other day there was some raffle where there was some weekend trip to somewhere as a prize, but you had to give all your personal details, there was a big queue, they would’ve given their blood type details (if not literally a few ccs of their blood) and told them all about their kinkiest fantasy if they’d asked for it. Literally, I’m not joking.
The problem with this is that once enough people are paying for an ad-free subscription, services reintroduce ads to the paid subscription, sometimes alongside the introduction of a new more expensive ad-free subscriotion.
I have a pet theory that the world would be slightly better place if the United States Postal Service had launched a convenient and free (taxpayer-funded) email service before Google:
1. I think folks would be naturally more skeptical of the government than they are of big tech, ideally leading to E2EE for email that's usable by the masses.
2. Phishing and scams could have a dedicated law enforcement arm (Postal Inspectors).
3. We'd reduce the amount of email-based personal data being mined and turned into entirely unregulated ad-tech nightmares.
1. I think folks would be naturally more skeptical of the government than they are of big tech, ideally leading to E2EE for email that's usable by the masses.
2. Phishing and scams could have a dedicated law enforcement arm (Postal Inspectors).
3. We'd reduce the amount of email-based personal data being mined and turned into entirely unregulated ad-tech nightmares.
> 1. I think folks would be naturally more skeptical of the government than they are of big tech, ideally leading to E2EE for email that's usable by the masses.
That is so weird to me. "Institutions that exist for the sole purpose of serving the people might end up having some power, so let's instead give it all to the literal oligarchs."
That is so weird to me. "Institutions that exist for the sole purpose of serving the people might end up having some power, so let's instead give it all to the literal oligarchs."
Me? Never again.
I used to... like some app, paid for a "PRO" version to get additonal features. Everything was ok.
Then 6 months went by, and they added a cloud feature, to upload some stuff and configs and sync between devices, and it turned from one time payment to a subscription plan. Then built-in features got moved into the cloud, and previously working stuff didn't work without subscriptions anymore. Then they added ads. PRO has maybe 2 more features than a free version and no nag screen at the start, and that's it.
I used to... like some app, paid for a "PRO" version to get additonal features. Everything was ok.
Then 6 months went by, and they added a cloud feature, to upload some stuff and configs and sync between devices, and it turned from one time payment to a subscription plan. Then built-in features got moved into the cloud, and previously working stuff didn't work without subscriptions anymore. Then they added ads. PRO has maybe 2 more features than a free version and no nag screen at the start, and that's it.
Which app? I paid for pro fairmail and don't have that issue with the app, currently. Which is what I'd expect.
I forgot what it was called, it was years ago. It was one of those "scan" with the camera to create PDFs of documents with some basic OCR included. The cloud feature gave you some cloud space, but OCR has to be done on the cloud (used to be locally done).
Even some quasi opensource software is no better... OsmAnd (openstreetmaps for android app) had a paid "OsmAnd+" version (that i bought), and then they decided they need a "pro" version too, 2.99/month, to get 3d relief and "colored routes".
Even some quasi opensource software is no better... OsmAnd (openstreetmaps for android app) had a paid "OsmAnd+" version (that i bought), and then they decided they need a "pro" version too, 2.99/month, to get 3d relief and "colored routes".
To be fair, OsmAnd bears the cost of hosting those maps, and when you consider that OsmAnd+ allows you to literally download the entire globe for offline use (which translates to hundreds of gigabytes of traffic), it's clear that they need some kind of ongoing revenue stream to be sustainable. And hillshade tiles (3D terrain) are particularly large since they need to be bitmaps rather than vectors like basic maps, so making their users bear more of that cost is not unreasonable.
> It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.
Can this corporate propaganda stop? Premises:
1. That we (the corporation) offer a free service is because people don’t wanna pay
2. Those freeloaders are costing us money
3. Eventually we have to introduce ads, shrugs we hate to do it but the freeloaders force our hands
Instead:
1. The strategy IS to be free to use
2. INVEST money in building the network effect
3. When a critical mass has been reached: MONETIZE
Where is the user’s preference in this? Nowhere. Why assume anything else? Why?
It is patently irrational for all parties to spend money (“pay for what you use”) on a buergoning social media platform:
- Business: why add any friction at all to a social media platform that you are supposed to grow?
- ... and why concede any talking points to the naive people who think that paid service equals no ads or monetized “attention” if you do both?
- Just monetize people instead
- User: why would anyone on God’s Green Earth pay to use a social media platform that was pay-to-use on day zero when there are no users?
Can this corporate propaganda stop? Premises:
1. That we (the corporation) offer a free service is because people don’t wanna pay
2. Those freeloaders are costing us money
3. Eventually we have to introduce ads, shrugs we hate to do it but the freeloaders force our hands
Instead:
1. The strategy IS to be free to use
2. INVEST money in building the network effect
3. When a critical mass has been reached: MONETIZE
Where is the user’s preference in this? Nowhere. Why assume anything else? Why?
It is patently irrational for all parties to spend money (“pay for what you use”) on a buergoning social media platform:
- Business: why add any friction at all to a social media platform that you are supposed to grow?
- ... and why concede any talking points to the naive people who think that paid service equals no ads or monetized “attention” if you do both?
- Just monetize people instead
- User: why would anyone on God’s Green Earth pay to use a social media platform that was pay-to-use on day zero when there are no users?
People pay for their mobile phone service and internet service. Growing up one of my first emails was bundled with our dial-up ISP.
Just because you're paying for a service doesn't mean your data won't get sold and monetized, nor does it protect you from ads getting shoved down your throat. ISPs and mobile phone service providers both sell your data. It's a common practice for services to keep raising prices and introduce ad-supported tiers in order to squeeze pay-piggies as much as possible.
Any time someone has tried starting a service that competed with big tech it either gets bought out or ripped off. And big tech's infinitely deep pockets means they can run at a loss for years until all the competition has disappeared.
I think in order to truly solve these problems it will require legislation and breaking up big tech into smaller companies. We also need legislation to require tech companies to stop creating walled gardens that cannot integrate with other platforms.
Just because you're paying for a service doesn't mean your data won't get sold and monetized, nor does it protect you from ads getting shoved down your throat. ISPs and mobile phone service providers both sell your data. It's a common practice for services to keep raising prices and introduce ad-supported tiers in order to squeeze pay-piggies as much as possible.
Any time someone has tried starting a service that competed with big tech it either gets bought out or ripped off. And big tech's infinitely deep pockets means they can run at a loss for years until all the competition has disappeared.
I think in order to truly solve these problems it will require legislation and breaking up big tech into smaller companies. We also need legislation to require tech companies to stop creating walled gardens that cannot integrate with other platforms.
I remember reading that one reason you often can't escape ads by paying for the service is that through the act of choosing to pay for the service, you are self-identifying as someone willing to pay for things, and are thereby ironically putting yourself into the most valuable ad-targeting demographic there is.
It is my view that you will never escape ads by paying for any content/service that is suitable for displaying ads. Reason: by the very act of paying for the service, you signal to advertisers that you are a person with purchasing power -- the very type of person they want to target. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. And if your service provider is under pressure to increase profits, and they're finding it hard to increase market share or innovate, they will reach for one of two solutions: (1) let service quality decline through cost cutting, and then introduce higher priced service tiers, or (2) ads. This is unfortunately what we see in reality.
It's extremely hard to compete in a commodity market where a large corp can do a free product to drive competition away.
Gmail's promise of 1GB free storage was an incredible offer at those times, where many people used "paid" mailers. Paid as part of the Internet subscription with a worse Webmailer and less storage than Google provided.
It is especially complicated with Mail, where Anti-Spam measures make operating an own server work (on one side for filtering incoming mail, on the other side to prevent being blocked for spamming)
Gmail's promise of 1GB free storage was an incredible offer at those times, where many people used "paid" mailers. Paid as part of the Internet subscription with a worse Webmailer and less storage than Google provided.
It is especially complicated with Mail, where Anti-Spam measures make operating an own server work (on one side for filtering incoming mail, on the other side to prevent being blocked for spamming)
Telegram has 15 million premium users paying ~$50/year
They also issue bonds which is another fun way to collect money.
They also issue bonds which is another fun way to collect money.
I’d love to know the expected ad revenue per user for makers of apps like WhatsApp, Instagram.
I’m pretty convinced I’d pay 10x or more than that amount for a completely ad free version but I can’t be sure.
I’m pretty convinced I’d pay 10x or more than that amount for a completely ad free version but I can’t be sure.
Don’t underestimate how expensive ads are and thus how much money they can bring in. Marco Arment, the developer of Overcast podcast player, has made remarks in the past about how the ad-supported version is completely viable and may actually make him more money per user than the price of his paid option. In his case, he runs his own contextual ad system. Obviously Meta is in a completely different league in terms of sophistication, meaning they are probably able to sell more targeted ads which means more money, and they also have the luxury of not having to pay any middlemen since they own their own ad infrastructure as well.
Part of me thinks the reason why they don’t offer that paid ad-free version of Facebook (which they built to try and appease the EU regulators) in the US is because their ARPU is so high that people would laugh at the price “Facebook/IG Premium” would have to cost.
Also, don’t forget that at least for now, paid subscriptions to social media apps would need to pay a 30% rent to the platform owner duopoly. This means that the price it would be it would cost would need to be 42% above than its ad ARPU just to break even.
Part of me thinks the reason why they don’t offer that paid ad-free version of Facebook (which they built to try and appease the EU regulators) in the US is because their ARPU is so high that people would laugh at the price “Facebook/IG Premium” would have to cost.
Also, don’t forget that at least for now, paid subscriptions to social media apps would need to pay a 30% rent to the platform owner duopoly. This means that the price it would be it would cost would need to be 42% above than its ad ARPU just to break even.
The flip side of this is to consider why those ads are so valuable. If advertisers are consistently getting paid that much, it's because the ads are successful in extracting at least that much extra profit from the users. Which presumably comes from all the superfluous purchases they make.
> Part of me thinks the reason why they don’t offer that paid ad-free version of Facebook (which they built to try and appease the EU regulators) in the US is because their ARPU is so high that people would laugh at the price “Facebook/IG Premium” would have to cost.
The ad-free one doesn’t have to cost more than the ad-supported ARPU. There’s a pretty reasonable argument to be made that social media services with near-ubiquitous uptake should be regulated as utilities, and regulators could reasonably place the price at cost + a marginal profit margin as determined to be reasonable, like they do for other utilities that are privately-owned.
> Also, don’t forget that at least for now, paid subscriptions to social media apps would need to pay a 30% rent to the platform owner duopoly.
They don’t have to offer paid subscriptions via IAP.
The ad-free one doesn’t have to cost more than the ad-supported ARPU. There’s a pretty reasonable argument to be made that social media services with near-ubiquitous uptake should be regulated as utilities, and regulators could reasonably place the price at cost + a marginal profit margin as determined to be reasonable, like they do for other utilities that are privately-owned.
> Also, don’t forget that at least for now, paid subscriptions to social media apps would need to pay a 30% rent to the platform owner duopoly.
They don’t have to offer paid subscriptions via IAP.
> doesn’t have to cost more than the ad-supported ARPU
I'll state up front that I'm not much of a socialist, so I realize opinions will vary, but it seems crazy to regulate something so frivolous as a social media site to the point of setting its prices. If people don't like Facebook, their ads, or their pricing, simply not using it is not a life-crippling suggestion the way "don't use the Internet" is.
So I'd support you on regulating broadband ISPs waaaaay before setting the prices X or FB can charge for meme-related services.
I'll state up front that I'm not much of a socialist, so I realize opinions will vary, but it seems crazy to regulate something so frivolous as a social media site to the point of setting its prices. If people don't like Facebook, their ads, or their pricing, simply not using it is not a life-crippling suggestion the way "don't use the Internet" is.
So I'd support you on regulating broadband ISPs waaaaay before setting the prices X or FB can charge for meme-related services.
I'm not much of a socialist either, and I wish that social media was frivolous enough that I didn't see their regulation as a reasonable proposition.
The problem isn't access to memes, it's that for various categories of services/interactions, Meta (and presumably WeChat and/or others in other locales) properties effectively are the internet. I've seen all of the following use social media services as their sole method of communication or online presence: amateur sports teams/leagues, gyms, local governments, government agencies, parent/school groups, local service providers (barbers, farmers' markets, restaurants, etc.), online classifieds, community food boxes.
The fact that Meta has intermingled its meme factory with its hosting of the informational/communication platforms for a wide array of local groups/organizations/businesses is something they chose to do, and I'm not willing to accept the excuse of "we make a lot of money from our ad-serving brainrot algorithms so we couldn't possibly charge less than that amount of money for access to the non-algorithmic features on which we've gotten people hooked."
The problem isn't access to memes, it's that for various categories of services/interactions, Meta (and presumably WeChat and/or others in other locales) properties effectively are the internet. I've seen all of the following use social media services as their sole method of communication or online presence: amateur sports teams/leagues, gyms, local governments, government agencies, parent/school groups, local service providers (barbers, farmers' markets, restaurants, etc.), online classifieds, community food boxes.
The fact that Meta has intermingled its meme factory with its hosting of the informational/communication platforms for a wide array of local groups/organizations/businesses is something they chose to do, and I'm not willing to accept the excuse of "we make a lot of money from our ad-serving brainrot algorithms so we couldn't possibly charge less than that amount of money for access to the non-algorithmic features on which we've gotten people hooked."
> [...] hosting of the informational/communication platforms for a wide array of local groups/organizations/businesses is something they chose to do,
I would argue that it's those people (citizens/companies/orgs) who did the important choosing here, not Meta. It's more cheap and accessible than ever to make a website that isn't dependent on social media, and there are tons of alternatives for connecting groups.
The elephant in the room, I think, is that most people actually feel that Whatsapp, Facebook Groups, etc. have no important downsides. I can't prove it, but I suspect that more than half the people who are involved in such network-effect communication (let's say, all the categories you described, the non-1:1 communication that takes place hosted on Meta platforms) find it to be very convenient, not least because they're already on those platforms by choice for recreation.
THAT is why it's so hard for the minority who philosophically hate ideas like targeted ads are unable to convince the masses to all move to Mastodon, or to one of the hundreds of lesser-known platforms that don't have all the same baggage (in their eyes). It isn't for lack of options. It's because at least a plurality of people are fine with it.
So the argument to effectively nationalize Meta, simply as punishment for getting normies to like their apps so much, because a minority of people just think it's wrong to be good at targeting ads, seems extreme to me.
I would argue that it's those people (citizens/companies/orgs) who did the important choosing here, not Meta. It's more cheap and accessible than ever to make a website that isn't dependent on social media, and there are tons of alternatives for connecting groups.
The elephant in the room, I think, is that most people actually feel that Whatsapp, Facebook Groups, etc. have no important downsides. I can't prove it, but I suspect that more than half the people who are involved in such network-effect communication (let's say, all the categories you described, the non-1:1 communication that takes place hosted on Meta platforms) find it to be very convenient, not least because they're already on those platforms by choice for recreation.
THAT is why it's so hard for the minority who philosophically hate ideas like targeted ads are unable to convince the masses to all move to Mastodon, or to one of the hundreds of lesser-known platforms that don't have all the same baggage (in their eyes). It isn't for lack of options. It's because at least a plurality of people are fine with it.
So the argument to effectively nationalize Meta, simply as punishment for getting normies to like their apps so much, because a minority of people just think it's wrong to be good at targeting ads, seems extreme to me.
> So the argument to effectively nationalize Meta, simply as punishment for getting normies to like their apps so much, because a minority of people just think it's wrong to be good at targeting ads, seems extreme to me.
I don’t find this to be a good representation of my argument - what I’d call for is very much not punishment, it’s a targeted response to fix no more than the identified problem. (The problem being, people aren’t being afforded a reasonable option to function in society that doesn’t involve a large wealth transfer to facebook.)
I don’t think “effectively nationalize Meta” is a fair reading of my position either - there are plenty of autonomous private companies are non-nationalized and that operate in areas where there’s regulation around pricing.
I don’t find this to be a good representation of my argument - what I’d call for is very much not punishment, it’s a targeted response to fix no more than the identified problem. (The problem being, people aren’t being afforded a reasonable option to function in society that doesn’t involve a large wealth transfer to facebook.)
I don’t think “effectively nationalize Meta” is a fair reading of my position either - there are plenty of autonomous private companies are non-nationalized and that operate in areas where there’s regulation around pricing.
> a reasonable option to function in society that doesn’t involve a large wealth transfer to facebook
There are so many people out there functioning in society just fine without Facebook. And Facebook tried to have an ad-free Facebook product for EU where people could just pay money for the services they apparently depend on -- a perfectly fair transaction, and the EU fined them for that, now mandating that Facebook has to offer a product to EU users for €0 but is only allowed to monetize it with ads that no advertiser would buy because untargeted ads are a waste of money. See the banner ads of the late 90s. Or I suppose the EU regulators would also be satisfied if FB just provided the services to Europeans as a charity.
I don't have a personal dog in the race, and don't own any shares of Meta, but I think the regulators don't know what they're doing, and as such, would prefer that they don't go too far in the area of social media, advertising and tracking until they figure it out.
There are so many people out there functioning in society just fine without Facebook. And Facebook tried to have an ad-free Facebook product for EU where people could just pay money for the services they apparently depend on -- a perfectly fair transaction, and the EU fined them for that, now mandating that Facebook has to offer a product to EU users for €0 but is only allowed to monetize it with ads that no advertiser would buy because untargeted ads are a waste of money. See the banner ads of the late 90s. Or I suppose the EU regulators would also be satisfied if FB just provided the services to Europeans as a charity.
I don't have a personal dog in the race, and don't own any shares of Meta, but I think the regulators don't know what they're doing, and as such, would prefer that they don't go too far in the area of social media, advertising and tracking until they figure it out.
I'm not sure if the number was for Facebook specifically or all Meta apps, but they did quote a number of around $70 revenue per year per US user a while ago. (with (much) lower numbers in other parts of the world)
These numbers are actually kinda interesting, in that they're based on user location, not advertiser. So basically all global companies target the US first because it's a big market with consistent regulations and mostly one language (compare to the EU where you'd need English/German/French/Spanish/Polish and still would miss a lot).
So, those numbers reflect a capital inflow to the US market rather than (as many people think) absurdly high conversion US users.
Meta stopped reporting user numbers/CPMs by geography after the market freaked out when user growth plateaued in the US (because they'd acquired basically everyone).
So, those numbers reflect a capital inflow to the US market rather than (as many people think) absurdly high conversion US users.
Meta stopped reporting user numbers/CPMs by geography after the market freaked out when user growth plateaued in the US (because they'd acquired basically everyone).
> So, those numbers reflect a capital inflow to the US market rather than (as many people think) absurdly high conversion US users.
But the capital inflow is also because there is a lot of consumer spending in the US to convert.
But the capital inflow is also because there is a lot of consumer spending in the US to convert.
Sort of. It's more because of how ML models work. If you have an audience of 100mn then it's much easier to get enough conversions to optimize the models. It's much harder to do it with an audience of 3mn.
By that logic Indonesia and Bangladesh would have higher ad-spend per head than France, because they are larger markets and it doesn't matter how much money people have to spend?
It's clearly both. But if I have a 1/100000 outcome, I can get maybe 500 conversions in France or the UK, but 3000 in the US. That makes a really large difference in terms of how many times your ad is shown to likely users.
But yeah, ML models do in fact work better in Indonesia and Bangladesh, but as you noted they have less money to spend.
But yeah, ML models do in fact work better in Indonesia and Bangladesh, but as you noted they have less money to spend.
That’s interesting, thanks
You would not, because 90% of the years wouldn't pay and you wouldn't also to have nobody to talk to after everybody moves to the next chat app
Why would users who can continue to receive exactly the same experience as today leave because some other users can opt to pay to go ad-free?
If Instragram had a reasonable paid tier, like $5 a month, I'd do that in a hearbeat. I'd also use instragram 1000x more. Because it's ads only in north america, I use it the minimum I need to for networking purposes.
Most people go absolutely mentally deranged by a simple magical incantation. The powerful incantation or spell consists of only one word: "Free". That word will make people loose their mind and their soul.
It will make people accept anything and everything that they would never otherwise accept. They will line up for hours, they will accept hostile and toxic messages being screamed into their faces, they will humiliate themselves, they will spend sleepless nights, they will willingly enslave themselves, they will wither away in sickness, they will murder millions in the most cruel way imaginable.
All for "free".
Societies in our history were not arranged in the same way around money, because probably there was some knowledge of the two-sided curse of avarice and stinginess. I'm talking about medieval and post-medieval society, where most people didn't use or have money in their everyday life. Instead they had duties.
It will make people accept anything and everything that they would never otherwise accept. They will line up for hours, they will accept hostile and toxic messages being screamed into their faces, they will humiliate themselves, they will spend sleepless nights, they will willingly enslave themselves, they will wither away in sickness, they will murder millions in the most cruel way imaginable.
All for "free".
Societies in our history were not arranged in the same way around money, because probably there was some knowledge of the two-sided curse of avarice and stinginess. I'm talking about medieval and post-medieval society, where most people didn't use or have money in their everyday life. Instead they had duties.
But Signal is free. And ad-free
Signal has its own limitations. It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't use it on tablets at all, and Android tablets are still unsupported (even as linked devices). There are other weird limits on linking, too - e.g. why can't I have a secondary phone as a linked device? Why can't I have more than 5 linked devices in total?
Sure, it's a rare case of a project which is sponsored and paid for by a billionaire. I wish there were more such projects, but you can't base an economy on charity from billionaires.
True enough. But I think in this case it's worth just enjoying how great Signal is. Maybe one day it will bend to enshittification, but for now, it's the better app.
*for now
Well, that is what happens when everything costs money and most people are just trying to get by on a daily basis, making cuts everywhere just to pay their bills, not everyone has a nice disposable income to throw away at apps. That people prefer ads over paying yet another subscription is a symptom of unchecked capitalism and the inequality that comes with it.
But how is it "unchecked capitalism" to pay for something that you use and enjoy? Unchecked is when people who work full time cannot afford even a simple home – which is 90% of young workers practically world wide. Unchecked is endless debt slavery.
But paying a fair price for a service which has actual value for you is not "unchecked". That's sieving flies and swallowing camels.
But paying a fair price for a service which has actual value for you is not "unchecked". That's sieving flies and swallowing camels.
[deleted]
At this point, you could have governments finance this piece of infrastructure.
This would cost $350M/year to Europe [1] -- which is a drop of the ocean in their budget -- in exchange for control of information.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
[1] assuming the initial business model of whatsapp was cash neutral, which I think it was
This would cost $350M/year to Europe [1] -- which is a drop of the ocean in their budget -- in exchange for control of information.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
[1] assuming the initial business model of whatsapp was cash neutral, which I think it was
I think the problem is that we all pay for ads whether we're exposed to them or not. Ads result in higher prices, and a higher barrier to entry for competition. It's a collective action problem.
> Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?
Probably not many. OTOH, I pay for Fastmail and NextDNS (both for at least 5 years at this point).
People give strange looks when I mention paying for e-mail, even people "in the know."
SAAS offerings for individuals don't have a lot of market share (streaming services aside). The exception might be iCloud/GMail harassing people about running out of storage, and people just eventually going "sure, here's 3 bucks a month."
Probably not many. OTOH, I pay for Fastmail and NextDNS (both for at least 5 years at this point).
People give strange looks when I mention paying for e-mail, even people "in the know."
SAAS offerings for individuals don't have a lot of market share (streaming services aside). The exception might be iCloud/GMail harassing people about running out of storage, and people just eventually going "sure, here's 3 bucks a month."
I think solution is neither. Such apps are now as much as essential as schools, hospitals and public infrastructure. Hence governments should build them with tax money.
how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?
Why are you using that as an example, and not asking how many people pay for their cellular data plan?
Why are you using that as an example, and not asking how many people pay for their cellular data plan?
I think every business model on the planet is subject to “and ads” consideration. I wish it wasn’t true, but it’s the business equivalent of “every app becomes a social graph”.
Hence the free market needs a government to stop the enshittification.
> IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use
Do you use any free (as in no money comes out of your wallet) services today? If so, which ones?
Do you use any free (as in no money comes out of your wallet) services today? If so, which ones?
In defense of ads: Ads do solve the pay-per-use problem, where most apps are subscription based so I'm constantly leaking subscription fees for apps / services I no longer use. Ads are great in that if I stop using a service, I stop paying the attention cost.
Ads also solve the price stratification problem: wealthy users pay with their valuable time, and poor users pay with their less valuable time.
Ads also solve the price stratification problem: wealthy users pay with their valuable time, and poor users pay with their less valuable time.
Y'know what, I'd have no problem paying for my "core services" if it were that easy. What I have a problem with is paying for potentially so many services:
* phone
* email
* whatsapp, because others use it
* signal, because it's actually good
* telegram, because that one group is on it
* my todo list app
* duolingo
* a good mapping app without ads
... and so on. And the same for my kids. And before you blink, you suddenly pay several hundred dollars per month.
Aka the slippery slope.
One of the problems seems to be that everything comes with transaction costs, so for example Signal cannot easily charge me a single dollar per month, which I suspect is a price point that would work for both me and them (if every one of their users paid it).
* phone
* whatsapp, because others use it
* signal, because it's actually good
* telegram, because that one group is on it
* my todo list app
* duolingo
* a good mapping app without ads
... and so on. And the same for my kids. And before you blink, you suddenly pay several hundred dollars per month.
Aka the slippery slope.
One of the problems seems to be that everything comes with transaction costs, so for example Signal cannot easily charge me a single dollar per month, which I suspect is a price point that would work for both me and them (if every one of their users paid it).
>> Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services
Some of us actually paid for WhatsApp! I think it was about $1 a year when it launched. At the time it was providing significant value, especially in areas where cross-border communication was common.
I'm sure $1 isn't enough to cover costs anymore but someone could make a nice living charging $5-10 a month for something similar. The problem is people will always sell out to investors and fuck over their users. It's inevitable.
Some of us actually paid for WhatsApp! I think it was about $1 a year when it launched. At the time it was providing significant value, especially in areas where cross-border communication was common.
I'm sure $1 isn't enough to cover costs anymore but someone could make a nice living charging $5-10 a month for something similar. The problem is people will always sell out to investors and fuck over their users. It's inevitable.
This is only true if they introduce them. i.e. FB doesn't have a paid service, but obviously Youtube does.
The problem is Whatsapp is a closed ecosystem so unlike email we can't just buy a provider.
And I do pay for youtube. The experience is well worth it and I'm thankful I can afford it (it's not a lot but many can't).
The problem is Whatsapp is a closed ecosystem so unlike email we can't just buy a provider.
And I do pay for youtube. The experience is well worth it and I'm thankful I can afford it (it's not a lot but many can't).
> This is only true if they introduce them. i.e. FB doesn't have a paid service, but obviously Youtube does.
FB does - “Meta Verified” for $16/month (presumably different depending on locale), but the benefits aren’t very good. (A verified badge, Increased account protection, Enhanced support, Upgraded profile features, Bonus stars and stickers)
FB does - “Meta Verified” for $16/month (presumably different depending on locale), but the benefits aren’t very good. (A verified badge, Increased account protection, Enhanced support, Upgraded profile features, Bonus stars and stickers)
... this thread is in the context of not seeing Ads.
You can pay FB to serve your ads too. We're not talking about those things.
You can pay FB to serve your ads too. We're not talking about those things.
“Can’t” is relative. I suspect there are a lot of people who pay for at least one streaming service that isn’t YouTube, but spend more hours watching YouTube in a month than they do watching that service.
And of course there’s also the age-old comparison that if someone goes to Starbucks more than twice in a month, they probably spend more there than you would on YouTube Premium, and does that provide the person with as much value as YouTube does?
In my opinion, it’s rarely about “can’t” when we’re talking about 12 bucks a month or whatever. It’s about the psychology: when a free tier exists, people reframe it in their heads that paying for that thing is an extravagance. Relatedly, removing the free tier altogether also has dangerous effects, as people immediately jump to “I can’t believe you’re taking away the free thing I used to have” outrage, while nobody complains about not having free access to say, HBO.
In my opinion, it’s rarely about “can’t” when we’re talking about 12 bucks a month or whatever. It’s about the psychology: when a free tier exists, people reframe it in their heads that paying for that thing is an extravagance. Relatedly, removing the free tier altogether also has dangerous effects, as people immediately jump to “I can’t believe you’re taking away the free thing I used to have” outrage, while nobody complains about not having free access to say, HBO.
The trouble with charging people is you have to charge everybody the same[1], so you're leaving money on the table with wealthy users, and pricing out poorer users
Ads mean each user 'pays' you according to their spending power
Kinda socialist when you think about it! From each according from his ability...
[1] Obviously companies try to get around this with price discrimination, but it's hard especially for a network effect platform
Ads mean each user 'pays' you according to their spending power
Kinda socialist when you think about it! From each according from his ability...
[1] Obviously companies try to get around this with price discrimination, but it's hard especially for a network effect platform
That is the absolute beauty of the targeted ad situation, isn’t it: you can generate leads for mortgages or expensive enterprise SaaS services, that are happy to pay super high acquisition costs, maximizing revenue from your rich users, and with the same ad inventory, maximize the revenue from your poor users by advertising App Store casino games for children, payday loans, etc. You can see why Meta doesn’t bother offering a paid service here.
I would be fine with the consumption model as long as it’s reasonable, but I honestly believe that streaming services hate this idea because it’s not as profitable as the ad model. In fact I am becoming more and more frustrated with services that I am paying for which show me ads even for “ad-free” experiences. For example, I pay for the highest tier of ad-free Hulu and Disney+ but Hulu somehow carves out exceptions for so-called non-Hulu content. So during some of those shows, you will see very frequent, very repetitive ads and it is quite obnoxious. There is literally not even an option to pay for a higher level of ad-free experience (I would!) because I guess they REALLY want to sell me Wegovy and SNHU and whatever other nonsense. The interruptions have gotten so obnoxious that I have lost interest. The only other option is to simply buy the episodes I am interested in. Or stop watching streaming content altogether.
We've circled back to the point where pirating content one way or another is more convenient than streaming it legally.
I use StreamFab + Plex for most providers these days precisely because it offers a better experience than their own native apps. Just the other day, I tried to watch a show on Amazon only to discover that subtitles were skewed because someone messed up cutting out the ad breaks - it'd shift the subtitles by ~10s for each cut. Plex not only has the ability to adjust offsets, but it can actually analyze the audio and perform autocorrection (which works flawlessly, I must add). Of course, this also means that this show is now permanently in my video library, even if I drop my Amazon subscription. And no, I don't feel bad about that.
I use StreamFab + Plex for most providers these days precisely because it offers a better experience than their own native apps. Just the other day, I tried to watch a show on Amazon only to discover that subtitles were skewed because someone messed up cutting out the ad breaks - it'd shift the subtitles by ~10s for each cut. Plex not only has the ability to adjust offsets, but it can actually analyze the audio and perform autocorrection (which works flawlessly, I must add). Of course, this also means that this show is now permanently in my video library, even if I drop my Amazon subscription. And no, I don't feel bad about that.
Or... Wait and buy the bluray version which has also the pro of being at better bitrate and quality
problem is google and meta prefer you not to buy
Ads money is larger than user buying subscription they don't want you to buy software lol
Ads money is larger than user buying subscription they don't want you to buy software lol
everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about revenue, it's about control. they’re reshaping a private messaging tool into a broadcast platform with tracking hooks. and most users won’t even notice until it’s too embedded to undo
It's been 11 years. If they hadn't been bought they'd have found a different monetization model long ago
They kinda did. Before facebook brought them, the app cost $1/£1 per year (iirc your first year was free). Thing is back then MMS and/or texts across borders was expensive, so if you were regularly sending picture messages to people the $1/£1 sub was a no brainer.
Lets wave a magic wand and presume 50% of the user base thought it was also worth $1 a year and it grew just as well as it did (It was growing very well in the UK before the takeover just by word of mouth). That's still just a messaging app that would be raking in $1.5B per year today, and that's before you bolt on any paid cosmetics or upgrades (small things that users don't mind dropping a few more bucks on).
Lets wave a magic wand and presume 50% of the user base thought it was also worth $1 a year and it grew just as well as it did (It was growing very well in the UK before the takeover just by word of mouth). That's still just a messaging app that would be raking in $1.5B per year today, and that's before you bolt on any paid cosmetics or upgrades (small things that users don't mind dropping a few more bucks on).
There's no way it would've gotten the adoption it did in 3rd world countries if you had to pay $1 per year.
Thing is, it already was getting that adoption, and network effect can largely take care of the rest. Also, some it’s tied to a real phone number, geographic price differentiation is trivial to implement.
Ok I paid the 1 buck, or agreed to pay a year later. Those days I lived in India, and my friend kinda forced me to use whatsapp by selling it. I still remember sitting in an auto-rickshaw and downloading the app after the sales pitch :) This must have been 2012, but could it be earlier - maybe.
Point being, I agree with you, it was getting that adoption anyways, even with the fees. And within months, I was hearing this from so many others.
How do I remember? I moved back to US in Feb 2013, so it had to be before that, just can not recall the exact year and month.
Point being, I agree with you, it was getting that adoption anyways, even with the fees. And within months, I was hearing this from so many others.
How do I remember? I moved back to US in Feb 2013, so it had to be before that, just can not recall the exact year and month.
I think it grew there when you had to pay. It was still cheaper than the alternative.
And my understanding back then was that enforcement of payment was via the honour system. It was even possible to pay for your contacts, likely to make it as low friction as possible especially as paying for something on the internet was still a relatively new thing.
For $1 per contact, I'd be happy to pay for anyone I know, or ever meet in the future to keep a messaging platform ad-free/user-centric.
> the app cost $1/£1 per year
Not really. They claimed they'd charge this but then kept giving away free time to huge numbers of people because this wasn't an actual business model, they did it just to slow their growth down when they were running out of server capacity. It's discussed in some interview with the founder, iirc.
Not really. They claimed they'd charge this but then kept giving away free time to huge numbers of people because this wasn't an actual business model, they did it just to slow their growth down when they were running out of server capacity. It's discussed in some interview with the founder, iirc.
I happen to remember paying 1€ for Whatsapp.
WhatsApp make billions of dollars but Meta wants it to make hundreds of billions. There's no way to appease the dragon.
Curious how whatsapp makes any money besides the handful of companies that use it as a customer support portal
> handful of companies
Go to India. Way more than just a handful of companies using it
Go to India. Way more than just a handful of companies using it
WhatsApp integrates into the rest of Meta ads machine so it distribute leads from facebook and instagram directly to whatsapp. It also makes money with spam.
WhatsApp makes absolutely no money with spam. There isn't a per-message cost or however you think that would work
There absolutely is a per-conversation cost for marketing messages.
https://business.whatsapp.com/products/platform-pricing?coun...
See also here
>With marketing messages, you pay for each message that is delivered to a receiver you chose within five days of being sent.
https://faq.whatsapp.com/178447635241069?cms_id=178447635241...
https://business.whatsapp.com/products/platform-pricing?coun...
See also here
>With marketing messages, you pay for each message that is delivered to a receiver you chose within five days of being sent.
https://faq.whatsapp.com/178447635241069?cms_id=178447635241...
You are wrong.
On a global level it's completely pervasive.
How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.
So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?
Well, I'm saying we should be hesitant to immediately throw out blame for pursuing profit, because it's not just more money for Zuckerberg and other billionaires. If retirement funds were growing at 2%, the same people criticizing this decision would be looking for alternative investment vehicles.
What choice do we have? Indeed, I would rather prefer that the companies that comprise the broad market embrace some form of ESG ethos, but that's clearly out of vogue these days. I vote to that extent, but I'm a breathtakingly small portion of the vote when it comes to corporate governance.
How would being actively discriminatory against a large part of the population help anything?
That is not my case. If Meta had minted thousands of millionaires in my country I would have way less problems with them
[deleted]
> most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws.
I don't have high hopes either but people did stop using Messenger in favor of WhatsApp, so they can absolutely stop using WhatsApp too.
The "mistake" (if you're evil) those apps make is that they use your phone number as unique identifier, not a login. So if you switch app, you still have the phone number of all your friends.
I don't have high hopes either but people did stop using Messenger in favor of WhatsApp, so they can absolutely stop using WhatsApp too.
The "mistake" (if you're evil) those apps make is that they use your phone number as unique identifier, not a login. So if you switch app, you still have the phone number of all your friends.
Although those apps are still out there, i really miss those days were all you needed was some kind of unique identifier like a nickname, username or something like that an email address and some fancy password (and you weren't even pestered about to provide a phone number anywhere!).
Those were simpler times. :')
Those were simpler times. :')
It is becoming painfully apparent that the cycle of enshittification is truly inevitable, right up there next to the second law of thermodynamics.
Unless it's an open, federated system.
No system can credibly claim to sustain massive consumer scale until proven in real life.
Even if your technical architecture supports scale and federation, these are just some threats off the top of my head:
- spam, fraud and Sybil attacks, deteriorating the experience for everyone
- infighting, forking among maintainers of core libs and protocols
- maintainers get poached by mega corps
- hostile takeovers of foundations, trademarks and auxiliary institutions
- a single entity within federation gets too large and imposes their own changes that can’t be rejected without losing majority of users or forking (see infighting)
- VC/deep-pocket subsidized competition offering free service (say eg video calls) and unlimited marketing, OEM pre-installs etc, to poach critical mass of users
I love the idea of federated systems. But I think some of us nerds think too much about tech and too little about the social and economic dynamics of the real world.
Even if your technical architecture supports scale and federation, these are just some threats off the top of my head:
- spam, fraud and Sybil attacks, deteriorating the experience for everyone
- infighting, forking among maintainers of core libs and protocols
- maintainers get poached by mega corps
- hostile takeovers of foundations, trademarks and auxiliary institutions
- a single entity within federation gets too large and imposes their own changes that can’t be rejected without losing majority of users or forking (see infighting)
- VC/deep-pocket subsidized competition offering free service (say eg video calls) and unlimited marketing, OEM pre-installs etc, to poach critical mass of users
I love the idea of federated systems. But I think some of us nerds think too much about tech and too little about the social and economic dynamics of the real world.
Despite its flaws and issues, email is federated and has been working at scale for decades.
I agree. That’s an interesting model for chat. But remember, modern email is quite complex when you add all the standards for authenticity and security together, as well as informal requirements like spam filtering. But even if self-hosting were a pain, it’d still be an improvement over today’s fragmentation-by-app status quo.
Right. Instant messaging should be considered basic / core utility like ISPs. I can pay a cheap or even a free one and they'll probably sell my data or I can pay more for an ISP that preserve my privacy
> or I can pay more for an ISP that preserve my privacy
In what alternate universe?
In what alternate universe?
Only if you think Capitalism is also inevitable
bapak(7)
The next one to enshittify will be Threads. Right now it's in the honeymoon stage where there aren't any ads so people are encouraged to use it and help grow the platform.
This one I don't mind, there is like 1% of actual posters, everyone else are bots or tweet copy pasters
Ha! You jinxed it!
Introducing ads in Threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44297875
Just got an email about it today from Meta, inviting us to bid on the new platform.
Introducing ads in Threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44297875
Just got an email about it today from Meta, inviting us to bid on the new platform.
I used Threads for the first day. And seeing occasionally promo pics that James Gunn posts of Superman. But from my ancedotal experience, Threads is already full of bots, escort services, and random tweeters who I have no interesting in following. I feel Threads might be shut down eventually or integrated into Instagram perhaps.
> most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws
Network effects are much much smaller for messaging apps vis-a-vis social networks because there is no problem in incrementally moving your DMs from one place to another.
Network effects are much much smaller for messaging apps vis-a-vis social networks because there is no problem in incrementally moving your DMs from one place to another.
There is a massive barrier to switching.
In order to switch, you also need to convince your acquaintances to switch.
Good luck with that.
In order to switch, you also need to convince your acquaintances to switch.
Good luck with that.
>
In order to switch, you also need to convince your acquaintances to switch.
Rather: you have to to convince yourself to be willing to make it a little bit harder, if necessary, for these acquaintances to contact you. :-)
Rather: you have to to convince yourself to be willing to make it a little bit harder, if necessary, for these acquaintances to contact you. :-)
There is no switching involved, you can have two apps installed at the same time. It's not a social network where posting to one means the people posting on the other won't see your stuff.
You're always going to send the message on the app with 100% coverage.
I'm not switching apps to send the same message to 50% of people and then again to 100% resulting in some switchers getting it twice.
And lets be honest, people dont walk around recommending chat apps to each other. It hasn't been 2010 for at least five years.
I'm not switching apps to send the same message to 50% of people and then again to 100% resulting in some switchers getting it twice.
And lets be honest, people dont walk around recommending chat apps to each other. It hasn't been 2010 for at least five years.
You are ignoring chat groups here.
When I did it, because my phone supports multiple apps being installed at the same time, I was able to do it gradually. Most people I know do have a second option to reach them so it wasn't a problem at all.
This needs a regulatory involvement (for federation)
That already happened in EU with trying to force leading communications platforms to integrate with at least one competitor. I remember an initiative to make WhatsApp integrate with (wait for it..) Skype.
I'm not sure how or why it fizzled out.
I'm not sure how or why it fizzled out.
I guess this was expected, but it makes me feel really powerless in the sense that I can't really move away from WhatsApp.
I have a couple of friends that I message via Signal and even convinced my dad to use it a while back, but here in Brazil WhatsApp is _everything_, and I doubt most people care about this at all. In my case, I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and probably couldn't even book a haircut or pay my taxes (my accountant messages me on WhatsApp).
It's one of those where unless just about everyone were to go over to Signal, most people won't, because keeping track of messages in two apps is quite hard.
That leaves me stuck in this ecosystem, which is quite sad.
I have a couple of friends that I message via Signal and even convinced my dad to use it a while back, but here in Brazil WhatsApp is _everything_, and I doubt most people care about this at all. In my case, I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and probably couldn't even book a haircut or pay my taxes (my accountant messages me on WhatsApp).
It's one of those where unless just about everyone were to go over to Signal, most people won't, because keeping track of messages in two apps is quite hard.
That leaves me stuck in this ecosystem, which is quite sad.
Yup. Non-traveling US Americans mostly won’t understand how critical WhatsApp is in many parts of the world, for more than a decade. It’s much much stronger than the iMessage norm in the US.
Businesses put WhatsApp numbers on their stores, and it’s often the only way to get a hold of a person. I would bet it’s more used than email, especially for young people. If WhatsApp went down for a week, it would seriously impede normal societal functions. It’s pretty much de-facto standard and arguably critical infrastructure.
Businesses put WhatsApp numbers on their stores, and it’s often the only way to get a hold of a person. I would bet it’s more used than email, especially for young people. If WhatsApp went down for a week, it would seriously impede normal societal functions. It’s pretty much de-facto standard and arguably critical infrastructure.
> It’s much much stronger than the iMessage norm in the US.
I've lived in the US all my life, and I didn't even know there was a norm at all, so that's not much of a threshold.
I've lived in the US all my life, and I didn't even know there was a norm at all, so that's not much of a threshold.
It's less prominent if you were already 20-30 when the first iPhone came out. In slightly-affluent primary schools, owning an iPhone was your inroad to a cult of iMessage games and insular group chats. If you didn't beg mommy and daddy to fork over $600 and tax to Verizon then you didn't join the cool group chats.
It sounds petty, but not very abnormal for growing up in America.
It sounds petty, but not very abnormal for growing up in America.
Respectfully, you can't extrapolate a single experience to _every_ "slightly-affluent primary school". Even the most miniscule of cultural differences can and will lead to different outcomes such as "did you just judge me for a green bubble? what sort of asshole thinks that's worth judging someone over?" (group proceeds to make fun of the iPhone user)
> Even the most miniscule of cultural differences can and will lead to different outcomes
I certainly didn't say it was the only outcome. I switched schools three times in my youth, and each place I went had different kids but the same materialist obsessions. Some people did mock the Apple users, for what little it did to get them into the iMessage chats. Every school I went to had an 'iPhone in group' though, and if you didn't have the right phone you didn't get to chat, period.
My larger point, which you really don't need to extrapolate for, is that Apple knew they were making a FOMO-based service that would predate on kids and adults with maligned priorities. They understood the social clusterfuck that they engineered, and marketed the hell out of it; because it worked, bragging about iMessage does sell iPhones.
I certainly didn't say it was the only outcome. I switched schools three times in my youth, and each place I went had different kids but the same materialist obsessions. Some people did mock the Apple users, for what little it did to get them into the iMessage chats. Every school I went to had an 'iPhone in group' though, and if you didn't have the right phone you didn't get to chat, period.
My larger point, which you really don't need to extrapolate for, is that Apple knew they were making a FOMO-based service that would predate on kids and adults with maligned priorities. They understood the social clusterfuck that they engineered, and marketed the hell out of it; because it worked, bragging about iMessage does sell iPhones.
Fair enough. I went to public school and (I believe) more people do in general. In my particular public school it was frowned upon to brag about your privilege as many had less fortunate upbringings. Mind you, this was still in a (relatively) affluent area - so general amenities were okay but many people still didn't come from extravagant or even mild wealth.
Excessive privilege really fucks with people's worldview.
Excessive privilege really fucks with people's worldview.
What about non traveling Chinese?
I'd say Chinese people are aware that their Internet is pretty different from the rest of the world.
Americans tend to believe everyone is trying very hard to be like them (when they think about the rest of the world at all).
Americans tend to believe everyone is trying very hard to be like them (when they think about the rest of the world at all).
Hacker News Commenters tend to believe it's possible to generalize hundreds of millions of people at once after seeing maybe a few thousand of them.
Your comment is snide and unnecessary. Do Chinese walk around thinking they want to be more American? No they don't. Americans certainly dont believe everyone is trying very hard to be like them - typically go about their own business. Chinese may be influenced by western shows and movies but everybody is influenced by the shows that they watch. Why do Americans need to think about the rest of the world? Do Chinese think about the rest of the world? Your hatred really shows in your comment.
Your reading of GP's comment is quite uncharitable. I did not read any "hatred" (of nationals from either country) in his post.
I know exactly 3 people that use emails for personal human to human comunications. I am sure that it is more common in other slices of the world.
This has led to all sorts of opinions on the thread, which are all very interesting!
I do agree that just accepting this is not the way to go, and also that slowly making changes is a valid approach.
I do want to qualify though, for those who aren't in a WhatsApp-heavy country, how things work.
I looked at my latest messages and beyond all my friends and all my family, I have my accountant, my landlord, my barber, HOA, groups for birthday party invites (where you're asked to confirm attendance), a painter, etc. In many restaurants, if you want a reservation, WhatsApp is the only way. For people who work in Brazil (I work remotely for a company abroad), a lot of work communication happens on WhatsApp.
Again, this is not to say that not dong anything is the way to go! But I think abroad some people don't understand the extent to which WhatsApp is used here. Someone mentioned iMessage for instance and I don't think I know a single person who uses it. Most Brazilians have Android phones too.
I do agree that just accepting this is not the way to go, and also that slowly making changes is a valid approach.
I do want to qualify though, for those who aren't in a WhatsApp-heavy country, how things work.
I looked at my latest messages and beyond all my friends and all my family, I have my accountant, my landlord, my barber, HOA, groups for birthday party invites (where you're asked to confirm attendance), a painter, etc. In many restaurants, if you want a reservation, WhatsApp is the only way. For people who work in Brazil (I work remotely for a company abroad), a lot of work communication happens on WhatsApp.
Again, this is not to say that not dong anything is the way to go! But I think abroad some people don't understand the extent to which WhatsApp is used here. Someone mentioned iMessage for instance and I don't think I know a single person who uses it. Most Brazilians have Android phones too.
I understand that WhatsApp may be necessary to talk to businesses (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should).
But what would prevent people from using WhatsApp to talk to businesses and Signal to talk to friends? I have been using multiple channels with friends forever: phone call, mail, email, MSN Messenger, Facebook, IRC, ICQ, WhatsApp, Threema, Signal, Slack, Discord, Matrix, ... What sucks is when I can't reach a friend. But I never saw it as a problem that I had too many choices to talk to them :-).
I don't really understand this "It has to have 100% of the market" stance. I don't want monopolies, I don't really understand why someone would say "this monopoly sucks, but I really want a monopoly so I won't ever change unless it is for a better monopoly".
But what would prevent people from using WhatsApp to talk to businesses and Signal to talk to friends? I have been using multiple channels with friends forever: phone call, mail, email, MSN Messenger, Facebook, IRC, ICQ, WhatsApp, Threema, Signal, Slack, Discord, Matrix, ... What sucks is when I can't reach a friend. But I never saw it as a problem that I had too many choices to talk to them :-).
I don't really understand this "It has to have 100% of the market" stance. I don't want monopolies, I don't really understand why someone would say "this monopoly sucks, but I really want a monopoly so I won't ever change unless it is for a better monopoly".
For 1:1 conversations I think you're right. Having multiple channels for communication is fine.
Where it breaks down is for group conversations. If Person A won't use Signal and Person B won't use WhatsApp, you can't easily have group communications. And it only gets worse as the number of people in the group goes up.
Where it breaks down is for group conversations. If Person A won't use Signal and Person B won't use WhatsApp, you can't easily have group communications. And it only gets worse as the number of people in the group goes up.
In my experience, people who use Signal usually also have WhatsApp. It's really mostly that many people absolutely refuse to install Signal on their phone. Like they have all sorts of apps (including social networks that are sometimes downright malware), but they will fight against Signal for some reason I don't understand.
The reason is simple: Comfort. They simply prefer not to have the mental load of multiple channels, albeit at some cost.
That's the appeal of software like Beeper&Co.
That's the appeal of software like Beeper&Co.
> (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should)
FWIW, as far as I ever could tell, Facebook did this correctly: the only real thing is letting a business have an account without a phone number; they then provide the software you can run on your server to be a WhatsApp client, so all of your user's messages are then end-to-end encrypted to your business. Yes: later on they decided they'd get in the business of offering a "hosted client"--which meant that, technically, if you used that service, they could see the messages, which caused a change to their terms of service, as a blanket statement that Facebook can't ever see messages isn't technically true anymore, which Signal threw a ton of FUD at :/--but anyone could have offered that service before (and could right now also for Signal).
FWIW, as far as I ever could tell, Facebook did this correctly: the only real thing is letting a business have an account without a phone number; they then provide the software you can run on your server to be a WhatsApp client, so all of your user's messages are then end-to-end encrypted to your business. Yes: later on they decided they'd get in the business of offering a "hosted client"--which meant that, technically, if you used that service, they could see the messages, which caused a change to their terms of service, as a blanket statement that Facebook can't ever see messages isn't technically true anymore, which Signal threw a ton of FUD at :/--but anyone could have offered that service before (and could right now also for Signal).
I refuse to be in servility to an app and don't use whatsapp. Facebook uses you. Let others, your friends, and family know the facts.
In the case of "business requirements", push back on businesses. You are actually the customer.
I get it though. The best might be a compromise where you try to limit the contacts on whatsapp to only those you have no choice.
In the case of "business requirements", push back on businesses. You are actually the customer.
I get it though. The best might be a compromise where you try to limit the contacts on whatsapp to only those you have no choice.
That's the way.
> I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and probably couldn't even book a haircut or pay my taxes (my accountant messages me on WhatsApp)
Comments like these make me think it's probably more a problem of inertia. Of course they can still talk to family (visit/call/email/sms/fax/mail,...), and of course they can still do their taxes, they might just have to get a different accountant that does business outside of WhatsApp. This all would take more energy than living in this beautifully convenient platform that Meta set up for them.
> I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and probably couldn't even book a haircut or pay my taxes (my accountant messages me on WhatsApp)
Comments like these make me think it's probably more a problem of inertia. Of course they can still talk to family (visit/call/email/sms/fax/mail,...), and of course they can still do their taxes, they might just have to get a different accountant that does business outside of WhatsApp. This all would take more energy than living in this beautifully convenient platform that Meta set up for them.
you should still slowly push for more ppl in family to use signal. In moldova as example most ppl used viber, but moved gradually to telegram and whatsapp.
I've convinced my family/friends to use telegram in the past, but I'll slowly help them use Signal more. Changes rarely happen fast
Is there functionality whatsapp provides (even if it’s really unrelated to software features, just by happenstance due to its widespread usage) that signal doesn’t currently provide for? If so, it’s a losing battle. No one would go backwards in functionality unless the ads got egregious.
imo there's only one important feature - chat backups. WA allows doing periodical backups into google drive to not lose the data
What you consider important may not be what others consider important. Seems like you know of other features that others find important you’re just not wanting to mention those because it undermines your point.
What makes Signal less at risk than WhatsApp?
Are they profitable in other ways? Are they at the same risk of capture?
Non-profit and actually quite economically efficient per user.
Once WhatsApp was bought by Meta the writing was on the wall. I moved out of it immediately and I'm surprised people are caught off-guard by this news.
I suppose there's little guarantee Signal won't be sold, but an ultra popular app with no profit, owned by a single bloke (WhatsApp) was the last thing I expected to be a sustainable platform for my communications. Same reason I've never looked at Telegram.
I suppose there's little guarantee Signal won't be sold, but an ultra popular app with no profit, owned by a single bloke (WhatsApp) was the last thing I expected to be a sustainable platform for my communications. Same reason I've never looked at Telegram.
Signal is open source, for one, so if Signal started pushing for ads, then someone could fork it into a new service.
In my opinion, the goal is not to find "the perfect monopoly". The goal is to be versatile. Right now, Signal is better than WhatsApp (be it just because it does not belong to Meta), and using Signal is absolutely trivial (it can even be used in parallel to WhatsApp).
I use Signal today, if in 2 years Signal goes into surveillance capitalism and ads, well I'll move to the next one. And then the next one. It's not like it requires a PhD to use a clone of a messaging app.
In my opinion, the goal is not to find "the perfect monopoly". The goal is to be versatile. Right now, Signal is better than WhatsApp (be it just because it does not belong to Meta), and using Signal is absolutely trivial (it can even be used in parallel to WhatsApp).
I use Signal today, if in 2 years Signal goes into surveillance capitalism and ads, well I'll move to the next one. And then the next one. It's not like it requires a PhD to use a clone of a messaging app.
I had this problem some years ago. Eventually I just told everyone I would be uninstalling whatsapp on date XX/YY, which I then did. Some people installed signal and stayed in touch, others didn't. Life didn't change much.
Now I'd like to move to my own matrix server but I think appx 0.0% of my social group would follow me down that rabbit hole. :-(
More extreme, a friend of mine one day eliminated his cellphone entirely but kept Skype on his laptop. So now it's email or nothing with him and sadly it's been nothing for some time now.
More extreme, a friend of mine one day eliminated his cellphone entirely but kept Skype on his laptop. So now it's email or nothing with him and sadly it's been nothing for some time now.
This message reminded me to email a few people. Thanks.
I left whatsapp long ago when it was bought by meta, due to my privacy beliefs. I quit facebook in 2007 when i caught negative behaviour patterns. Im staunchly anti social media, however it would be dishonest not to note that it is lonely, organising anything is tedious, you have no access to the used goods marketplace (fees on sales platforms are too high). I dont really know if privacy is worth it. But tbh the thought of going back makes my skin crawl.
Last night I just removed myself from every friend groupchat and blocked everyone there, while leaving a status message about how they can reach me on Signal or call me. If they are actually your friends they'll come around, and families survived before Whatsapp existed. I'm also brazilian, I just won't stand with people dismissing what matters to me as if I'm a nutjob for not using their fascist app
I admire the conviction, but I think you're underestimating the social inertia that platforms like WhatsApp benefit from.
The unfortunate reality is that most people won’t follow you. Not because they don’t respect you or your concerns, but because the cost—in effort, friction, or just breaking habitual patterns—is too high. Social coordination is fragile, and it leans heavily on lowest-common-denominator tools. WhatsApp has become that denominator.
What’s likely to happen is this: group chats will move on without you. Events will get planned. Conversations will unfold. People aren’t going to message you separately to accommodate your principled stand—not out of malice, but out of convenience and momentum. You’ll be increasingly left out, not because anyone wants to isolate you, but because ecosystems don't fracture easily.
After a few months of being disconnected and missing out, there’s a strong chance you’ll reinstall WhatsApp—not because you’ve changed your mind, but because opting out of a near-universal platform means opting out of modern social participation.
This isn’t a defeat of principle—it’s a reflection of how network effects work. The only way to realistically challenge something like WhatsApp is if a critical mass moves at once. Individual protest, while noble, often just leads to isolation unless it becomes collective action.
The unfortunate reality is that most people won’t follow you. Not because they don’t respect you or your concerns, but because the cost—in effort, friction, or just breaking habitual patterns—is too high. Social coordination is fragile, and it leans heavily on lowest-common-denominator tools. WhatsApp has become that denominator.
What’s likely to happen is this: group chats will move on without you. Events will get planned. Conversations will unfold. People aren’t going to message you separately to accommodate your principled stand—not out of malice, but out of convenience and momentum. You’ll be increasingly left out, not because anyone wants to isolate you, but because ecosystems don't fracture easily.
After a few months of being disconnected and missing out, there’s a strong chance you’ll reinstall WhatsApp—not because you’ve changed your mind, but because opting out of a near-universal platform means opting out of modern social participation.
This isn’t a defeat of principle—it’s a reflection of how network effects work. The only way to realistically challenge something like WhatsApp is if a critical mass moves at once. Individual protest, while noble, often just leads to isolation unless it becomes collective action.
Your predictions assume I live in a contemporary, "atomic", social organization where people aren't integrated in tight-knit communities apart from the internet. My core friend group meets a few times a week because of church-related activities at a fixed weekly schedule, to the point where if someone is missing with no explanation they get a phone call. Football night is also at a fixed, weekly schedule with no need for Whatsapp, and I run game night, so...
I was also reading some of the comments in this thread with incredulity. You switch messaging apps and your friends.. just aren't your friends anymore? Not being on a particular platform means you'll be "left out"?
I've seen a number of group chats move platforms because "we need to add X but he's not on imessage, let's use snap instead" etc. I have all sorts of group chats and contacts on various platforms and they move around all the time. A group being beholden to a single messaging platform sounds.. inflexible, and probably not the kind of people I'd want to associate with in the first place.
I've seen a number of group chats move platforms because "we need to add X but he's not on imessage, let's use snap instead" etc. I have all sorts of group chats and contacts on various platforms and they move around all the time. A group being beholden to a single messaging platform sounds.. inflexible, and probably not the kind of people I'd want to associate with in the first place.
Yes, like ggp explained its not something people do intentionally to spite you but just how social interaction works.
But you could also turn your argument around if you wanted to - what kind of friend refuses to talk to you unless you sign up for whatever new app they found.
But you could also turn your argument around if you wanted to - what kind of friend refuses to talk to you unless you sign up for whatever new app they found.
Good luck, but you are probably going to find out just how wrong you are.
> This isn’t a defeat of principle—it’s a reflection of how network effects work. The only way to realistically challenge something like WhatsApp is if a critical mass moves at once.
This isn't the only way. The other option is a legally enforced (with real teeth) requirement for interoperability. That we can require device makers to support USB-C charging but can't require social media companies to play nice with others is absurd.
This isn't the only way. The other option is a legally enforced (with real teeth) requirement for interoperability. That we can require device makers to support USB-C charging but can't require social media companies to play nice with others is absurd.
Well said, it’s important people understand the importance of social momentum.
I have been that guy a few times in last few years. But
> If they are actually your friends
this just takes the cake to a different dimension altogether!
> If they are actually your friends
this just takes the cake to a different dimension altogether!
Why would you block people instead of just messaging them about how you're moving to Signal, and then uninstalling WhatsApp?
This approach seems unnecessarily confrontational and might end up being quite counterproductive.
This approach seems unnecessarily confrontational and might end up being quite counterproductive.
Because then they have the option of readding you to group chats and sending you messages
ETA: there is no way to really uninstall Whatsapp around here because so much of society runs on it, the most I can do is move all of my private existence elsewhere and hope that decreased traffic will do something
ETA: there is no way to really uninstall Whatsapp around here because so much of society runs on it, the most I can do is move all of my private existence elsewhere and hope that decreased traffic will do something
I appreciate your point of view.
Please allow me to be devil's advocate here (and FYI, this comes from someone living in a country where government officials use [official state institution]@gmail.com to ask you to send passports and other info, and tell you they'll whatsapp you your papers when they're ready).
I have not yet been in a situation where you CANNOT skip WhatsApp - since having someone be your one-time intermediary is almost always possible. Can it be an incovenience ? Yes.
How much would this inconvenience compare to what my grandfather's grandfather would consider an inconvenience? Probably not much. (You mean, I had to twiddle my thumbs for twice as many minutes!? How difficult)
So in the end, you're asking people to experience what they consider to be a major hassle (having 2 apps) just for you, when you're not willing to go through the pain of having just one app. It feels unbalanced.
So please consider that people might be complaining that you're being too much of a Don Quixote, but actually, the reason it's not working is because you're not playing the Don Quixote card hard enough
Please allow me to be devil's advocate here (and FYI, this comes from someone living in a country where government officials use [official state institution]@gmail.com to ask you to send passports and other info, and tell you they'll whatsapp you your papers when they're ready).
I have not yet been in a situation where you CANNOT skip WhatsApp - since having someone be your one-time intermediary is almost always possible. Can it be an incovenience ? Yes.
How much would this inconvenience compare to what my grandfather's grandfather would consider an inconvenience? Probably not much. (You mean, I had to twiddle my thumbs for twice as many minutes!? How difficult)
So in the end, you're asking people to experience what they consider to be a major hassle (having 2 apps) just for you, when you're not willing to go through the pain of having just one app. It feels unbalanced.
So please consider that people might be complaining that you're being too much of a Don Quixote, but actually, the reason it's not working is because you're not playing the Don Quixote card hard enough
> I just won't stand with people dismissing what matters to me as if I'm a nutjob for not using their fascist app
I bet you're gonna be happier for it. In my experience, people that were friends stay friends, a messaging app won't change that (imagine if it did!).
I bet you're gonna be happier for it. In my experience, people that were friends stay friends, a messaging app won't change that (imagine if it did!).
This is why we need to unify on protocols, not platforms.
i mean this protocol does exist with RCS. In fact if you use your SMS client it probably defaults to RCS if you have an Internet connection.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
Can third-parties setup their own RCS server and message users on existing servers?
what you're saying is they've locked you in. Good business model
how is Apple in Brazil? iMessage is the way to go
Why? Isn't it a closed, non interoperable platform?
Android has 88% market share in Brazil, so it sounds like terrible advice.
Android has 88% market share in Brazil, so it sounds like terrible advice.
Outside of the US the majority of people use Android Phones
Can we get a federated messenger already?
Sure, we have email, but the MS/Google duopoloy has effectively unfederated that, with their inscrutable block lists and nonexistent appeals processes, allegedly in order to protect you from spam.
Sure, XMPP is a thing, which has been mostly dead for well over a decade.
Sure, Matrix is a thing, but every time I look at it, all I see is criticism of its specifications and poor interoperability between implementations?
What would it take to sort out this mess? More money for Matrix or XMPP? Someone with enough clout to promote them? I'm sure organizations like the UN or the EU would, in theory, be in favour of an effective global communicator. But those same organizations would like rail against encryption and decentralisation.
Sure, we have email, but the MS/Google duopoloy has effectively unfederated that, with their inscrutable block lists and nonexistent appeals processes, allegedly in order to protect you from spam.
Sure, XMPP is a thing, which has been mostly dead for well over a decade.
Sure, Matrix is a thing, but every time I look at it, all I see is criticism of its specifications and poor interoperability between implementations?
What would it take to sort out this mess? More money for Matrix or XMPP? Someone with enough clout to promote them? I'm sure organizations like the UN or the EU would, in theory, be in favour of an effective global communicator. But those same organizations would like rail against encryption and decentralisation.
The EU is pushing interoperability as the DMA forces gatekeepers to open up, this should materialize via MIMI:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mimi/about/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mimi/about/
We do not need federated messaging at the consumer app level, we need a replacement that's available at the cellular network level (just like SMS). RCS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services) is trying to do this, but it might be too little too late.
In practice RCS is entirely run by Google outside China, the path to federation was killed around 2019 when Google decided every MNO should eventually move to Jibe if they wanted access to a global interconnected RCS, same on the client side.
I don't think it's too late as iOS finally supports RCS. But so far Google hasn't shown willingness to let unsanctioned clients connect to Jibe.
I don't think it's too late as iOS finally supports RCS. But so far Google hasn't shown willingness to let unsanctioned clients connect to Jibe.
And even within the Google ecosystem, RCS access can be iffy. It was working fine on my Pixel for months, then switched its status to "Setting up..." and hasn't worked for months since then, despite me trying All The Things suggested on various fora short of factory resetting my phone.
What?
In practice, RCS is run by carriers in most of the world. They connect to hubs, the same way SMS hubs work and also have Universal Profiles.
Jibe is not small, but it hardly runs the worlds RCS. Maybe you're conflating the US with the world?
In practice, RCS is run by carriers in most of the world. They connect to hubs, the same way SMS hubs work and also have Universal Profiles.
Jibe is not small, but it hardly runs the worlds RCS. Maybe you're conflating the US with the world?
Jibe is the only RCS backend in 180+ countries. The few MNOs that had deployed third party solutions (mostly from Mavenir and WIT) eventually killed them off once Google made clear they weren't interested in a federated network anymore.
The US was actually the only market where a federated RCS was tried at scale for a few years (the CCMI) but all carriers eventually gave in as the UX was poor and unreliable.
To my knowledge there are only two other non-Jibe RCS "islands": China (that runs RCS solutions from national providers like ZTE) and +Message in Japan. +Message is on its way out, as carriers are now pushing subscribers to Google Messages and Jibe, anticipating the iOS support.
And Apple is in on it: MNOs don't have a choice here, they now need formal agreements with Google (Jibe is paid through RBM revenue share) and IMS configuration and (de)provisioning workflows that are sanctioned by Apple and de facto tested only against Jibe.
Apple's communication around E2EE in UP 3.0 is also directly following Google's work on replacing their ad-hoc Signal implementation by MLS.
The US was actually the only market where a federated RCS was tried at scale for a few years (the CCMI) but all carriers eventually gave in as the UX was poor and unreliable.
To my knowledge there are only two other non-Jibe RCS "islands": China (that runs RCS solutions from national providers like ZTE) and +Message in Japan. +Message is on its way out, as carriers are now pushing subscribers to Google Messages and Jibe, anticipating the iOS support.
And Apple is in on it: MNOs don't have a choice here, they now need formal agreements with Google (Jibe is paid through RBM revenue share) and IMS configuration and (de)provisioning workflows that are sanctioned by Apple and de facto tested only against Jibe.
Apple's communication around E2EE in UP 3.0 is also directly following Google's work on replacing their ad-hoc Signal implementation by MLS.
Except RCS doesn't work on anything except phones, while XMPP works perfectly fine everywhere. IM was vastly better on computers back when you could use applications like pidgin or kopete.
The time when XMPP was supported by google (and Facebook IIRC?). Running jabber for small groups was pretty simple, and you had Adium and pidgin, both were simple to use and just neat software
Adium was by far the best messaging experience I've ever had. It was good looking, fast, customizable, and super well-intgrated into OS X.
Interesting, you’re right, I forgot how customizable Adium was! That’s something that has been completely lost in modern chat software :(
The problem is mobile, and specifically the need for push notifications to have reasonable battery life. The traditional model that desktop IM clients use, where they have a permanent connection to the server, is not viable on mobile. But push notifications require you to design your protocol around them and lock you into the corresponding provider (i.e. Google or Apple, depending on the platform).
I'm not familiar with real world home firewall behavior, but shouldn't you be able to leave a TCP connection open/idle with no keepalive for minutes if not hours? I'm skeptical of the battery life argument around notification lockin, particularly when I see how much Android devices light up a pihole.
I don't claim to understand the specifics, but I was a heavy user of custom XMPP clients on early Android phones, and they did require a persistent notification to keep the app (and thus the connection) alive, which did translate to measurable battery impact. My understanding is that the built-in notification manager helps with this by multiplexing and batching everything.
How do you use that on your devices that aren’t using GSM?
GSM is long dead but yes you need a SIM and a MNO as the connection is provisioned using IMS service entitlement.
Then why would we need such a protocol? I want to be able to chat using any of my devices.
That’s what makes Telegram and WhatsApp great
That’s what makes Telegram and WhatsApp great
WhatsApp isn't terribly different here.
Cellular network is a terrible data transport solution. That's why we have TCP/IP on top of it.
I think that's the wrong direction, the cell providers will bargain for ways to put their junk into it.
XMPP installed on the handset by default should be fine.
XMPP installed on the handset by default should be fine.
> Sure, Matrix is a thing, but every time I look at it, all I see is criticism of its specifications and poor interoperability between implementations?
Not sure what you're talking about. Everything is working fine for me, and they even conduct a whole conference about it annually: https://2024.matrix.org/
With a large number of clients and servers and the lack of a walled garden (like with Signal), you will always find something non-interoperable. It doesn't mean that you have to use it.
Not sure what you're talking about. Everything is working fine for me, and they even conduct a whole conference about it annually: https://2024.matrix.org/
With a large number of clients and servers and the lack of a walled garden (like with Signal), you will always find something non-interoperable. It doesn't mean that you have to use it.
I'm not talking about the client ecosystem. I'm talking about the server ecosystem. There is only one fully-featured one, Synapse, everything else is in Alpha or Beta, feature-incomplete, or abandoned.
When I looked into writing my own implementation, the protocol seemed underspecified to me. "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus.
This was a few years ago, so maybe things have improved. But given that no new feature complete servers have appeared, I doubt it.
When I looked into writing my own implementation, the protocol seemed underspecified to me. "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus.
This was a few years ago, so maybe things have improved. But given that no new feature complete servers have appeared, I doubt it.
All I said applies to servers, and I even mentioned servers explicitly. Why don't you want to use Synapse?
> "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus.
What's wrong with that?
> "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus.
What's wrong with that?
Is it really an open ecosystem if there's only one real implementation? Is there really a specification if the reference implementation is the real specification? Do we want to put all of our eggs into one basket? YMMV, but for me the answer to all those questions is "no".
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
We need to keep trying and support alternative implementations. Fighting complexity with money is like fighting fire with gasoline. It does not work.
But messaging apps are especially tricky to take off, because the most important feature of the messaging app is how many friends already using it. So I don't really believe in independent open-source apps becoming popular. It's always startups, funded with billions, pouring those billions into marketing.
But messaging apps are especially tricky to take off, because the most important feature of the messaging app is how many friends already using it. So I don't really believe in independent open-source apps becoming popular. It's always startups, funded with billions, pouring those billions into marketing.
I think the most valid criticism of Matrix for interoperability is that it was promoted as an interoperability standard but it was made incompatible with everything existing at the time. XMPP was based on XML for example, but Matrix is based on json. So by introducing yet another standard, Matrix creates yet another standards fork and dilutes everything that came before.
We have to get to the point where progress in messaging is incremental, not revolutionary.
How do you tell that an open standard is "dead"? There are zillions of XMPP servers around with lots of people quietly using them. For a standard to be "alive" does there have to be a large revenue stream associated with it? Does it need a large commercial entity promoting it?
We have to get to the point where progress in messaging is incremental, not revolutionary.
How do you tell that an open standard is "dead"? There are zillions of XMPP servers around with lots of people quietly using them. For a standard to be "alive" does there have to be a large revenue stream associated with it? Does it need a large commercial entity promoting it?
I think the real problem with Matrix and interoperability is that there is functionally only one server implementation, controlled by one organization. There are more client implementations, but generally if they want to support encryption, they have to depend on one library implementation.
Everyone has email. Email as chat: https://delta.chat/en/
Easy, expand SMTP. If the target doesn't have smtp messenger, send as email.
No need to reinvent the wheel. But who are we kidding, of course we will
No need to reinvent the wheel. But who are we kidding, of course we will
Sounds like https://delta.chat/
Forward secrecy and deniability would be nice to have though.
My main gripe with Delta Chat is that it works poorly for groups: it sends an email for each member of the group. This risks your email account being flagged for spam, or at least rate limited.
It's great for direct chats and very small groups.
It's great for direct chats and very small groups.
> Sure, XMPP is a thing, which has been mostly dead for well over a decade.
It's really not.
I've had a good experience moving close contacts to Snikket, which uses XMPP. Text, voice, and video chat work great across platforms.
Previously I tried Jami, which seemed promising, but message delivery was too unreliable due to it being fully P2P.
It's really not.
I've had a good experience moving close contacts to Snikket, which uses XMPP. Text, voice, and video chat work great across platforms.
Previously I tried Jami, which seemed promising, but message delivery was too unreliable due to it being fully P2P.
Building complex apps is hard. User-facing, feature-rich apps--especially so. It takes a lot of engineering effort, but also management (which implies some kind of a corporate structure). Coincidentally, it also doesn't align well with open (or any) standards.
I tell people to email me and for the spastics that can't handle that I have jmp.chat set up so they can send SMS/MMS to my email.
> we have email, but the MS/Google duopoloy has effectively unfederated that, with their inscrutable block lists and nonexistent appeals processes, allegedly in order to protect you from spam.
How much of a problem is personal (!) email being dropped for reasons other than the recipient account not existing realistically?
How much of a problem is personal (!) email being dropped for reasons other than the recipient account not existing realistically?
Email still works fine between Gmail/ms and everything else, in practice it’s not ruined at all…
All I know is that the answer is not XMPP. It's too messy.
It’s called text message
What about SMS?
They cost around 0.15€/message in Spain.
No deals sending to the same carrier? That is how it initially was in the US. Some of us had unlimited plans but others had like 400 texts a month paying a rate after, but no quota for texts within the carrier network.
The issue with SMS even if unlimited, in Europe a lot of people need to send text messages across borders. EU mandated free roaming, which makes SMS billing under the same pricing conditions when you're roaming but doesn't say anything about sending SMS abroad when you're in your home country. Also what happens if you need to send an SMS to a Swiss or UK number?
While effectively unlimited plans do exist as carriers have stopped caring in multiple countries, this kind of friction pushed everyone to WhatsApp 15 years ago and most people won't bother checking what's included in their plan. Remember they're very cheap compared to the US, I know people paying 5€/month.
Additionally there's also the immigrant population that need to communicate with their relatives back home on other continents.
While effectively unlimited plans do exist as carriers have stopped caring in multiple countries, this kind of friction pushed everyone to WhatsApp 15 years ago and most people won't bother checking what's included in their plan. Remember they're very cheap compared to the US, I know people paying 5€/month.
Additionally there's also the immigrant population that need to communicate with their relatives back home on other continents.
I’m surprised there wasn’t competition to deliver a better product from the telecoms. That is how we got unlimited texting and the early unlimited data plans in the US. Carrier arms race. They sure would have liked to nickel and dime but saw competition as more valuable.
RCS should have been that, but WhatsApp came out in 2009 and by 2010/2011 it was already game over in most of the world once cheaper Android smartphones became broadly available. At this point carriers' focus had shifted to data and the most pressing issue was starting the 4G rollout.
No wonder Google eventually took the RCS matter in their own hands, there was way too little incentive otherwise.
No wonder Google eventually took the RCS matter in their own hands, there was way too little incentive otherwise.
Sorry for the late reply: not that I know of. Just a scam...
At least in The Netherlands, WhatsApp could show a 60 second unskippable modal ad video on every launch, and still get away with it due to network effects.
If you’re not on WhatsApp, no updates or news from your kids school, your sports team, your family, your car dealership etc. for you.
If you’re not on WhatsApp, no updates or news from your kids school, your sports team, your family, your car dealership etc. for you.
Signal seems to be booming right now in the Netherlands. I've been using it for years and never managed to grow my contact list beyond single digits, being a few friends in tech and a few who were very privacy conscious. All of those people were also available on WhatsApp and we'd often forget and message one another there.
But since January the trust in Meta has not only plummeted but it's become a mainstream enough talking point that I now receive invites to join Signal groups from--for want of a better term--normal people. Two of the local parenting groups I'm on are on Signal and no one ever mentions it or questions it, it's just "here's the group link" and the expectation that everyone has it installed.
But since January the trust in Meta has not only plummeted but it's become a mainstream enough talking point that I now receive invites to join Signal groups from--for want of a better term--normal people. Two of the local parenting groups I'm on are on Signal and no one ever mentions it or questions it, it's just "here's the group link" and the expectation that everyone has it installed.
In the Netherlands, was trying to promote Signal.
I switched phones and lost all my history. Now I’m fairly careful with these things, and make backups, but even I wasn’t able to get it back. Couldn’t recommend it to anyone since.
There’s a line between being secure and being useful, and they’re slightly unbalanced in Signal.
I switched phones and lost all my history. Now I’m fairly careful with these things, and make backups, but even I wasn’t able to get it back. Couldn’t recommend it to anyone since.
There’s a line between being secure and being useful, and they’re slightly unbalanced in Signal.
Had the same happen with WhatsApp. Turns out you get one chance to get the local file backup right or you're screwed.
Just out of interest, why are you keeping your chat history? What for? All my chats are set to burn after 6 months as standard but most are shorter than this.
just curious.. why you are deleting your chats? what if you want to search them for something from a while ago?
I can't think of anything beyond a month is need to search for. And I'm definitely not interested in having it just in case. If it's important I'll write it down.
I'm also not a social media user.
How many people have been caught out over shit they've said decades ago that is now not fashionable to say?
What parts of your old chat histories can get you in trouble if the police got hold of your phone?
I'm also not a social media user.
How many people have been caught out over shit they've said decades ago that is now not fashionable to say?
What parts of your old chat histories can get you in trouble if the police got hold of your phone?
I mean... none of mine, that's for sure, nor am I expecting to get in trouble for anything I've said in the past. I don't customarily do things I wouldn't be okay with somebody finding out about, and if did find something out and decided to become angry at me, that's on them for being a shitty person and doesn't really bother me. Nor am I expecting anyone to be looking at my history other than me anyway; that's why my phone has a passcode.
I personally keep it all (on iMessage) as a bit of personal history. Trying to see conversations I had with friends and family around fun/important events, searching to see if I ever went on a similar tirade about a product I’m about to send a friend…
If you, after 20 years, can process all your chat history with a (locally run!) AI, you may find a lot of interesting things about yourself and your friends.
It is much more likely that someone else will process all my chat history at a border checkpoint or somewhere similar and find out a lot of interesting things about me and my friends.
Don't keep it all on your phone and unencrypted.
> Don't keep it all on your phone and unencrypted.
I've had a 90-day message retention policy set in WhatsApp ever since the feature became available. Not because I doubt my ability to manage secure backups, but because I don't expect my contacts to act equally careful.
I wish Signal supported a 90-day retention period. Four weeks (Signal max) is often too short for my contacts, which leads people to disable it altogether.
I also find it frustrating that Signal only applies your message retention policy to the conversation when you initiate the conversation, not when others do. As a result, more of my conversations end up being ephemeral on WhatsApp than on Signal, which feels a bit ironic.
I've had a 90-day message retention policy set in WhatsApp ever since the feature became available. Not because I doubt my ability to manage secure backups, but because I don't expect my contacts to act equally careful.
I wish Signal supported a 90-day retention period. Four weeks (Signal max) is often too short for my contacts, which leads people to disable it altogether.
I also find it frustrating that Signal only applies your message retention policy to the conversation when you initiate the conversation, not when others do. As a result, more of my conversations end up being ephemeral on WhatsApp than on Signal, which feels a bit ironic.
So might anyone else, which is very worrying with the new rise of facism.
If you really care about it, you should probably pursue anonymity on the Internet, too. The worldwide data collection from websites is far more concerning and harder to deal with. I use Qubes-Whonix for that.
But why? Genuine question, What's the point? It's not going to improve anything.
Why are you so sure it's not?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself
Yep, this is why Signal hasn’t gained great traction I think. It’s just not intuitive (and I don’t understand why it’s necessary). You could always have this level of security as an option for journalists etc without ruining the UX of all users.
You should've made sure of how Signal works with regards to chat history before you removed the app from the old phone.
"the iphone 4's antenna isn't a bad design, you're just holding it wrong" - steve jobs
To be fair Whatsapp works the same, if you are not careful when changing phone you will lose your history. That's because they don't actually store your messages on their servers, they are just synchronized between devices.
That's not the case though, at least for me? I had set Whatsapp to backup to Google Drive, and when I switched to an iPhone it did some automagix and all my stuff was there (and then backed up to iCloud!).
"{straw man}" - most HN users.
I have Signal on my phone and laptop. For some reason my laptop desynced from the phone, so my chat history now has a missing block of message history (that exists on the phone). I did nothing obvious to cause that desync. My guess is that my phone updated the Signal app, and I didn't update it on the laptop in lockstep. That's not a great UX, especially since there is no notification that this might happen.
Desync happens simply after a month of not using the PC client. Yes, it's that short.
Oh wow. Good to know! Thanks for the heads up.
Message history still can’t be backed up on iOS, and also can’t be moved between Android and iOS in either direction AFAIK. There are far more gaps here than just imperfect users, which is often a UX problem as others have noted.
How does it handle phone theft?
Something seems to have happened in NL in March that generated some demand for it, but it seems to have vanished now:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=NL&q=%2Fm%2F012...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=NL&q=%2Fm%2F012...
That "something" is just people searching for this news story, rather than interest in signal for the sake of using it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group...
NL clearly has some background interest in signal however, unlike the UK, which spikes on this story alone:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=%2Fm%2F012...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group...
NL clearly has some background interest in signal however, unlike the UK, which spikes on this story alone:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=GB&q=%2Fm%2F012...
Your link shows a peak at the time you mention but the interest in subsequent months has been around 4 times higher than it was prior to the inauguration, so it seems inaccurate or even misleading to say that demand has "vanished."
Apps are popular until they aren’t. Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger and Skype were all popular once.
Ads are one thing, but now WhatsApp is letting businesses message you in Europe, only with opt out. This is pretty frustrating. I suspect some users will seek alternatives.
Ads are one thing, but now WhatsApp is letting businesses message you in Europe, only with opt out. This is pretty frustrating. I suspect some users will seek alternatives.
>. Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger and Skype were all popular once.
Credit where credit is due, Microsoft needed more than a decade to kill skype. It was so resilient and entrenched.
Credit where credit is due, Microsoft needed more than a decade to kill skype. It was so resilient and entrenched.
WhatsApp has been selling your metadata to facebook for quite a while now. Their marketing gimmick of "end-to-end encryption" makes everyone think it's safe and private but here's the thing, your messages don't matter to them. It's the metadata they use to profile you. Remember the quote from Michael Hayden: "We kill people based on metadata."
They could publicly execute cute puppies, live stream this and force the users to watch it. They still won't lose significant user base.
I've given up on trying to get my non-tech network to use some other messenger, it's just too exhausting and wasted time.
I've given up on trying to get my non-tech network to use some other messenger, it's just too exhausting and wasted time.
It's the same in many countries, especially the developing ones. In Kenya for example, you can run out of data but Whatsapp will still work. It's that crucial to daily life, it's get an exception by telecom companies.
> It's that crucial to daily life, it's get an exception by telecom companies.
Isn't this because Facebook is paying telcos to keep its services free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org
Isn't this because Facebook is paying telcos to keep its services free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org
In India a palm will pop out of the phone screen every few hours and deliver a tight slap and people might still use it.
Even banks et cetera are making it the first class communication medium especially for OTP (which technically is safer than SMS but a glaring lock into a desk-less foreign company and at the same time the “OTP” can literally be the single point to take over someone’s almost entire life - including almost every single paisa). Every other day I am shown a sneaky lightning popup or two asking me to consent to send everything or something on WhatsApp. Sometimes the popup is about something entirely else but there’s an already checked checkbox with WhatsApp consent. Calling it bizarre will be an understatement.
Even banks et cetera are making it the first class communication medium especially for OTP (which technically is safer than SMS but a glaring lock into a desk-less foreign company and at the same time the “OTP” can literally be the single point to take over someone’s almost entire life - including almost every single paisa). Every other day I am shown a sneaky lightning popup or two asking me to consent to send everything or something on WhatsApp. Sometimes the popup is about something entirely else but there’s an already checked checkbox with WhatsApp consent. Calling it bizarre will be an understatement.
It’s similar in India. Even many businesses only use WhatsApp for orders and communications with customers. Heck, even the police use it to communicate between their people and with complainants/victims. Politicians use it between their party people and to send messages to the public. The average person on the street no longer knows what an SMS is or how to use it.
But I manage without WhatsApp (it’s also a privileged position to do so). Not having WhatsApp also helps avoid seeing all the junk and misinformation that people forward on it without any thought. There’s actually a name for this in India: “WhatsApp University”, which is a derogatory term for how people believe anything they read on WhatsApp and share it around without any analysis or thought or skepticism whatsoever.
But I manage without WhatsApp (it’s also a privileged position to do so). Not having WhatsApp also helps avoid seeing all the junk and misinformation that people forward on it without any thought. There’s actually a name for this in India: “WhatsApp University”, which is a derogatory term for how people believe anything they read on WhatsApp and share it around without any analysis or thought or skepticism whatsoever.
It’s not like there’s no alternatives.
But tbh if they keep the ads out of messages I don’t see it an affecting people much.
But tbh if they keep the ads out of messages I don’t see it an affecting people much.
Been tempting to spin up a competitor but the business/compliance side seems nightmarish whilst the actual tech aspects are trivial on modern hardware.
> If you’re not on WhatsApp, no updates or news from your kids school, your sports team, your family, your car dealership etc. for you.
Maybe, but not being in WhatsApp is also a signal.
Maybe, but not being in WhatsApp is also a signal.
Here’s an advertising model I’ve thought about but never seen:
The app itself is 100% ad free and runs on credits. You get credits through se other portal by logging in to watch ads whenever it’s convenient for you.
Good app experience for the user, and potentially better experiences for the advertisers because they get the target audience when they are most open to ads (and not annoyed by them).
The app itself is 100% ad free and runs on credits. You get credits through se other portal by logging in to watch ads whenever it’s convenient for you.
Good app experience for the user, and potentially better experiences for the advertisers because they get the target audience when they are most open to ads (and not annoyed by them).
There's no guarantee that the user is "open to ads" in your model. I'd say it's even more likely someone would "watch" the ads while doing something else (AKA not actually watch the ads).
And if you want add something that makes sure the user is paying attention, then you have seen this advertising mode: it's basically the second ever Black Mirror episode.
And if you want add something that makes sure the user is paying attention, then you have seen this advertising mode: it's basically the second ever Black Mirror episode.
Pretty sure this has been done before but it didn't take off. Personally the hassle of doing this would lead to me just not using the app.
That's just a paid app with extra steps.
Yeah. It’s a paid app, but it gives people the option of explicitly selling their time/attention via ads if they don’t want to use money.
Most users would probably pay, but some people really don’t want to/can’t and this gives them an option.
Most users would probably pay, but some people really don’t want to/can’t and this gives them an option.
I mean, I'm in Switzerland and I recently deleted my Whatsapp after reading Careless People. Too few people in our modern world have the courage to let the leaves fall where they may.
> When Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19 billion in 2014, the messaging app had a clear focus. No ads, no games and no gimmicks.
This sort of analysis is very surface-level I think. My impression is WhatsApp offered that by running on VC money and had no plan to run an actual business. That's not a question of focus. It's an unsustainable, please monetise me later land grab.
This sort of analysis is very surface-level I think. My impression is WhatsApp offered that by running on VC money and had no plan to run an actual business. That's not a question of focus. It's an unsustainable, please monetise me later land grab.
Have you considered that you may be making the surface-level analysis? I paid $3 for Whatsapp in 2010 on the Blackberry app store. They had a staff of ~20 people handling messages across almost 200 countries.It became the defacto global messaging app because it was available on every single platform, not just the Apple/Google duopoly VCs cared about.
Sorry, but the original commenter is correct. They received relatively small amounts of seed funding in 2009 and later charged a nominal amount to cover text verification, but they still were a classic VC-funded play: receive tens of millions in VC dollars to operate at a loss for years to build market dominance. From the Wikipedia page:
> In April 2011, Sequoia Capital invested about $8 million for more than 15% of the company, after months of negotiation by Sequoia partner Jim Goetz.[63][64][65]
> By February 2013, WhatsApp had about 200 million active users and 50 staff members. Sequoia invested another $50 million, and WhatsApp was valued at $1.5 billion.[26] Some time in 2013[66] WhatsApp acquired Santa Clara–based startup SkyMobius, the developers of Vtok,[67] a video and voice calling app.[68]
> In a December 2013 blog post, WhatsApp claimed that 400 million active users used the service each month.[69] The year 2013 ended with $148 million in expenses, of which $138 million in losses.
I mean, when Facebook bought WhatsApp for billions, what did people expect? How else were they going to monetize?
> In April 2011, Sequoia Capital invested about $8 million for more than 15% of the company, after months of negotiation by Sequoia partner Jim Goetz.[63][64][65]
> By February 2013, WhatsApp had about 200 million active users and 50 staff members. Sequoia invested another $50 million, and WhatsApp was valued at $1.5 billion.[26] Some time in 2013[66] WhatsApp acquired Santa Clara–based startup SkyMobius, the developers of Vtok,[67] a video and voice calling app.[68]
> In a December 2013 blog post, WhatsApp claimed that 400 million active users used the service each month.[69] The year 2013 ended with $148 million in expenses, of which $138 million in losses.
I mean, when Facebook bought WhatsApp for billions, what did people expect? How else were they going to monetize?
>I paid $3 for Whatsapp in 2010 on the Blackberry app store.
A $3 one-time payment (which I'm guessing is about $2.75 after BlackBerry app store fees) is not sustainable for lifetime access and updates on a service that needs 4-5 nines of service availability and data integrity.
A $3 one-time payment (which I'm guessing is about $2.75 after BlackBerry app store fees) is not sustainable for lifetime access and updates on a service that needs 4-5 nines of service availability and data integrity.
They also ran on Symbian and Windows Phone. I know because I used both ports.
How was it unsustainable? As far as I know they were simply competent. They charged $1/year, so had ~half a billion in revenue, right? They probably could've bumped that to $2-$5/year with similar uptake. And they ran it with ~500 servers and 50 employees 12 years ago, so could probably do the same with ~50 or fewer servers today.
Whatsapp revenue was $10M and the cost of revenue was $52M, with total net loss of $138M/yr just before facebook acquisition.
[1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
[1]: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114...
they also never required many of their users to pay. whatsapp allegedly cost $1 a year, and I never paid a dime despite using it for years.
They never charged everyone. I was on Android back then and never paid a dime. Neither did anyone I know who was using Whatsapp on Android
They're doing a lot more now, though. Voice notes; multi-way video and audio calls; e2ee. And they barely even charged $1/year. I never paid for it.
It's called bait-and-switch - lure users in away from (possibly FOSS, e.g. Matrix) competitors, and when you have enough network effects that switching becomes hard, spring the trap.
People I know on matrix hardly ever use WhatsCrap or migrated to it. Most of them either stick to Signal or just matrix
Respectfully, clearly you aren't familiar with Jan and Brian's history of public statements.
Even for years after they were acquired by Meta, Jan refused to allow advertising and kept pushing the $1 dollar per user subscription fee. Sheryl nixed it b/c it was "not scalable."
VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads, but also they didn't really care b/c all they wanted was an exit, which they got.
The founders, however, were never interested in an ad business and hold that POV to this day.
Even for years after they were acquired by Meta, Jan refused to allow advertising and kept pushing the $1 dollar per user subscription fee. Sheryl nixed it b/c it was "not scalable."
VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads, but also they didn't really care b/c all they wanted was an exit, which they got.
The founders, however, were never interested in an ad business and hold that POV to this day.
> VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads
> history of public statements.
Actions speak louder. He did acquiesce - he sold to an ad-financed company.
> and hold that POV to this day.
You can hold any POV when nothing depends on it.
Actions speak louder. He did acquiesce - he sold to an ad-financed company.
> and hold that POV to this day.
You can hold any POV when nothing depends on it.
> The founders, however, were never interested in an ad business and hold that POV to this day.
Fair enough, but the founders don't necessarily make these decisions. I wasn't particularly referring to them. If they got VC money (I don't know if they did or not) then the VCs must've had something in mind to get a decent return on their risk.
Fair enough, but the founders don't necessarily make these decisions. I wasn't particularly referring to them. If they got VC money (I don't know if they did or not) then the VCs must've had something in mind to get a decent return on their risk.
They did have VC funding from Sequoia Capital. (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/whatsapp/financial_d...)
Brian Acton is a fucking sell out. Peroid. He deserves no sympathy and I cannot believe how he was appointed executive chairperson of signal foundation
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/19/whatsapp-will-monetize-lat...
Zuck Says Ads Aren’t The Way To Monetize Messaging, WhatsApp Will Prioritize Growth Not Subscriptions
"Monetization was the big topic on today’s analyst call after Facebook announced it acquired WhatsApp for a jaw-dropping total of $19 billion. That’s $4 billion in cash and $12 billion in stock, and it reserved $3 billion in restricted stock units to retain the startup’s employees. But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CFO David Ebersman, and WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum all said that won’t be a priority for the next few years. And when the time does come to monetize aggressively, it won’t be through ads"
Zuck Says Ads Aren’t The Way To Monetize Messaging, WhatsApp Will Prioritize Growth Not Subscriptions
"Monetization was the big topic on today’s analyst call after Facebook announced it acquired WhatsApp for a jaw-dropping total of $19 billion. That’s $4 billion in cash and $12 billion in stock, and it reserved $3 billion in restricted stock units to retain the startup’s employees. But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, CFO David Ebersman, and WhatsApp CEO Jan Koum all said that won’t be a priority for the next few years. And when the time does come to monetize aggressively, it won’t be through ads"
Youtube was the same. Both are products that people really want to use.
I agree, although that's too vague. YouTube has a different appeal. But my point is more that I wouldn't say YouTube got ads because it stopped having a focus on not having ads. It needs to pay for itself.
Also Instagram and others. It was about capturing and selling community.
The frogs have been boiled enough by now gradually and very efficiently. They have been primed well.
(In another news Signal still has focus on crytpo. Is this Firefox+Pocket level of stickiness and “we are right!”?).
(In another news Signal still has focus on crytpo. Is this Firefox+Pocket level of stickiness and “we are right!”?).
Criticizing Signal for its crypto payment system is ridiculous. The option is totally optional and completely buried as it is literally the last option when messaging. It’s better to criticize the rule against third-party clients.
Both things are worthy of criticism. I'd ideally not use a messaging client that's embroidered in an ecosystem of cryptocurrency scams. Same reason I really don't like Brave even though its cryptocurrency BS is also "optional". It's erosive.
But yeah, I might agree that the third party clients thing is a bigger issue. Especially when the official client insists on not officially supporting Linux on ARM64 and not playing nice with Wayland. (Seriously, Signal on Linux is so blurry!)
But yeah, I might agree that the third party clients thing is a bigger issue. Especially when the official client insists on not officially supporting Linux on ARM64 and not playing nice with Wayland. (Seriously, Signal on Linux is so blurry!)
What about https://flathub.org/apps/de.schmidhuberj.Flare ?
Sure, they exist, but Signal is against them. Look into what they did against LibreSignal.
Now part of the problem with LibreSignal was the trademark violation of using the name Signal. But Moxie is clearly against any third party using their servers, as we can see in this comment: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
IMO that's an unforgivable stance towards third party clients.
I have read (well, skimmed) through their terms of service and haven't seen anything against using their servers from third party software, yet they'll evidently shut down third party software for interacting with their servers. If you're gonna have policies like that, at least outline them in your ToS.
Now part of the problem with LibreSignal was the trademark violation of using the name Signal. But Moxie is clearly against any third party using their servers, as we can see in this comment: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
IMO that's an unforgivable stance towards third party clients.
I have read (well, skimmed) through their terms of service and haven't seen anything against using their servers from third party software, yet they'll evidently shut down third party software for interacting with their servers. If you're gonna have policies like that, at least outline them in your ToS.
As mentioned in the thread and expanded on the blog [0] moxie is also against the whole idea of federation and multiple clients.
I think my perception has changed in the last ≈ 10 years, to be more leaning in moxie's direction. It's hard enough to design something secure and usable, having to try and support all different implementations under the sun makes most federated approaches never reach any mass adoption.
Even though it's not a one-to-one analog I also think e.g the lack of crypto agility in Wireshark was a very good decision, the same with QUIC having explicit anti-ossification (e.g encrypted headers). Giving enterprise middle boxes the chance to meddle in things is just setting things to hurt for everyone else.
https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
I think my perception has changed in the last ≈ 10 years, to be more leaning in moxie's direction. It's hard enough to design something secure and usable, having to try and support all different implementations under the sun makes most federated approaches never reach any mass adoption.
Even though it's not a one-to-one analog I also think e.g the lack of crypto agility in Wireshark was a very good decision, the same with QUIC having explicit anti-ossification (e.g encrypted headers). Giving enterprise middle boxes the chance to meddle in things is just setting things to hurt for everyone else.
https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
I don't think it's a problem that they're against federation. I think federation is nice, but it has some clear trade-offs, and I don't feel like it's something Signal needs.
I don't even think they have to officially support third party clients or provide a stable API. I'd have no problem if they just occasionally made API changes which broke unofficial clients until their developers updated them.
But I really don't like that they're so openly hostile to the idea of other people "using their servers for free", with the threat of technical blocks and legal action which that implies. Especially not when their official client is as bad as it is. (Again, it's fucking blurry!)
I don't even think they have to officially support third party clients or provide a stable API. I'd have no problem if they just occasionally made API changes which broke unofficial clients until their developers updated them.
But I really don't like that they're so openly hostile to the idea of other people "using their servers for free", with the threat of technical blocks and legal action which that implies. Especially not when their official client is as bad as it is. (Again, it's fucking blurry!)
> Same reason I really don't like Brave even though its cryptocurrency BS is also "optional".
It isn't, or wasn't, optional. They used to MITM crypto into your Twitter feed after decrypting the SSL. There's also the famous Tom Scott controversy where they were pretending to be him and collecting donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736888
I uninstalled it in 2017 or 2018 when they started this crap and haven't looked back.
It isn't, or wasn't, optional. They used to MITM crypto into your Twitter feed after decrypting the SSL. There's also the famous Tom Scott controversy where they were pretending to be him and collecting donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736888
I uninstalled it in 2017 or 2018 when they started this crap and haven't looked back.
I use signal every day and had no idea about their crypto
You could say the same about Whatsapp's ads though. They are currently in a part of the app that virtually nobody uses.
Maybe financial pressure will push Signal to promote its crypto more in future.
Maybe financial pressure will push Signal to promote its crypto more in future.
Maybe financial pressure will push Signal to promote its crypto more in future.
Signal is a non-profit. Donate to make sure that they can support themselves.
Signal is a non-profit. Donate to make sure that they can support themselves.
It matters even more that Signal doesn't tolerate you using the client of your choice (like, one that doesn't push dark patterns and crypto in your face), or risk having your account suspended. It's time for people to wake up to the centralised platforms not having their users' best interests at heart.
(And yes, my comments history has me extensively promote XMPP, no big secret here.)
(And yes, my comments history has me extensively promote XMPP, no big secret here.)
Technically the crypto thing is there, but it's not even remotely "in your face". What other dark patterns are you referring to?
We always need more XMPP shills around :).
in a few months:
<Your wife> 30m ago: Honey, buy me new Tampax Eraser Pro Black Night
<You> 1m ago: There are only Day version, should I buy it?
<Your wife> 0m ago: What? What are you buying?
<Your wife>. 0m ago: I didn't write this...The AI-agent is just gonna execute the purchase, no need to ask!
Embrace, extend, EXPLOIT!
The Firefox thing is completely different.
Firefox bought Pocket. It's not a third party product.
Firefox bought Pocket. It's not a third party product.
> In-app ads are a significant change from WhatsApp’s original philosophy. Jan Koum and Brian Acton, who founded WhatsApp in 2009, were committed to building a simple and quick way for friends and family to communicate with end-to-end encryption
End-to-end encryption was added by Meta, they reused (part of) the Signal app code for this.
This was a big topic for years, I am surprised by this oversight.
End-to-end encryption was added by Meta, they reused (part of) the Signal app code for this.
This was a big topic for years, I am surprised by this oversight.
Fun fact: For the first few years WhatsApp didn't have any encryption whatsoever. It took public pressure for them to even add TLS.
A massive oversight on the authors part and completely missing the point of early WhatsApp as first status update application and then SMS replacement.
A massive oversight on the authors part and completely missing the point of early WhatsApp as first status update application and then SMS replacement.
June 18, 2012 -> https://blog.whatsapp.com/why-we-don-t-sell-ads
Almost 13 years to the day!
I find it really frustrating that I am not able to avoid using whatsapp due to how popular it is to the point that it’s become the go-to communication channel for most things :/
Almost 13 years to the day!
I find it really frustrating that I am not able to avoid using whatsapp due to how popular it is to the point that it’s become the go-to communication channel for most things :/
Indeed. And the worse isn't that we'll have to deal with ads. The worse is that people will stick around despite the ads, which only goes to show how powerful the grip of Meta on our societies is.
... and once they have proof of they power because WhatsApp use keeps increasing despite all the enshittification done in the last few months, they'll feel encouraged to enshittify further in even bolder ways.
That blog post is very interesting in number of ways!
The principles they enlisted
> Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. – Tyler Durden, Fight Club
> Advertising isn't just the disruption of aesthetics, the insults to your intelligence and the interruption of your train of thought.
> Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.
---
That said, building a product and selling it for 19 Billion dollars in 2012 was essentially a success of capitalism over those principles. There shouldn't be any complaints, since FB didn't kill it, and the number of users kept increasing.
The principles they enlisted
> Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. – Tyler Durden, Fight Club
> Advertising isn't just the disruption of aesthetics, the insults to your intelligence and the interruption of your train of thought.
> Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.
---
That said, building a product and selling it for 19 Billion dollars in 2012 was essentially a success of capitalism over those principles. There shouldn't be any complaints, since FB didn't kill it, and the number of users kept increasing.
The revenue it will generate will be astonishing. Probably even make 10-20% of facebook's total revenue. It's never too late to shift to Signal
With evidence upon evidence that every centralised service eventually devolves into an enshitified user-hostile nightmare, why would you recommend yet another silo?
Because it's very similar to what people use. I would definitely recommend matrix but not everyone would feel comfortable with it
I remember switching to WhatsApp many years ago, mainly because it had no ads and encrypted chats, while other apps were constantly crammed with ads and features I didn't need. Now I feel like I'm slowly going back to that old path. Sometimes it really feels like no app can really stay clean for long.
FOSS and open protocols are the answer of course. Signal is unimpeachable enough for me, but for the true believers there is Matrix with a bunch of third party clients.
Once you internalize the how and why (such as "forks are good" and "the more publicly auditable code the better"), there's really no going back and for the rest of your life you prefer FOSS even when you can't use it.
That's why I think that for some future generation there will be a FOSS equivalent of the waves of democracy that spread across the world starting in the 18th century. Once a country becomes democratic and people understand the benefits, they never really want to roll that change back. Our current generation is probably not going to double down on the "right to fork," but once an individual gets it they get it for good, so I feel it's just a matter time before a sea change occurs, even if we're all dead when it happens.
Once you internalize the how and why (such as "forks are good" and "the more publicly auditable code the better"), there's really no going back and for the rest of your life you prefer FOSS even when you can't use it.
That's why I think that for some future generation there will be a FOSS equivalent of the waves of democracy that spread across the world starting in the 18th century. Once a country becomes democratic and people understand the benefits, they never really want to roll that change back. Our current generation is probably not going to double down on the "right to fork," but once an individual gets it they get it for good, so I feel it's just a matter time before a sea change occurs, even if we're all dead when it happens.
I think this is two sided topic:
- on one side there is the increasing number of features in WhatsApp that nobody asked for and that make the experience worse and worse, I agree. Yet, on the other side of the world a 1B people in China use WeChat for so many things beside communicating, so I understand Meta's appetite to become the West WeChat. Still I hate it. - on the other side there is the business model of WhatsApp. Or the complete lack of it. It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free. These things are expensive and they need to be monetized.
It's either ads, either fees on extra services they are providing through the app, either a monthly subscription. Now, I think nobody would pay for WhatsApp and they would lose their market immediately if they went that route (for many good reasons). They tried hard to position WhatsApp as WeChat, failing at that (for many good reasons). Ads is the only thing that is left IMO.
- on one side there is the increasing number of features in WhatsApp that nobody asked for and that make the experience worse and worse, I agree. Yet, on the other side of the world a 1B people in China use WeChat for so many things beside communicating, so I understand Meta's appetite to become the West WeChat. Still I hate it. - on the other side there is the business model of WhatsApp. Or the complete lack of it. It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free. These things are expensive and they need to be monetized.
It's either ads, either fees on extra services they are providing through the app, either a monthly subscription. Now, I think nobody would pay for WhatsApp and they would lose their market immediately if they went that route (for many good reasons). They tried hard to position WhatsApp as WeChat, failing at that (for many good reasons). Ads is the only thing that is left IMO.
> It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free.
What about Signal? It seems like they run on donations, don't they?
What about Signal? It seems like they run on donations, don't they?
True, but they are a much smaller service. I remember that WhatsApp was designed to be lean and very efficient so that it would run on a small number of servers.
But this it different from a highly profitable service. Let's keep in mind that Meta payed 19B for WhatsApp in 2014. They need a juicy ROI.
But this it different from a highly profitable service. Let's keep in mind that Meta payed 19B for WhatsApp in 2014. They need a juicy ROI.
> True, but they are a much smaller service.
I wonder how it scales. It is an order of magnitude smaller but it's not exactly "small": I read it had 70M users in 2024. If you can relay messages between 70M messages without storing metadata, it feels like it shouldn't be too hard to scale, right?
Not sure if they get enough donations, but assuming they do: with 10x the number of users, if they get 10x the donations, it feels like it may work.
> Meta payed 19B for WhatsApp in 2014. They need a juicy ROI.
I think they paid for the metadata (I know that back then it wasn't E2EE but they moved to the Signal protocol in 2016), and now they are just enshittifying.
I have seen criticisms of Signal's crypto stuff (which I just disabled) and trademark, but I don't get it. It's okay to not use the crypto stuff (I personally don't like it) as long as it doesn't clutter the UI. Sponsored content says "for those who like this feature, they will now see ads". It's pretty different from saying "if you don't like the feature, don't use it", IMHO.
I wonder how it scales. It is an order of magnitude smaller but it's not exactly "small": I read it had 70M users in 2024. If you can relay messages between 70M messages without storing metadata, it feels like it shouldn't be too hard to scale, right?
Not sure if they get enough donations, but assuming they do: with 10x the number of users, if they get 10x the donations, it feels like it may work.
> Meta payed 19B for WhatsApp in 2014. They need a juicy ROI.
I think they paid for the metadata (I know that back then it wasn't E2EE but they moved to the Signal protocol in 2016), and now they are just enshittifying.
I have seen criticisms of Signal's crypto stuff (which I just disabled) and trademark, but I don't get it. It's okay to not use the crypto stuff (I personally don't like it) as long as it doesn't clutter the UI. Sponsored content says "for those who like this feature, they will now see ads". It's pretty different from saying "if you don't like the feature, don't use it", IMHO.
>so I understand Meta's appetite to become the West WeChat
Revolut will probably get there first
>It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free. These things are expensive and they need to be monetized.
Do you have any information how much whatsapp costs per user per month? Threema seems to be doing fine with just one 5$ forever.
Revolut will probably get there first
>It's 100% unrealistic that a global, always on, high availability, high security service is free. These things are expensive and they need to be monetized.
Do you have any information how much whatsapp costs per user per month? Threema seems to be doing fine with just one 5$ forever.
I have no numbers. I remember that it was designed to be very efficient and easy to maintain, but this was before Meta bought it. Things probably changed, and keep in mind that they need to return of the 19B investment in 2014, so they are probably aiming at much more than just covering the costs.
> they need to return of the 19B investment in 2014
WhatsApp gave Meta a huge social graph: who writes to whom and when. That they used for their other services. Surely that already brought value.
WhatsApp gave Meta a huge social graph: who writes to whom and when. That they used for their other services. Surely that already brought value.
I read somewhere that their monetization was in WhatsApp Business
Coworkers convinced me to switch to whatsapp a few years ago (like 2023 or so). The reason, tho was as old as the internet is! They wanted to see the pictures of our cats we have at our workplace, which I liked to take with my phone. Later on WhatsApp became (sadly) handy for other tasks as well but also as a good way to stay in contact with friends, living further away! :D
And people will still use it, that is why big techs get away pushing a lot of crappy into users.
There was some wild change they wanted to push some time ago, users started mass migration away from it forcing them to abandon their insane plans.
These companies only learn when the problem hits their pocket.
I still have my social media accounts coz otherwise, hobbies and alike gets impossible to track. But I only access them via PC browser/mobile browser on my GrapheneOS phone.
Instagram only allows video upload via their app which I can understand (compression and etc), GrapheneOS allows me to lock everything so I only use it to upload videos. Man, it is a complete mess, Sponsored, Threads posts that takes you to install apps and ADs is everywhere and I mean everywhere.
On my phone/PC, nothing of the above exist. It is just one post after another with, no Ads, no sponsored, no apps, nothing. Facebook follows suit, I have not used their app in years now, mobile browser only.
WhatsApp is gonna become exactly the same, a complete mess. People accepted Instagram changes so....
There was some wild change they wanted to push some time ago, users started mass migration away from it forcing them to abandon their insane plans.
These companies only learn when the problem hits their pocket.
I still have my social media accounts coz otherwise, hobbies and alike gets impossible to track. But I only access them via PC browser/mobile browser on my GrapheneOS phone.
Instagram only allows video upload via their app which I can understand (compression and etc), GrapheneOS allows me to lock everything so I only use it to upload videos. Man, it is a complete mess, Sponsored, Threads posts that takes you to install apps and ADs is everywhere and I mean everywhere.
On my phone/PC, nothing of the above exist. It is just one post after another with, no Ads, no sponsored, no apps, nothing. Facebook follows suit, I have not used their app in years now, mobile browser only.
WhatsApp is gonna become exactly the same, a complete mess. People accepted Instagram changes so....
> Instagram only allows video upload via their app which I can understand (compression and etc)
You can upload videos from the web now; even Reels.
You can upload videos from the web now; even Reels.
There’s something particularly paternalistic about this statement from the PM: “Your personal messages, calls and statuses, they will remain end-to-end encrypted”.
Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king.
Any tech company who must say, "we don't harvest your information", is a tech company that harvests your information.
Any tech company who must say, "we don't harvest your information", is a tech company that harvests your information.
Signal also claims the same:
> We can't read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either.
Should we be suspicious of Signal as well?
> We can't read your messages or listen to your calls, and no one else can either.
Should we be suspicious of Signal as well?
That's not the same thing at all. Especially as LLM's get smaller, WhatsApp can make a lot of money reading your messages and listening to your calls on the endpoint in order to market segment your ads while remaining e2e encrypted.
Signal isn't backed by a global data gathering conglomerate, so no.
You're right, they're funded by something far more sinister - the US government.
More to the point, I thought the principle was "Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king."? That seems to leave no room for hedging, like only distrusting "global data gathering conglomerate" or whatever. If you're have to do a holistic assessment of an organization's governance structure and incentives, you're basically admitting that witty one-liners like the above are pointless, which was my point.
More to the point, I thought the principle was "Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king."? That seems to leave no room for hedging, like only distrusting "global data gathering conglomerate" or whatever. If you're have to do a holistic assessment of an organization's governance structure and incentives, you're basically admitting that witty one-liners like the above are pointless, which was my point.
> they're funded by something far more sinister - the US government.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Yes, in proportion to the number of times they bring it up in a conversation.
Yes
Sure you should be suspicious. You should always be suspicious. Especially if it's free. And you can do something to calm your suspicions. Like checking out Signlas Open Source code.
>Like checking out Signlas Open Source code.
What's preventing them from serving a backdoored version? xz was open source as well, that didn't stop the backdoor. There might be reproducible builds on android, but you can't even inspect the executable on iOS without jailbreaking.
What's preventing them from serving a backdoored version? xz was open source as well, that didn't stop the backdoor. There might be reproducible builds on android, but you can't even inspect the executable on iOS without jailbreaking.
Signal designs their systems from the ground up to deliver verifiable trust mechanisms (via remote attestation) along with data minimization/zero-access encryption techniques.
Here’s one such example, which is also an interesting technical deep dive: https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/
Here’s one such example, which is also an interesting technical deep dive: https://signal.org/blog/building-faster-oram/
You can instead install a FOSS fork of Signal like Molly [1] built by F-Droid directly from the source code
[1] https://molly.im/
[1] https://molly.im/
[deleted]
Isn’t that against Signal’s terms of service? Won’t they ban you?
It is neither against the signal software’s license, nor it is against the signal service’s terms of service.
This is a false meme spread because the Signal founder (who is no longer with the company) didn’t like people making forks without changing the API server URL and running their own servers.
Open source software doesn’t work like that, however.
This is a false meme spread because the Signal founder (who is no longer with the company) didn’t like people making forks without changing the API server URL and running their own servers.
Open source software doesn’t work like that, however.
Whether they’re open source doesn’t matter (for this question). They control (their instance of) the server.
As you say, I do remember them issuing some threats about it, so it would be interesting to know if they’ve changed their stance on this.
(Discord, as an example, has banned users for using alternative clients.)
As you say, I do remember them issuing some threats about it, so it would be interesting to know if they’ve changed their stance on this.
(Discord, as an example, has banned users for using alternative clients.)
Alternative clients are banned in the Discord TOS. The Signal TOS is on their website and doesn’t prohibit any clients.
Also, separately, the idea that you can only use a service with a certain client is dumb.
Imagine if a website said you can only use a certain browser, or they ban you. It’s ridiculous.
Also, separately, the idea that you can only use a service with a certain client is dumb.
Imagine if a website said you can only use a certain browser, or they ban you. It’s ridiculous.
[deleted]
How would that calm suspicion if you're not arr/ign-orant and understand that continuous security audit is practically impossible at an individual level?
Every time I read such a statment I mentally add "for now" at the end.
The key in that statement is “personal”. WhatsApp already has “ads in the chat list”, aka messages from businesses that have your details. Rolled out in Asia first, and now in Europe. WhatsApp allows you to opt out of each sender. No way to opt out of all business messaging.
Messages from businesses are absolutely not private.
Messages from businesses are absolutely not private.
US TV channels are inundated with Whatsapp ads claiming the same. Not surprising considering that it's been considered the "foreigners" messaging app for a long time, and the US government is now doing its very best to make them feel completely unwelcome.
WhatsApp has S-tier status here in Germany. If I had access to a proper API I would pay them per message, without them needing to make their UX worse. If anything, if I had to pay per message, I'd be incentivized not to send too many messages, keeping the distractions for the user at a minimum.
This is why they've been pretty draconian in banning users who work around the official apps and limits. Otherwise, to force their ads they would have to oust third-parties the way Reddit did.
> If anything, if I had to pay per message, I'd be incentivized not to send too many messages
Sounds like SMS.
Sounds like SMS.
Except not limited to 160 characters (70 if you want Unicode) and with rich media capabilities.
So... MMS, then?
MMS has terrible limitations, in both file size and media resolution.
RCS has replaced MMS as a protocol back in 2008 and it's only now gaining traction. Many carriers have shut down their RCS infrastructure half a decade ago, though, so they're not exactly jumping on the chance to turn it back on.
RCS has replaced MMS as a protocol back in 2008 and it's only now gaining traction. Many carriers have shut down their RCS infrastructure half a decade ago, though, so they're not exactly jumping on the chance to turn it back on.
I enabled RCS on my Samsung S21, but had to disable it after a day or two. It just didn't work reliably.
But yea MMS sucks, would be nice with some common cross-platform alternative that worked well.
But yea MMS sucks, would be nice with some common cross-platform alternative that worked well.
Why did MMS feel so janky back in the day?
Was it a client thing or a protocol thing?
Whatsapp felt so responsive back in the day. I'd be pinging my family in real time halfway across the globe on mobile in 2009. For Free. That was a killer app...
Why did MMS fail where Whatsapp succeeded?
Was it a client thing or a protocol thing?
Whatsapp felt so responsive back in the day. I'd be pinging my family in real time halfway across the globe on mobile in 2009. For Free. That was a killer app...
Why did MMS fail where Whatsapp succeeded?
> S-tier status here in Germany
What does this mean exactly?
What does this mean exactly?
It's the top tier in tier lists.
See the image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_list
Popular format on Youtube, reddit, etc.
See the image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_list
Popular format on Youtube, reddit, etc.
Isn't it what WhatsApp for Business API does? https://developers.facebook.com/docs/whatsapp/cloud-api/get-...
I live in Germany and manage fine without it.
Ah... There's a pattern here. Soon enough, just like with Facebook pages eons ago, they will nerf the reach of WhatsApp channels then prod channel owners to pay for more eyeballs.
It should be a law of nature that whatever Meta/Facebook acquires will surely be ad-riddled & 'spyware' infested regardless of the "we won't" promises they swear to abide by.
It should be a law of nature that whatever Meta/Facebook acquires will surely be ad-riddled & 'spyware' infested regardless of the "we won't" promises they swear to abide by.
I’ve gotten used to chatting with friends and family on WhatsApp. As long as they don’t put ads into private chats or groups, I think it’s fine for now.
But I do wonder if this is just the first step, and like other platforms, ads might slowly spread into more parts of the app over time.
But I do wonder if this is just the first step, and like other platforms, ads might slowly spread into more parts of the app over time.
I could easily pay for WhatsApp if it wasnt Facebook/Meta.
With it being Meta I can be sure I will pay and still have my data and privacy violated.
With it being Meta I can be sure I will pay and still have my data and privacy violated.
It always seems to go like this. An app starts out simple, focused on privacy and a clean experience. But after a while, growth slows down, money becomes a bigger concern, and ads slowly get added. I understand why companies do it, but as a user, it’s frustrating because you already know where it usually ends up.
WhatsApp was great because it didn’t have ads and kept things private. Once they start changing that, it usually doesn’t stop with just one small change.
WhatsApp was great because it didn’t have ads and kept things private. Once they start changing that, it usually doesn’t stop with just one small change.
WhatsApp has been relatively feature stagnant for a long while now, and it's certainly being almost ubiquitous for a long time too, but we're seeing an explosion in features and product tweaks recently? I wonder what the trigger was to suddenly leverage the enormous corpus of users to sweat more cash out of it?
> relatively feature stagnant
Is that a bad thing? It's a useful dedicated tool. Paperclips have been feature stagnant since the 19th century, and they're fine
Is that a bad thing? It's a useful dedicated tool. Paperclips have been feature stagnant since the 19th century, and they're fine
> Is that a bad thing?
I think the op did not mean that. Whatsapp has been adding many new features and tweaks recently(maybe 6months-1yr).Before that they were not that keen on changing.
I think the op did not mean that. Whatsapp has been adding many new features and tweaks recently(maybe 6months-1yr).Before that they were not that keen on changing.
It's about time they added AI features to paperclips.
Yesterday : Introduces adds
Just 30 minutes ago: I got an official message from WhatsApp asking for my email address "for improved security just in case you lose your account"...
Just 30 minutes ago: I got an official message from WhatsApp asking for my email address "for improved security just in case you lose your account"...
Would be nice if these kinds of articles would at least take a paragraph to plug some alternatives, such as Signal.
Signal have a few things that make it a hard sell.
It's really hard to clean up media. You have to go into every single chat and from there go about deleting stuff. At least they finally added a "select all" option in there recently.
So the size of it just grows and grows and grows until it's using all the space on your phone. Not a good fit for non-technical types.
Secondly, no web view. There is the desktop app yes, which is flaky, slow and wants to update every day or two.
I just can't see average people putting up with those inconveniences and that's just a couple of them.
It's really hard to clean up media. You have to go into every single chat and from there go about deleting stuff. At least they finally added a "select all" option in there recently.
So the size of it just grows and grows and grows until it's using all the space on your phone. Not a good fit for non-technical types.
Secondly, no web view. There is the desktop app yes, which is flaky, slow and wants to update every day or two.
I just can't see average people putting up with those inconveniences and that's just a couple of them.
I stopped recommending Signal to nontechnical folks due to the inability to back up messages on iOS. People are pretty protective of their message history, and having everything tied to a single device with no recourse for backups is a nonstarter.
The slightly longer version of the story is that my wife, travelling alone, had some trouble with an iPhone update (it hung for hours), and so she took it to the nearest Genius Bar; they eventually got the update to apply, but then did a factory reset “just to be safe”. Of course, everything except her Signal message history was restored from the automatic iCloud backups. She was devastated, and refuses to touch it now.
Please do not reply to say this was the fault of the Apple Store employee. It was, but at the same time, it also very much wasn't.
The slightly longer version of the story is that my wife, travelling alone, had some trouble with an iPhone update (it hung for hours), and so she took it to the nearest Genius Bar; they eventually got the update to apply, but then did a factory reset “just to be safe”. Of course, everything except her Signal message history was restored from the automatic iCloud backups. She was devastated, and refuses to touch it now.
Please do not reply to say this was the fault of the Apple Store employee. It was, but at the same time, it also very much wasn't.
Oh yes this too. How could I forget!
> So the size of it just grows and grows and grows until it's using all the space on your phone. Not a good fit for non-technical types.
To be fair I've met plenty of non-techie types whose phones were "full" of stuff from WhatsApp or photos that had already been backed up, because the idea they could clear their local storage would never cross their minds. I've seen people buy new phones instead of clearing their cache.
To be fair I've met plenty of non-techie types whose phones were "full" of stuff from WhatsApp or photos that had already been backed up, because the idea they could clear their local storage would never cross their minds. I've seen people buy new phones instead of clearing their cache.
Yes it's also a problem there but WhatsApp gives you the tools to fix the problem in minutes if not seconds, or ask your tech literate relative or friend to help and it only takes them the couple of minutes to clear it and maybe show you how. With Signal it can take hours of work so what happens is the non-techy person understands "oh this app filled my phone up I shouldn't use it".
Signal does other things which annoy me to the point I can't consider it as a viable option for me, my family and close friends. For a start, it wants a full access to contacts and if doesn't get it it pops internal notification about it - but that one is easily dismissible. But then, I keep a strict notification settings on all my devices and Signal doesn't like that and wants me to turn these on. Perhaps because they can't otherwise push notifications about donation - which also appears within the app.
People behind Signal have a very corporate approach to their app where a permanent "no" doesn't exist when it comes to user choice - all what you have is "not now".
Then there's linking devices; it's not permanent but temporary and devices are removed automatically after 30 days. You can't even log into your account with tablet any more - that was replaced with linking. Cross-platform synchronization - didn't work for me at all despite being a loudly announced success.
People behind Signal have a very corporate approach to their app where a permanent "no" doesn't exist when it comes to user choice - all what you have is "not now".
Then there's linking devices; it's not permanent but temporary and devices are removed automatically after 30 days. You can't even log into your account with tablet any more - that was replaced with linking. Cross-platform synchronization - didn't work for me at all despite being a loudly announced success.
> For a start, it wants a full access to contacts and if doesn't get it it pops internal notification about it - but that one is easily dismissible.
This is at least an improvement over WhatsApp, which removes core functionality (e.g. creating groups) when this access is refused
This is at least an improvement over WhatsApp, which removes core functionality (e.g. creating groups) when this access is refused
It's very frustrating, I admit. Backups and archival are indeed a pet peeve of mine, as are the frequent redesigns (but that's just a "feature" virtually every single god-damn modern app).
What is the alternative though? A private chat app, mobile + desktop, syncing, with enough ease of setup and use for normies to adopt? I don't see it.
What is the alternative though? A private chat app, mobile + desktop, syncing, with enough ease of setup and use for normies to adopt? I don't see it.
I suppose the true alternative would be a standard open protocol that enables this cross platform.
> What is the alternative though? A private chat app, mobile + desktop, syncing, with enough ease of setup and use for normies to adopt? I don't see it.
iMessage, if you only use Apple devices or are willing/able to hack around the Apple-device requirement.
iMessage, if you only use Apple devices or are willing/able to hack around the Apple-device requirement.
As always network effect will be the problem. I know plenty of people on WhatsApp and almost nobody on Signal
Network effects aren't a big deal when it comes to messaging. There was a time when people thought iPhone wouldn't be able to overcome Blackberry because everyone was on BBM. In the last couple decades we've seen people go from ICQ to AIM/Yahoo/MSN to Google Talk to Skype to Facebook Messenger to BBM to Whatsapp/iMessage/Instagram, with dozens of smaller options like Kik, Viber, Line, Signal, Telegram all hanging around. It doesn't take much to cause another shift in the space.
That sounds nice, but in reality most of my extended friend group has migrated to WhatsApp over the last 10 years and is unlikely to change anytime soon. Interoperability would be nice (like we used to have) but that will never happen until Apple stops using their lack of interoperability as a way to ostracize young people and sell more phones.
It's a problem but not insurmountable. Otherwise we'd all still be using ICQ/AIM/MSN Messenger/Skype/etc.
We are off those because of multi messanger platforms made switching to the "hot new thing" very low friction. It was only once mobile came along that the playing field narrowed so much.
Current networks have way more lock in than back in the day.
Current networks have way more lock in than back in the day.
I don't find there is much network effect for one on one messaging. I have to use a few different apps to talk to all my friends, it's not a big deal to switch to/from Signal or Whatsapp. With groups it's more effort.
This does not match my experience in Germany. If somebody gives you their phone number it is just expected that you can reach them on WhatsApp and i have yet to meet anyone that doesn't use WhatsApp.
That seems true throughout the most of the Western world, excluding the US. I have a big WhatsApp network, but that's by virtue of living in SF and NY. Without big immigrant/expat/world-traveler communities, I think most of the US just uses iMessage or regular text.
Yeah, it's true that almost everyone has WhatsApp, but that doesn't by itself create a network effect. Do people refuse to use other platforms?
It's easy to have multiple chat apps in parallel though, each with their own network.
Ads will make more people Signal-curious, or even drive people back to text messages. The average person who switches will convince a non-zero number of their contacts to come with them. The shift will start gradually. Think of Skype, which at one point everyone I knew was on. That network didn't protect them from being replaced by competitors.
People are also increasingly worried about retaliation from the government for their supposedly free speech, which has already driven a few people I know to secure alternatives that aren't operated by Trump allies.
Ads will make more people Signal-curious, or even drive people back to text messages. The average person who switches will convince a non-zero number of their contacts to come with them. The shift will start gradually. Think of Skype, which at one point everyone I knew was on. That network didn't protect them from being replaced by competitors.
People are also increasingly worried about retaliation from the government for their supposedly free speech, which has already driven a few people I know to secure alternatives that aren't operated by Trump allies.
[deleted]
I used to use Signal exclusively rather than Whatsapp, but I've had lots of issues sending media. This has not been a problem with Whatsapp, so I've recently begun to use Whatsapp more. There are also issues with message history that I've encountered on Signal that don't exist on Whatsapp.
If Signal could address these concerns I'd be happy to move away from Whatsapp.
With this news I'll likely need to reassess my use of Whatsapp again.
If Signal could address these concerns I'd be happy to move away from Whatsapp.
With this news I'll likely need to reassess my use of Whatsapp again.
WhatsApp’s desktop app is also a good deal better. Signal is very mobile-centric which I’m sure makes sense for a lot of people, but I’m sitting in front of a real keyboard for most of my days and so it’s a nice when desktop clients are first-class citizens and not afterthoughts.
It’s frustrating that it’s basically only Telegram and WhatsApp that take desktop platforms seriously.
It’s frustrating that it’s basically only Telegram and WhatsApp that take desktop platforms seriously.
Where you can't even do message backups properly, and risk of losing messages is a much bigger issue for the average issue than ubiquitous ads becoming slightly more ubiquitous
Discerning people will already seek out other options on their own, the vast majority won't. We know the pattern from the respective Reddit and Twitter enshittification phases.
If I can only message with discerning people might as well not have any messaging app at all.
WhatsApp has long promoted itself as a safe alternative to apps like Telegram and Google’s Android messaging. Users flocked to the app globally, finding it a cheap and secure alternative to texting, particularly people in unstable political climates and authoritarian countries, since its messages cannot be easily intercepted without access to personal devices.
This reply screams LLM. Not really responding to the parent comment, nauseatingly anodyne in content. Not wrong, but not right. Will HN be overwhelmed with LLM trash?
It’s a quote from the linked article.
But why reply with a snippet like that? Just a normal non-sequitur, or a machine regurgitation?
With all the LLM enthusiasts here why would HN not be at the forefront of it?
Your llm detector needs serious calibration
If this concerns you and you must use WhatsApp, I highly suggest installing it on a separate device only used for WhatsApp, that doesn't have any contacts besides the ones in WhatsApp, which should only have a name and phone number, and registering it with a burner SIM, or from a virtual service.
An additional layer of security would be installing it in a Work profile in Android (maybe the new profiles feature works for this, I'm not sure), and only activating that profile when you need to use it.
With the recent news about the Facebook and Instagram tracking via WebRTC[1], we can only assume that they're doing it with WhatsApp as well.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115
An additional layer of security would be installing it in a Work profile in Android (maybe the new profiles feature works for this, I'm not sure), and only activating that profile when you need to use it.
With the recent news about the Facebook and Instagram tracking via WebRTC[1], we can only assume that they're doing it with WhatsApp as well.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115
I wish it was possible to give contacts permission the same way one can share photos.
Apps should not have free access to all contacts but anything else is currently highly impractical to the point of being unusable. (Android work profile is a good idea, unfortunately that profile is usually take up by… work)
Apps should not have free access to all contacts but anything else is currently highly impractical to the point of being unusable. (Android work profile is a good idea, unfortunately that profile is usually take up by… work)
On iPhone, it is. Can set “limited access” for contacts just as you can for photos.
Oh! I did not actually know that, thanks!
I really hope it helps them build a decent app, but I doubt it. In Ukraine, there's a huge problem of Telegram being so feature-rich compared to WhatsApp that it's impossible to convince people to do the switch, even under the national security threat.
What are the telegram features that whatsapp or signal users are missing?
I've tried it in the past and all that could be done was due to the platform not having e2e encryption on standard chats.
I've tried it in the past and all that could be done was due to the platform not having e2e encryption on standard chats.
Privacy is a completely valid criticism, but it feels that posters at HN often forget that Telegram was made by geeks in the first place. It was first to give an easy way to send a hi-quality photo instead of a blurry JPEG, the first to let you send 4-5 GB files to yourf friend without any extra effort, which was unbelievable for me as someone who grew up with games played off audio records. And it used to be pretty Wild West - not in regards to porn as critics would say - why would a grown up person search for porn in a social media app - but rather in temporarily standing up for values of free software and media (also something I didn’t experience since early 90s).
I think one point not raised here is that Telegram is an attempt to create a global Asian style messenger with quick, sleek and maybe too animated (to my taste) design and vibrant ecosystem.
Whatsapp cannot be fast - otherwise Grandmas will not be using it, so Meta always has to compromise, while Telegram can just adapt WeChat/Line features for years with WA limping behind.
Signal is cool for people that consider privacy paramount. If I get it right, they are also on a mission of creating safe communication for the most vulnerable. They are just different; I could never make myself start using TikTok, and can completely relate to someone saying Signal has just the right amount of features one needs.
I think one point not raised here is that Telegram is an attempt to create a global Asian style messenger with quick, sleek and maybe too animated (to my taste) design and vibrant ecosystem.
Whatsapp cannot be fast - otherwise Grandmas will not be using it, so Meta always has to compromise, while Telegram can just adapt WeChat/Line features for years with WA limping behind.
Signal is cool for people that consider privacy paramount. If I get it right, they are also on a mission of creating safe communication for the most vulnerable. They are just different; I could never make myself start using TikTok, and can completely relate to someone saying Signal has just the right amount of features one needs.
I shifted to Telegram a few years ago, and it was such a rich experience for me. Off the top of my head:
- much much better performance - a good desktop client - open source message clients - scheduling messages - better search - many small gestures/UX features that feel thoughtfully implemented - better channels - message threads - chat folders - very easily programmable & deployable bots for moderation or implementation into your work flow - a lot of customisable settings
Telegram is so much further in performance and feature than it's counterparts it's laughable. Almost all of the new features in Whatsapp/Signal were first implemented in Telegram.
Some of them, as you said, are feasible because of the non-e2ee chats, but a lot of them are just plain universal.
- much much better performance - a good desktop client - open source message clients - scheduling messages - better search - many small gestures/UX features that feel thoughtfully implemented - better channels - message threads - chat folders - very easily programmable & deployable bots for moderation or implementation into your work flow - a lot of customisable settings
Telegram is so much further in performance and feature than it's counterparts it's laughable. Almost all of the new features in Whatsapp/Signal were first implemented in Telegram.
Some of them, as you said, are feasible because of the non-e2ee chats, but a lot of them are just plain universal.
I guess all this is available through the business version of whatsapp.
Nope, not at all. Not only are most of these features unavailable, getting anything "business-related" done (apart from the template they offer you) is a huge pain.
It's discord-level feature-rich, e.g. it has "forums/topics", "channels" (which WhatsApp added poorly), much more developed sticker/reactions functionality, "round videos" and other catchy, viral features, at the same time doesn't feel like heavy discord. I've switched off long time ago due to security concerns, but now that I'm using WhatsApp/Signal -- they're just too basic.
Native desktop client for one.
>What are the telegram features that whatsapp or signal users are missing?
Onlyfans girls channels.
Onlyfans girls channels.
Those exist on Whatsapp as well.
If one should switch, why should they switch to WhatsApp instead of something more privacy-friendly as Signal?
I'm a much heavier Signal user than WhatsApp but for broader audience it not even serious to consider. Too slow/laggish, lacks features (at some point it ate 40GB of my phone space -- with no good UI to clean it up), crashes etc. Not ready for this kind of scenario, unfortunately.
I missed 2 weeks of message notifications because Signal quietly went out of date. It had one job!
That's funny because one of the reasons I used Telegram originally was the encryption of messages and open sourcedness. Also Whatsapp use to require your phone to be on and with signal to receive messages on the web app.
One thing I don't hear people is ads used as tracking tools. The Facebook pixel is huge for not just tracking for digital advertisements but tracking across the web for surveillance. With ads in WhatsApp, you could in theory use advertisements for identity resolution.
https://blog.whatsapp.com/helping-you-find-more-channels-and...
How long until "Updates" gets a red badge despite no updates only to show you an ad? Also, I find the language used in their announcement deeply offensive.
> Helping you Find More Channels and Businesses on WhatsApp
> support your favorite channel
> help you discover
> find a new business and easily start a conversation with them
> help admins, organizations, and businesses grow
How long until "Updates" gets a red badge despite no updates only to show you an ad? Also, I find the language used in their announcement deeply offensive.
> Helping you Find More Channels and Businesses on WhatsApp
> support your favorite channel
> help you discover
> find a new business and easily start a conversation with them
> help admins, organizations, and businesses grow
As part of this, it has been rebranded to WhatsAd
install signal, donate €2.99, done. don't understand so many still stick to this messanger.
In a lot of developing countries WhatsApp doesn't count against your data plan. Signal data is billed like any other app. It's not easy asking all your friends to pay for something they already get "for free".
Ripe for antitrust litigation. Reminds me of Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer. Unfortunately, developing countries have bigger things on their plate than going against Meta, especially since I figure the “bribes” and promise to improve the nation’s internet infrastructure are very substantial.
The issue is being framed very differently from IE and MS though. You have, to paraphrase:
> Internet.org [1] is providing free internet to millions of people who didn't have it 5 years ago.
vs
> Free WhatsApp is harming market efficiency.
I'm guessing a lot of people are reluctant to spend a lot of effort on the later point.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org
> Internet.org [1] is providing free internet to millions of people who didn't have it 5 years ago.
vs
> Free WhatsApp is harming market efficiency.
I'm guessing a lot of people are reluctant to spend a lot of effort on the later point.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org
Network effect
I would say xmpp apps are just fine at this point of time and will be able to help out
Indeed. I've been running an xmpp server for a small group of non technical friends, it's been fine for years.
well. Great there are a lot of public servers that are there. Atleast better than whataspp using your data. OMEO encryption makes sure not even the server maintainer sees your data.
Surprised it took them this long
They were working on it in 2019 when I left, I thought it was tested in one country after that and then it got shelved. IIRC, it needed a ToS change and there was too much pushback.
I had been voluntold to be on the ads team, because I had sent a list of things that needed to be done to make ads doable and not terrible. Of course, none of my ideas were deemed feasible at the time, including figuring our the ToS stuff, because no use building a product you can't launch and ToS changes aren't easy.
I had been voluntold to be on the ads team, because I had sent a list of things that needed to be done to make ads doable and not terrible. Of course, none of my ideas were deemed feasible at the time, including figuring our the ToS stuff, because no use building a product you can't launch and ToS changes aren't easy.
> things that needed to be done to make ads doable and not terrible ... none of my ideas were deemed feasible at the time
Don't sell yourself short ... they did all the things to make ads doable it was just not feasible to make them not terrible.
Don't sell yourself short ... they did all the things to make ads doable it was just not feasible to make them not terrible.
I mean, they didn't, at least at the time, because they couldn't launch it.
In my mind, early focus on ToS could have possibly gotten the change more palletable/directed the project towards more palletable choices or perhaps more likely gotten to the cancellation decision faster and people could work on different things.
In my mind, early focus on ToS could have possibly gotten the change more palletable/directed the project towards more palletable choices or perhaps more likely gotten to the cancellation decision faster and people could work on different things.
they got so lucky with whatsbook taking over entire countries, they were swimming in money just selling support channels to gov and big companies.
literal chat dialog tree with 4 options that is not connected to anything for around 250k/year.
literal chat dialog tree with 4 options that is not connected to anything for around 250k/year.
Line messaging app that is popular in Japan has had adverts for years. They aren't very intrusive. I am fine with it. They also sell "stickers" (elaborate emojis) as an alternative revenue stream. They are surprisingly popular amoung all ages. If WhatsApp takes a page from their book, I will be fine with it. I have never paid a penny to FaceBook/Meta for running this amazing, free service. Nothing is free in this world.
Looks like it's (for now) only in the "Updates" tab..
Exactly, it's only Updates tab "for now".
If that’s the case, I’ll just switch to Apple Messages since all 3 people in the world that I talk to have those available.
I think that kind of business model will screw them. Line has a more sensible one. For example if a business wants to message all its followers, they can only do so twice a month unless they start paying. So customers get an ad-free experience and can only receive ad messages from companies or accounts they follow.
Meta are already monetising business usage of WhatsApp in this way[1].
Any ads are in addition to this, not instead of.
[1]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/whatsapp/pricing/
Any ads are in addition to this, not instead of.
[1]: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/whatsapp/pricing/
There are most certainly ad banners in Line. At least in Japan. And they used to have some strange invasive bluetooth auto-connect when near a convenience store.
Does anyone know what's the state of the art way for cutting crap out of android apps? In the same way adblock cuts crap out of web pages?
I assume one would need a Java disassembler at least. On desktop, something like recaf works and allows changing things in classes without the full recompilation.
Is there something like this for android?
I assume one would need a Java disassembler at least. On desktop, something like recaf works and allows changing things in classes without the full recompilation.
Is there something like this for android?
https://revanced.app/ for applying premade patches to APKs
Had no idea this existed even though I'm running a rooted phone for over 10 years now... Thanks so much!
DNS blocking with tools like DNSNet get you halfway there without tampering with the apps. It installs itself like a VPN and filters dns requests to ad domains using lists from the same sources as the adblockers.
I say halfway because some apps have a fallback, built-in, ad when it can't reach the server, other serve the ads from their own servers so no way to block them. Most only leave a blank space.
I say halfway because some apps have a fallback, built-in, ad when it can't reach the server, other serve the ads from their own servers so no way to block them. Most only leave a blank space.
On Android there's also "Private DNS" where you can set a different server to resolve domain names. This way, you won't need to install and run additional apps and can still use VPN for ... well VPN.
also adaway, which does the same or can be used in root mode to edit the hosts file.
I use the hosts file from there, and edit it manually via "adb root" (lineageos. root only via adb)
I use the hosts file from there, and edit it manually via "adb root" (lineageos. root only via adb)
More than halfway I'd say. It blocks everything from third party ad networks, which is what 90%+ of websites and apps use.
Something to remember is that back in 2018 there mightve been a different vision around WhatsApp businesses possibly helping subsidizing the app for things that are useful for their customers.
From a 2018 interview of Brian Acton after he left Facebook ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/26/exclusive... ):
" "An SMS has just come in from his local Honda dealer saying “payment received.” He points to it on his phone.
“This is what I wanted people to do with WhatsApp,” he says of the world’s biggest messaging service, "
From a 2018 interview of Brian Acton after he left Facebook ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2018/09/26/exclusive... ):
" "An SMS has just come in from his local Honda dealer saying “payment received.” He points to it on his phone.
“This is what I wanted people to do with WhatsApp,” he says of the world’s biggest messaging service, "
"Your personal messages, calls and statuses, they will remain end-to-end encrypted," says the Facebook executive in charge of WhatsApp.
A company representative adds that it has "no plans to place ads in chats and personal messages." Plans, of course, could change in the future.
As many here have noted, WhatsApp is the dominant communication platform for many people, and many businesses, particularly outside the US. In the short run, almost none of them will be able to leave the platform. In the longer term, so many of them are upset about the introduction of intrusive ads that it could well become "the beginning of the end" for the platform.
Social media platforms can rise and fall.
A company representative adds that it has "no plans to place ads in chats and personal messages." Plans, of course, could change in the future.
As many here have noted, WhatsApp is the dominant communication platform for many people, and many businesses, particularly outside the US. In the short run, almost none of them will be able to leave the platform. In the longer term, so many of them are upset about the introduction of intrusive ads that it could well become "the beginning of the end" for the platform.
Social media platforms can rise and fall.
If WhatsApp does this, Telegram will not be far behind in rolling this out.
Where I live using tools such as Truecaller isn't really an option, and just that by itself probably slows my budget phone down by 15%.
I don't know if it'll manage with another 15% loss.
I don't know if it'll manage with another 15% loss.
And so, WhatsApp has reached parity with Telegram in features, in the sense that both now show ads (even though Telegram was initially promoted as always free and without ads, it was the first to abandon this promise and shamefully removed it from the main page).
Time for a new messenger, and I don’t mean Signal, but the creation of some kind of old Skype, with a peer to peer protocol. It was very good before Microsoft bought it. Of course, if the code is open and does not require a proprietary server part.
Time for a new messenger, and I don’t mean Signal, but the creation of some kind of old Skype, with a peer to peer protocol. It was very good before Microsoft bought it. Of course, if the code is open and does not require a proprietary server part.
whats wrong with Signal?
Doesn't it require a central server for communications?
The below comment does not contribute to the discussion, it can be perceived as a negative one, and I should probably not make it. But these are my true feelings towards everyone who uses anything-Facebook/Meta:
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha and then after I catch my breath, a bit more hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Seriously, who expected anything different? Like.. in which universe does anything think "Facebook/Meta is going to do the right thing"(?)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha and then after I catch my breath, a bit more hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Seriously, who expected anything different? Like.. in which universe does anything think "Facebook/Meta is going to do the right thing"(?)
I think it should also be pointed out that for all of the "Facebook is free, you are the product" and that maybe they should charge, Whatsapp had an existing monetization model
Zuckerberg is ruthless and cutthroat and Whatsapp was less a "savvy acquisition" (I mean, yeah, get rid of competition) than a "I want this, I need to own it"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
Zuckerberg is ruthless and cutthroat and Whatsapp was less a "savvy acquisition" (I mean, yeah, get rid of competition) than a "I want this, I need to own it"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
WhatsApp cannot even be used from desktop without a smartphone. I think they took "mobile-first" approach too literally.
But to be fair, competitors like Telegram also do not allow registering an account from desktop app, only from a smartphone. This seems to be the new trend: you cannot sign up for Gmail and Vk without a smartphone too: for Gmail, you need to scan the QR code, and for Vk you need to install a mobile app.
But to be fair, competitors like Telegram also do not allow registering an account from desktop app, only from a smartphone. This seems to be the new trend: you cannot sign up for Gmail and Vk without a smartphone too: for Gmail, you need to scan the QR code, and for Vk you need to install a mobile app.
It can be used in the desktop (web) with the phone turned off since a few months (years?) ago.
As much as I like WhatsApp, I hate that it's been bought by a company like Meta. Its voice-calling quality is the best from all similar apps, companies use it to communicate with people, and my entire family solely uses it.
I just wish there was something else with such far reach and capability. We can only hope for interoperability with other chat apps.
At least the ads are in Updates, where I never bother looking at
I just wish there was something else with such far reach and capability. We can only hope for interoperability with other chat apps.
At least the ads are in Updates, where I never bother looking at
WhatsApp promise to users by it's founders.
“No ads! No games! No gimmicks!”
I wonder how the early founders feel about what Whatsapp has become with random junk and gimmicks in the UI.
“No ads! No games! No gimmicks!”
I wonder how the early founders feel about what Whatsapp has become with random junk and gimmicks in the UI.
I'm sure their tears are rolling down the mountains of cash they sit upon.
[deleted]
I’m actually surprised to learn that channels didn’t already have paid promotion. I just assumed it did, because that’s the way that kind of thing always works. But I’ve never touched Channels, and haven’t seen others doing so either.
As for status updates… that’s something many people seem to actually use, so ads in there may have an effect.
As for status updates… that’s something many people seem to actually use, so ads in there may have an effect.
Whatsapp used to be paying (and pretty cheap) before it was bought out, and I was happy to pay for it. I'd much rather have that than starting to get ads. They're going to be hidden in a feature no-one uses, they're not going to use private data, but given Facebook's invasive behavior, how true is it and how long will it last?
Paying money to abusive companies isn’t how you get rid of corporate abuse.
Delete your WhatsApp and Instagram and Facebook. Delete the apps from your devices.
Every time you launch the app you vote willingly for more abuse and surveillance and censorship.
Delete your WhatsApp and Instagram and Facebook. Delete the apps from your devices.
Every time you launch the app you vote willingly for more abuse and surveillance and censorship.
Honestly, this might have gone over better with messaging such as. "We added Ads to WhatsApp, here's what we're doing keep the user first"
There is a cult understanding that Instagram ads are highly relevant and quite useful at times and WhatsApp ads have the same possibility. But the messaging is quite poor.
There is a cult understanding that Instagram ads are highly relevant and quite useful at times and WhatsApp ads have the same possibility. But the messaging is quite poor.
My wish is to have Telegram clients and user experience (both mobile and in Linux desktop versions) with Signal security and whatsapp adoption.
Signal is a cool 2nd alternative to WhatsApp, but their desktop client is absolute garbage, their videocall echo cancelling is non-existent and sending media over slow connections absolutely sucks (it keeps on resending and resending the files)
Signal is a cool 2nd alternative to WhatsApp, but their desktop client is absolute garbage, their videocall echo cancelling is non-existent and sending media over slow connections absolutely sucks (it keeps on resending and resending the files)
Remember Google, when they bought YouTube? They said, that there won’t be any ads. Now it’s almost only ads.
Today is the day the notion of the 'internet is free, good and a convenience' is over for the global public. WhatsApp was the first ever primary convenience brought by the advent of the internet - it fulfilled a legitimate need all over the world by providing essentially free, limitless, boundless communication if you had few megabytes of internet in your mobile quota. It is to this day the #1 most used app for a good percentage of the population, only surpassed by social media. (Mostly because of the immortal network effects lingering from a decade ago.)
I was honestly expecting it, after recently seeing on a friend's phone that it already essentially turned to social media on Android. They can't yet push it on the higher income iPhone users (lest they switch to other messenger apps), but change is coming rather inevitably since it's nothing but untapped advertising dollars potential in the eyes of the behemoth that is Meta.
I don't think there's a sustainable solution here except to self-host a Matrix server for family and friends if you have the time, money and technical expertise.
I was honestly expecting it, after recently seeing on a friend's phone that it already essentially turned to social media on Android. They can't yet push it on the higher income iPhone users (lest they switch to other messenger apps), but change is coming rather inevitably since it's nothing but untapped advertising dollars potential in the eyes of the behemoth that is Meta.
I don't think there's a sustainable solution here except to self-host a Matrix server for family and friends if you have the time, money and technical expertise.
>> WhatsApp was the first ever primary convenience brought by the advent of the internet
Unique but I believe fundamentally incorrect take on the Internet...
Unique but I believe fundamentally incorrect take on the Internet...
> WhatsApp was the first ever primary convenience brought by the advent of the internet - it fulfilled a legitimate need all over the world by providing essentially free, limitless, boundless communication if you had few megabytes of internet in your mobile quota.
Yes, truly WhatsApp was the first of its kind. It's all the communication of sending a letter through the mail, except delivered electronically - one wonders why they didn't call it "electronic mail", or perhaps "e-mail" for short.
The group chats it offers are another huge innovation - for the first time, people were able to chat with each other by relaying their messages across the internet. Truly a marvel.
Personally, I divide the internet into two eras - "before Whatsapp", when there was simply no primary convenience of any sort to be found upon the internet and all users were deeply encumbered by bounds; and "after Whatsapp", when I and others can communicate, conveniently, via the internet, because of WhatsApp, boundlessly.
Yes, truly WhatsApp was the first of its kind. It's all the communication of sending a letter through the mail, except delivered electronically - one wonders why they didn't call it "electronic mail", or perhaps "e-mail" for short.
The group chats it offers are another huge innovation - for the first time, people were able to chat with each other by relaying their messages across the internet. Truly a marvel.
Personally, I divide the internet into two eras - "before Whatsapp", when there was simply no primary convenience of any sort to be found upon the internet and all users were deeply encumbered by bounds; and "after Whatsapp", when I and others can communicate, conveniently, via the internet, because of WhatsApp, boundlessly.
Ok, understand the downvote. Probably should have caveated it with 'in my social circle'.
In my country, there was no universal messenger app circa 2010s except WhatsApp.
Not everybody had a Facebook account to use Facebook Messenger, adults did but children and elderly didn't. Not everybody had an Apple device to use iMessage.
Nobody knew each other's email outside of work and business - the digital revolution came much later than the US to many parts of the world, and email was a tool for personal communication only very briefly, and only if you already knew that person's email, which most likely you didn't.
The reason WhatsApp took off is because it didn't require anything other than a person's phone number - which was usually the only type of digital pointer you had about a person.
SMS was not an option - it was expensive and limited (to this day still is, unlike the US!), only used as a last resort.
I'm sure many countries around the world would share the same sentiment, though maybe not most. Esp. Europe and South America, probably.
In my country, there was no universal messenger app circa 2010s except WhatsApp.
Not everybody had a Facebook account to use Facebook Messenger, adults did but children and elderly didn't. Not everybody had an Apple device to use iMessage.
Nobody knew each other's email outside of work and business - the digital revolution came much later than the US to many parts of the world, and email was a tool for personal communication only very briefly, and only if you already knew that person's email, which most likely you didn't.
The reason WhatsApp took off is because it didn't require anything other than a person's phone number - which was usually the only type of digital pointer you had about a person.
SMS was not an option - it was expensive and limited (to this day still is, unlike the US!), only used as a last resort.
I'm sure many countries around the world would share the same sentiment, though maybe not most. Esp. Europe and South America, probably.
This reminds me to throw 10€ at Signal
Whatsapp is not a messenger app anymore it is just Facebook tied to phone number and your contacts along with it. I do not know what to do, it cluttered mess, no way to disabling status, communities, meta AI. I'm just using since others use it.
Anyone remembers time when WhatsApp was a paid app on the AppStore? I miss that monetisation strategy, paying for an app once and calling it a day.
Everything seems to have either adds or subscription modes now, from Sudoku apps to flight tracking (yes Flighty, talking about you).
Everything seems to have either adds or subscription modes now, from Sudoku apps to flight tracking (yes Flighty, talking about you).
Tangentially on topic is there a programmatic way to export data from Whatsapp other than media? For example, if I would like to transition away from Whatsapp but would like to preserve old chats with friends that are no longer with us.
I think Whatsapp has an export chat feature for individual chats that exports that specific chat as a text file.
Wasn't there a push by the EU to force intercompatibility between messaging apps?
Boy I hope they vet these ads better than they do on Facebook, otherwise my mum and many other marginally-online people are certain to get scammed and hacked within hours of this going live.
I’d be curious to see them implement a payment tier-model to negate/ reduce ads for specific users.
Granted, their business model will have to change completely for this.
Has anyone reported this as a DMA and GDPR violation to the EU? They're using personal data to show personalized ads, without an option to opt-out entirely, and I'm pretty sure they will offer the same shitty deal for EU users: either pay for less intrusive ads, or sell your data for personalized ones.
Updates tab now has random channels from other people on it, too.
Naturally the only ones that show up are thirst trap profiles masquerading as "uwu just sharing my life" channels.
Naturally the only ones that show up are thirst trap profiles masquerading as "uwu just sharing my life" channels.
Combined with their GenAI bot that nobody asked for either, Meta is now begging for someone to displace WhatsApp.
It's unclear that Signal/Telegram/etc have a shot, though.
It's unclear that Signal/Telegram/etc have a shot, though.
All the more reason to switch to Signal. I use Signal and donate to the non-profit behind it every year because my privacy is worth protecting.
I hope the only valid use for WhatsApp becomes giving people a link to your Signal.
> The promotions will appear only in an area of the app called Updates, which is used by around 1.5 billion people a day
Is that 1.5 billion people engaging with it, or 1.5 billion people seeing it because it's the first tab and then immediately switching to "Chats", the only useful tab in the app?
Is that 1.5 billion people engaging with it, or 1.5 billion people seeing it because it's the first tab and then immediately switching to "Chats", the only useful tab in the app?
Chats is the default and first tab.
The chats tab has ads of a sort as well. They’re messages from businesses, as I mentioned here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296250
This is why I prefer protocols like SMS to services like Whatsapp
At this point, everyone just needs to become aware that this is a common business strategy employed by tech companies and private equity that even has its own Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
HNers,
please create a new messenger.
please create a new messenger.
HNers will probably take VC money and sell to Meta eventually for a gazillion dollars. You should ask someone on the GNU mailing list (but they don’t have the time and money, especially marketing reach to compete with anything popular)
Then what happens? A messenger is only as good as the network of people on it. Signal already exists, and I have a few group chats on it, but most still happens on Whatsapp and FB-Messenger.
Many folks blame the users “well, they won’t pay for the app!” rather than blaming the software developers who work for Meta. It’s much easier for software devs to agree not support enshittification than it is to unite consumers behind a campaign. We have more agency, more time, and more economic power.
> It’s much easier for software devs to agree not support enshittification
Is it? Most software developers I know prefer having a job to not having a job. You don't want to implement ads? You're fired.
Blaming the users is also the wrong thing to do, of course. The blame lies squarely with Meta. And with regulators. Any communications platform that has as much market penetration as Whatsapp should be open to use by third parties, just like the telephone system.
Is it? Most software developers I know prefer having a job to not having a job. You don't want to implement ads? You're fired.
Blaming the users is also the wrong thing to do, of course. The blame lies squarely with Meta. And with regulators. Any communications platform that has as much market penetration as Whatsapp should be open to use by third parties, just like the telephone system.
> Is it? Most software developers I know prefer having a job to not having a job. You don't want to implement ads? You're fired.
You know as well as I do that Meta software developers can get jobs elsewhere. It's a choice.
You know as well as I do that Meta software developers can get jobs elsewhere. It's a choice.
Great. It's then time to drop it and move on.
Okay, but wasn't this expected ?
We all hate ads, but what did we expect ? That some rando will pay for all those server and personnel bills out of the goodness of his "heart" ? Please. I wish the culture of Silicon valley wasn't so full of bullshit that this'd have become obvious a long time back.
(For a more egregious eg. of ads, look at LINE which is all the rage in Japan. Or indeed Google, whose entire Android/Chrome business is made to subtly feed data back into its ads business).
We all hate ads, but what did we expect ? That some rando will pay for all those server and personnel bills out of the goodness of his "heart" ? Please. I wish the culture of Silicon valley wasn't so full of bullshit that this'd have become obvious a long time back.
(For a more egregious eg. of ads, look at LINE which is all the rage in Japan. Or indeed Google, whose entire Android/Chrome business is made to subtly feed data back into its ads business).
Unpopular opinion?: If they are only in the Updates tab why do ads matter? I don't know anyone who uses that tab...
WhatsApp - bye bye.
return to msn
I remember paying 0.99 for ... something ... before Whatsapp was acquired by Facebook.
Wouldn't mind doing it again.
Unfortunately now they're owned by a Silicon Valley company so I guess 0.99 is too little for them, they'll charge the price of a SV latte... how much is that? 59.99? 99.99?
Wouldn't mind doing it again.
Unfortunately now they're owned by a Silicon Valley company so I guess 0.99 is too little for them, they'll charge the price of a SV latte... how much is that? 59.99? 99.99?
[deleted]
Does anyone understand why it took them so long? I expected them to load the app full of ads right after they bought it over a decade ago. I mean, WhatsApp is the only Meta product I use and it's sortof felt like a public utility more than a ultracapitalist for-profit "if you're not paying then you're the product" type affair.
I mean, my messages are encrypted, the thing Just Works, UX is great, calls are free despite what I assume is substantial bandwidth and server cost, and so on. Why did they give this away to 2b people for 10 years? Could they really cover the all cost and then some just with those WhatsApp Business API call charges? I mean I love it but I can't say I get it. Thanks for all the freebies Mark!
I mean, my messages are encrypted, the thing Just Works, UX is great, calls are free despite what I assume is substantial bandwidth and server cost, and so on. Why did they give this away to 2b people for 10 years? Could they really cover the all cost and then some just with those WhatsApp Business API call charges? I mean I love it but I can't say I get it. Thanks for all the freebies Mark!
Alice Newton-Rex, head of product at WhatsApp: “Alongside of private messaging, people were saying they wanted to hear more about topics, teams and organizations across WhatsApp.”
- I am pretty sure NO ONE asked to hear about more topics and organizations across whatsapp.
- I am pretty sure NO ONE asked to hear about more topics and organizations across whatsapp.
Translation: After going through a far too large number of focus groups that didn't want it we finally found one that phrased a reply in such a way, that after removing context and playing Chinese whispers up the management chain, can be interpreted as them wanting ads.
Nah, it's even simpler than that: after shoving enough surveys in users' faces (as they seem to semi-regularly do across all Meta products; I've had at least 2 in WhatsApp alone over the past few months), they've collected enough misclicks and drunk responses to be able to interpret them as lots of people wanting ads.
I was playing a lot of Beat Saber in April and got a survey which asked bizzare questions like “Do I want to use VR to manage my calendar?” They went so far as to ask for times I might be available for a focus group then they ghosted me.
[deleted]
Australian?
We're one of only a few countries[1] who call the game Chinese Whispers.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game
We're one of only a few countries[1] who call the game Chinese Whispers.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game
Not the OP, but FWIW I'm British and we also called it that in the late 80s.
Don't we still call it that now?
Dunno, the people I know only played it in primary school. And I left the country in 2018.
Words can change meaning a lot in a lifetime. Not too long ago, someone here called me out for saying "transvestite", which was a surprise given one of my favourite comedians called themselves an "executive transvestite": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard)
And my mum, when her Alzheimer's was already bad but not quite bad enough she couldn't live in her own home, referred to the cupboard as a "glory hole" — I'd never been aware of meaning #9 until she used it so, "(Scotland and Northern England) A deep built-in cupboard under the eaves or stairs of a house used for general storage, particularly of unrelated or unwanted items stored in some disorder": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/glory_hole
Still, could be worse, as I found out when my grandmother used the word "Irish" in the derogatory sense: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Irish#Adjective
Words can change meaning a lot in a lifetime. Not too long ago, someone here called me out for saying "transvestite", which was a surprise given one of my favourite comedians called themselves an "executive transvestite": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard)
And my mum, when her Alzheimer's was already bad but not quite bad enough she couldn't live in her own home, referred to the cupboard as a "glory hole" — I'd never been aware of meaning #9 until she used it so, "(Scotland and Northern England) A deep built-in cupboard under the eaves or stairs of a house used for general storage, particularly of unrelated or unwanted items stored in some disorder": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/glory_hole
Still, could be worse, as I found out when my grandmother used the word "Irish" in the derogatory sense: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Irish#Adjective
It's telephone now
I'm 34 and I have never heard anyone in the UK refer to this game as "telephone" (although I'm aware that that's what Americans call it.)
Is this what the kids say now? Am I getting old?
Is this what the kids say now? Am I getting old?
As with "Chinese Fire drill" (referring to disorganised and chaotic efforts) the problem is that it's racist. Not like mid-20th century US "People who look different are the enemy" level racist, but it's still objectionable.
So we should avoid doing this, "Telephone" is a perfectly good name for this idea, and it's not racist. There are lots of small changes we can make, which make the world slightly better for everybody.
So we should avoid doing this, "Telephone" is a perfectly good name for this idea, and it's not racist. There are lots of small changes we can make, which make the world slightly better for everybody.
You've made a gross assumption about the etymology of the term. There are multiple theories about the origin, some of the racist and some of them not.
I'd literally PAY for a mod taking away the "updates" tab. I don't care about stories nor I want channels shoved in my face. I just need to message someone, from time to time.
I found the solution by convincing all my friends and family, one by one, to move to Signal. I still use Whatsapp for people who did not migrate, but it's surprisingly possible (if not easy) to convince people to use another app
Same here.
The trick is to never mention "privacy", "no ads", or anything similar (which has negative perceived value).
If you talk about that stuff, people will dilly-dally with the usual "well I already have too many apps, I'm not sure I want to install one more"
I tell people that the video calls are better (which was true in my experience, back when I still used WA). Instant install
If you talk about that stuff, people will dilly-dally with the usual "well I already have too many apps, I'm not sure I want to install one more"
I tell people that the video calls are better (which was true in my experience, back when I still used WA). Instant install
The fun fact is that those people have 100+ apps on their phones, which run in the background, draining their batteries, tracking the sh*t out of them, never actually use them (get value out of them) and they think zero about their privacy (probably use gmail or the sorts). Someone asked me to install Viber and it had 30 pages of advertisers/data brokers. I won't share a bowl of poop with them (WhatsApp, Viber, etc.) "Meet them where they are" doesn't work if they are in a pool of privacy-poop.
I don't know about iOS but a modern Android will periodically delete permissions from apps you aren't using, the app stays installed but it's now just a harmless icon and wasted storage space as I understand it.
You also have the ability to easily setup a "Work profile" that's functionally like a second user with its own apps that don't talk to your normal profile apps, and you can shut the whole work profile off when you don't need it so the apps can't even run until you turn it back on. My preferred way of setting it up is with Shelter installed via FDroid.
You are preaching to the choir here :) My point is not for "us, the techies" and privacy-oriented people. My point is clearly for the 50%-60% that think that "we are trying to take their precious WhatsApp from them" and they don't understand that their car insurance is gradually 20% more expensive than others because they keep posting photos from bars on FB.
I keep 'lean' devices, the apps that I actually use, battery lasts from days to weeks (phone, tablet respectively) and NoRoot Firewall (on Android) makes sure that my phone stays 'silent' to the apps and target IP-addresses of my choosing.
I keep 'lean' devices, the apps that I actually use, battery lasts from days to weeks (phone, tablet respectively) and NoRoot Firewall (on Android) makes sure that my phone stays 'silent' to the apps and target IP-addresses of my choosing.
I only use viber because it is the only alternative for using TrueCaller in my country (India) that I know of.
> The fun fact is that those people have 100+ apps on their phones, which run in the background, draining their batteries, tracking the sh*t out of them,
This is wildly untrue on iOS. Perhaps people have 100+ apps. But the rest, not so much.
This is wildly untrue on iOS. Perhaps people have 100+ apps. But the rest, not so much.
You're saying that having all the apps open at the same time won't drain the iPhone's battery?
Because normal people just never close apps. Are they silently shut down/paused after a while?
Because normal people just never close apps. Are they silently shut down/paused after a while?
Yes - on iOS only a few things can be done in the background but most apps are frozen eventually when the are no longer in the foreground.
> Are they silently shut down/paused after a while?
Yes. This has been the case since 2008 when the first version of iOS supporting third-party apps was released. Background refresh allows some quanta of work do be done when an app is not in the foreground, but only limited things.
Yes. This has been the case since 2008 when the first version of iOS supporting third-party apps was released. Background refresh allows some quanta of work do be done when an app is not in the foreground, but only limited things.
I moved my family over to Signal years ago.
Anyone new who wants to message me, I simply say "I'm on Signal" and if it's important enough, they go and install it; it's been fairly frictionless, after all how hard is it to download an app and go through the fairly minimal registration process; and for someone already using WhatsApp, "one more account" probably isn't a major concern.
I tried various steps in the past to retain access to WhatsApp for a couple of people who didn't move, by having a work account on my phone, with a second SIM, but a one-click mistake one time gave WhatsApp my entire contact list from the "Personal" sandbox account, and I've decided not to even bother again.
Anyone new who wants to message me, I simply say "I'm on Signal" and if it's important enough, they go and install it; it's been fairly frictionless, after all how hard is it to download an app and go through the fairly minimal registration process; and for someone already using WhatsApp, "one more account" probably isn't a major concern.
I tried various steps in the past to retain access to WhatsApp for a couple of people who didn't move, by having a work account on my phone, with a second SIM, but a one-click mistake one time gave WhatsApp my entire contact list from the "Personal" sandbox account, and I've decided not to even bother again.
> I simply say "I'm on Signal" and if it's important enough, they go and install it; it's been fairly frictionless, after all how hard is it to download an app and go through the fairly minimal registration process
Genuinely curious. I am in WhatsApp groups for my kids soccer teams (who will be there at the game, can my kid drive together with you to the match), my kids school classes (Johnny lost his headphones did anyone see them), my work teams "social chat" (happy birthday, I am at conference XYZ) etc. etc. In your situation, which of the three scenarios applies?
1 - You are not in such groups
2 - You were in such groups, and the entire group moved over to Signal
3 - You were in such groups, but the entire group did not move over to Signal and now you are not in these groups anymore
Genuinely curious. I am in WhatsApp groups for my kids soccer teams (who will be there at the game, can my kid drive together with you to the match), my kids school classes (Johnny lost his headphones did anyone see them), my work teams "social chat" (happy birthday, I am at conference XYZ) etc. etc. In your situation, which of the three scenarios applies?
1 - You are not in such groups
2 - You were in such groups, and the entire group moved over to Signal
3 - You were in such groups, but the entire group did not move over to Signal and now you are not in these groups anymore
Option 1 mostly. I think it's also worth taking into consideration one thing.
People on Signal tend to have much less volume of overall messages and groups. For someone on WhatsApp to forward you the invite is a hassle for them, sure, but it is an infinitesimal unnoticeable increment on how many in/out messages they deal with in a day.
As I mention in another thread, people will complain that they "have too many apps" if you pitch Signal as a privacy app. They would install it instantly if you told them the emojis are funnier or whatever. Because they already installed 300+ apps and one more is actually .3% increment ; whereas for your typical GrapheneOS F-droid person, adding whatsapp would be a +15% increase of apps on their homepage.
It's kind of the same with those WhatsApp groups. There will be 1,000 messages in the group this week/month. 3 of those are the actual invite you need, and if you have actual human connections with folks, someone will send you those.
People on Signal tend to have much less volume of overall messages and groups. For someone on WhatsApp to forward you the invite is a hassle for them, sure, but it is an infinitesimal unnoticeable increment on how many in/out messages they deal with in a day.
As I mention in another thread, people will complain that they "have too many apps" if you pitch Signal as a privacy app. They would install it instantly if you told them the emojis are funnier or whatever. Because they already installed 300+ apps and one more is actually .3% increment ; whereas for your typical GrapheneOS F-droid person, adding whatsapp would be a +15% increase of apps on their homepage.
It's kind of the same with those WhatsApp groups. There will be 1,000 messages in the group this week/month. 3 of those are the actual invite you need, and if you have actual human connections with folks, someone will send you those.
I've managed to go a very long time - living in both the UK and the US - using only iMessage and (as of around 2017) Signal.
I finally had to install WhatsApp on a trip recently for group coordination, but ensured it didn't get things like contact access, and removed it afterwards.
Kids school may well be an outlier (US), but they send formal communication by email (with an SMS notification or call for emergencies), and the parent group is all on iMessage.
I finally had to install WhatsApp on a trip recently for group coordination, but ensured it didn't get things like contact access, and removed it afterwards.
Kids school may well be an outlier (US), but they send formal communication by email (with an SMS notification or call for emergencies), and the parent group is all on iMessage.
It's scenario 1. My children are still young, pre-school and reception so no such groups have come up yet. The odd parent that wanted to contact me has installed Signal or sent me SMS (RCS). For anything else, my wife is still on WhatsApp so she relays messages if/when they come up.
EDIT: re: Work, my colleagues are all on Signal, we have lots of Signal groups to communicate.
EDIT: re: Work, my colleagues are all on Signal, we have lots of Signal groups to communicate.
So in a nutshell "I have someone else on WhatsApp who keeps me in the loop"
Expect this to scale, in my experience you can move your family over to another service. Groups of families your kid is somehow in contact with, not so much...
Expect this to scale, in my experience you can move your family over to another service. Groups of families your kid is somehow in contact with, not so much...
it's a challenge for sure, however, I've managed to get my extended family all on Signal which is about as much reach as I could hope/expect to achieve.
That's my household, my parents, my grandparents, my parents-in-law, my sibling(s), cousins, aunts/uncles, sibling(s)-in-law, friends, and my colleagues.
Some of my children's' friends' parents who I'm friendly enough with also began using Signal so we can communicate. Those who are school friends but not outside-of-school-friends, we can communicate with via the school's app.
Almost anyone I could want to communicate with is on Signal, all of the family is directly or indirectly because of me, and friends and colleagues has been a combination.
Anyone I don't know well enough to have a conversation about privacy and Meta being the antithesis of it, is not likely someone I need to communicate with.
All in, my wife, on WhatsApp, isn't really "keep[ing] me in the loop", unless we're messaging a trades-person or similar, but that's infrequent enough to not be an issue.
That's my household, my parents, my grandparents, my parents-in-law, my sibling(s), cousins, aunts/uncles, sibling(s)-in-law, friends, and my colleagues.
Some of my children's' friends' parents who I'm friendly enough with also began using Signal so we can communicate. Those who are school friends but not outside-of-school-friends, we can communicate with via the school's app.
Almost anyone I could want to communicate with is on Signal, all of the family is directly or indirectly because of me, and friends and colleagues has been a combination.
Anyone I don't know well enough to have a conversation about privacy and Meta being the antithesis of it, is not likely someone I need to communicate with.
All in, my wife, on WhatsApp, isn't really "keep[ing] me in the loop", unless we're messaging a trades-person or similar, but that's infrequent enough to not be an issue.
For me the "one more account" is really a problem. WhatsApp is the standard messenger in most of the EU.
And I don't want to go to signal because it's only marginally better. It's still American and still a walled garden (no third party apps allowed, no federation). It's a slightly less smelly walled garden.
And I don't want to go to signal because it's only marginally better. It's still American and still a walled garden (no third party apps allowed, no federation). It's a slightly less smelly walled garden.
I don't get this. Everyone is used to juggling between multiple apps, many of which allow to send messages. People are fine talking over Discord AND WhatsApp AND three others, but somehow "it's unbearable to add Signal". And it's not exactly "yet another app", it's pretty much a clone of WhatsApp. So if everybody moved to Signal, we could just get rid of WhatsApp. Which gets us to your second point:
> And I don't want to go to signal because it's only marginally better. It's still American and still a walled garden (no third party apps allowed, no federation). It's a slightly less smelly walled garden.
This, to me, is downright irrational. "Less smelly" is better, especially if it takes zero effort (you don't even need to create an account with a password, it just sends you an SMS).
If there was a non-American alternative to Signal, surely I would go for it. But there isn't. In the meantime, Signal is by far the best alternative to WhatsApp in terms of privacy.
Not to mention that there is actually a valid reason to not allow third party apps (spoiler: security). Last time I heard a fork of Signal making the news, it was pretty bad.
> And I don't want to go to signal because it's only marginally better. It's still American and still a walled garden (no third party apps allowed, no federation). It's a slightly less smelly walled garden.
This, to me, is downright irrational. "Less smelly" is better, especially if it takes zero effort (you don't even need to create an account with a password, it just sends you an SMS).
If there was a non-American alternative to Signal, surely I would go for it. But there isn't. In the meantime, Signal is by far the best alternative to WhatsApp in terms of privacy.
Not to mention that there is actually a valid reason to not allow third party apps (spoiler: security). Last time I heard a fork of Signal making the news, it was pretty bad.
I don't use the others you mention. Only telegram because many communities are there (it's the only chat app with good group chat functionality)
But it's exactly because I already have to deal with too many of them that I don't want to add more.
Also I don't like moxie's attitude but that's more of a personal concern that won't apply to most. Like not allowing third party clients or federation and shooting many suggestions down on github. It's his right to do that but it's also mine to not want to use it. For a "just a little bit better" experience I'm not moving to that.
I use matrix a lot and I think this is by far the best and most open option but most people don't know it. I bridge all the other apps through it now. Also, arathorn is a much nicer person who responds much better to criticism.
> If there was a non-American alternative to Signal, surely I would go for it. But there isn't. In the meantime, Signal is by far the best alternative to WhatsApp in terms of privacy.
But I wouldn't be able to actually move. It would just be yet another one. Not even much better in any way than whatsapp.
> Not to mention that there is actually a valid reason to not allow third party apps (spoiler: security). Last time I heard a fork of Signal making the news, it was pretty bad.
I don't care so much about that (and I work in cybersec). What matters more to me is being in control of my data. Being able to export them wherever I want etc.
I had an issue recently with whatsapp where they locked my account because of "spam". I wasn't spamming but they probably thought my matrix bridge was suspicious. However because of that bridge I could still access my chat data. I couldn't in whatsapp itself. Signal could do the same to me. So I would only use it bridged to Matrix anyway, like I do whatsapp.
And in terms of security: I don't believe neither WhatsApp nor Signal is good enough to prevent a state actor from reading my messages. Even if they can't get in the app they can compromise an endpoint. And even a bad third-party app will be sufficient to prevent drive-by hackers with a pineapple from reading my messages. So I don't see much difference there.
But it's exactly because I already have to deal with too many of them that I don't want to add more.
Also I don't like moxie's attitude but that's more of a personal concern that won't apply to most. Like not allowing third party clients or federation and shooting many suggestions down on github. It's his right to do that but it's also mine to not want to use it. For a "just a little bit better" experience I'm not moving to that.
I use matrix a lot and I think this is by far the best and most open option but most people don't know it. I bridge all the other apps through it now. Also, arathorn is a much nicer person who responds much better to criticism.
> If there was a non-American alternative to Signal, surely I would go for it. But there isn't. In the meantime, Signal is by far the best alternative to WhatsApp in terms of privacy.
But I wouldn't be able to actually move. It would just be yet another one. Not even much better in any way than whatsapp.
> Not to mention that there is actually a valid reason to not allow third party apps (spoiler: security). Last time I heard a fork of Signal making the news, it was pretty bad.
I don't care so much about that (and I work in cybersec). What matters more to me is being in control of my data. Being able to export them wherever I want etc.
I had an issue recently with whatsapp where they locked my account because of "spam". I wasn't spamming but they probably thought my matrix bridge was suspicious. However because of that bridge I could still access my chat data. I couldn't in whatsapp itself. Signal could do the same to me. So I would only use it bridged to Matrix anyway, like I do whatsapp.
And in terms of security: I don't believe neither WhatsApp nor Signal is good enough to prevent a state actor from reading my messages. Even if they can't get in the app they can compromise an endpoint. And even a bad third-party app will be sufficient to prevent drive-by hackers with a pineapple from reading my messages. So I don't see much difference there.
For someone who "works in cybersec", you have surprising opinions...
Like you seem to care about your messages not being entirely public ("And even a bad third-party app will be sufficient to prevent drive-by hackers with a pineapple from reading my messages") but at the same time you're fine with Telegram not being E2EE.
And then you seem to consider that a state actor being able to read the messages in transit is the same as them hacking into the phones?
And it all suggests that somehow the only reasonable threat model is "not caring about a state actor targetting oneself specifically and not caring about anything more than 'drive-by hackers with a pineapple'"?
Like you seem to care about your messages not being entirely public ("And even a bad third-party app will be sufficient to prevent drive-by hackers with a pineapple from reading my messages") but at the same time you're fine with Telegram not being E2EE.
And then you seem to consider that a state actor being able to read the messages in transit is the same as them hacking into the phones?
And it all suggests that somehow the only reasonable threat model is "not caring about a state actor targetting oneself specifically and not caring about anything more than 'drive-by hackers with a pineapple'"?
I work in cybersec, not saying I'm a good one :) I hate my job (moving into cyber was a mistake) but I'm currently staying in it for mortgage reasons. And I don't ascribe to the regular security dogma.
I think third-party signal apps are just too thin a target for anyone intermediate to bother. Signal itself hardly is. Also, most of the stuff I discuss on these is just banter and stupid memes that people send me.
I think third-party signal apps are just too thin a target for anyone intermediate to bother. Signal itself hardly is. Also, most of the stuff I discuss on these is just banter and stupid memes that people send me.
> But I wouldn't be able to actually move. It would just be yet another one.
Just don't keep a backup WhatsApp account around, because then people will use it.
I don't think that will work with the massive whatsapp userbase we have here. Literally everyone I know is on whatsapp.
It's really not worth the hassle for me especially since signal is only marginally better.
It's really not worth the hassle for me especially since signal is only marginally better.
What is "the hassle"? Do you mean the few seconds required to install Signal on your phone? Or do you mean converting all your friends to Signal?
I understand the latter, but for the former... it's probably faster to install Signal than to answer to a message on HN.
If everybody just installed Signal (because it's better, even if marginally), then eventually everybody would be on Signal and it would be easy to switch.
I understand the latter, but for the former... it's probably faster to install Signal than to answer to a message on HN.
If everybody just installed Signal (because it's better, even if marginally), then eventually everybody would be on Signal and it would be easy to switch.
I just don't believe in this signal evangelism. I'm not going to use it. Once something comes that's really open like Matrix I'll support it. RCS isn't it either as you need to be part of the mobile service provider in-crowd to run your own.
But the hassle is dealing with all these different apps and their separate notifications. I have real app fatigue lately and turn them off for mostly everything.
But the hassle is dealing with all these different apps and their separate notifications. I have real app fatigue lately and turn them off for mostly everything.
> I just don't believe in this signal evangelism.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Signal fanatic. I'm just quick at moving to better alternatives. If a better alternative than Signal gets announced in 10min, I'll be on it in 11min and I'll be telling you to try it in 12min :-).
The fact is that Signal is probably the best messaging app we have right now. I get the app fatigue, I don't get why the result of it should be to fight precisely the better alternative. "I hate that we're locked in WhatsApp, but I am actively fighting for keeping us locked in".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Signal fanatic. I'm just quick at moving to better alternatives. If a better alternative than Signal gets announced in 10min, I'll be on it in 11min and I'll be telling you to try it in 12min :-).
The fact is that Signal is probably the best messaging app we have right now. I get the app fatigue, I don't get why the result of it should be to fight precisely the better alternative. "I hate that we're locked in WhatsApp, but I am actively fighting for keeping us locked in".
This is not about Signal. This about being spread too thin. To be able to keep up with all the work projects I'm involved in, I need to use Slack, Discord, Matrix at the same time. Add WhatsApp on top of that. That's 4, but not all. Add e-mail and ordinary phone calls.
6 methods to just keep up with work. I also have at least three ways to reach required documents and meeting notes. I really don't want to jump like a platformer character from point to point to be able to communicate and get things done.
In my personal life, I prefer "1 task, 1 application" model. Communications, one application. Personal information storage? Everything in one place, etc.
Application hopping has a very big mental overhead, and kills my flow. Many colleagues are in the same boat.
It's not Signal, it's any app, account, for any reason.
6 methods to just keep up with work. I also have at least three ways to reach required documents and meeting notes. I really don't want to jump like a platformer character from point to point to be able to communicate and get things done.
In my personal life, I prefer "1 task, 1 application" model. Communications, one application. Personal information storage? Everything in one place, etc.
Application hopping has a very big mental overhead, and kills my flow. Many colleagues are in the same boat.
It's not Signal, it's any app, account, for any reason.
I don't get that. I also must use Slack, Discord, Matrix, WhatsApp and I don't see a problem in having Signal on top. When I receive a message from someone, all it takes is clicking on the notification and answering there.
To the point where sometimes I can't remember on which app I was having which discussion.
To the point where sometimes I can't remember on which app I was having which discussion.
> I need to use Slack, Discord, Matrix
Sounds like a perfect way to ghost people. “You send the update on Matrix? Oh, yeah I was stuck arguing with people in Slack all day, I must have missed it.”
Sounds like a perfect way to ghost people. “You send the update on Matrix? Oh, yeah I was stuck arguing with people in Slack all day, I must have missed it.”
Yeah that's exactly what happens. Especially because not every app allows per-user notification control on android so I just disable notifications altogether for the apps I don't use so much. I only want to be notified for the most important stuff, I don't have time to constantly tend to my phone every time someone says something. So I tend to look at it just at the end of the day.
One thing that's nice about matrix is that you can select keywords to trigger notifications. Most of the other apps don't have that. So I tell people to say PRIO or PRORITY if their message is really important, so they can force a notification. Any other messages just get looked at when I get around to it and don't notify. If they abuse the priority I simply remove their right to do that.
But none of the other apps seems to be able to do these keywords or (even better) have an option to mark a message as urgent or something.
One thing that's nice about matrix is that you can select keywords to trigger notifications. Most of the other apps don't have that. So I tell people to say PRIO or PRORITY if their message is really important, so they can force a notification. Any other messages just get looked at when I get around to it and don't notify. If they abuse the priority I simply remove their right to do that.
But none of the other apps seems to be able to do these keywords or (even better) have an option to mark a message as urgent or something.
I disagree wholeheartedly that it's "only marginally better". It's not Meta, and that's a huge improvement.
A European alternative would be excellent (I'm in the UK), but no such thing exists, that said, Signal's server and clients are open-source and can be self-hosted, or even deployed at scale by a European government/entity if they so wish.
I work in the "secure comms" space, and I have reviewed every line of code in the open-source server (as of the revision I last worked on), and built products on it, and though I can't prove they run the same code they publish, I'm "happy enough" with what I see that I'd use it over anything owned by Meta any day.
In an ideal world, I'd host it myself for everyone I communicate with to use, but without federation that's not a possibility, so given a choice between Signal and WhatsApp, the decision is hands-down Signal.
A European alternative would be excellent (I'm in the UK), but no such thing exists, that said, Signal's server and clients are open-source and can be self-hosted, or even deployed at scale by a European government/entity if they so wish.
I work in the "secure comms" space, and I have reviewed every line of code in the open-source server (as of the revision I last worked on), and built products on it, and though I can't prove they run the same code they publish, I'm "happy enough" with what I see that I'd use it over anything owned by Meta any day.
In an ideal world, I'd host it myself for everyone I communicate with to use, but without federation that's not a possibility, so given a choice between Signal and WhatsApp, the decision is hands-down Signal.
> In an ideal world, I'd host it myself for everyone I communicate with to use, but without federation that's not a possibility, so given a choice between Signal and WhatsApp, the decision is hands-down Signal.
If that's the only choice, maybe yes. Though the installed base of whatsapp is so big I could not leave it right now anyway. So Signal would only be extra.
But for me to voluntarily promote an app it has to be a lot more open than Signal. Even if other people around me start using it I'll probably be the last to move.
If that's the only choice, maybe yes. Though the installed base of whatsapp is so big I could not leave it right now anyway. So Signal would only be extra.
But for me to voluntarily promote an app it has to be a lot more open than Signal. Even if other people around me start using it I'll probably be the last to move.
That's amazing, I'm still trying to move our family group chat to Signal... I've moved exact zero family members.
I was pleasantly surprised one evening, out with friends, as for some reason the entire group decided they ought to mutually verify on Signal. I'm not certain that "Very drunk people" are the best possible to perform the verification step in Signal, but it's certainly true that you'd have to be a very determined and skilled imposter to show up to somebody's birthday, drink and smoke for several hours in that company and then go through this elaborate verification ritual.
Over time such verification "decays". People buy a new phone, that sort of thing, but it was a healthy boost in one inexplicable moment.
Over time such verification "decays". People buy a new phone, that sort of thing, but it was a healthy boost in one inexplicable moment.
Is there no way to transfer verification in Signal when changing devices?
The fact that this didn’t work seamlessly for my chat history is why I stopped using Signal
Are you still on WhatsApp? If yes, then that's the reason. Trying to move a whole group over when you're willing to compromise is a recipe for failure because everybody would get inconvenienced for something that's only somewhat important to you.
It's like: should we all go to a vegan restaurant instead of the usual steakhouse because you decided you want to "try" being vegan this Friday night, of all nights. Just try it out another day and let us have our fun, Fred.
If you were not on WhatsApp at all, then it becomes a balance of : tiny per-person inconvenience versus 100% clear-cut decision on your part. Oh you've converted to whatever religion and can't have pork anymore? Now we have a choice between not inviting you at all, or trying the restaurant next door.
It's like: should we all go to a vegan restaurant instead of the usual steakhouse because you decided you want to "try" being vegan this Friday night, of all nights. Just try it out another day and let us have our fun, Fred.
If you were not on WhatsApp at all, then it becomes a balance of : tiny per-person inconvenience versus 100% clear-cut decision on your part. Oh you've converted to whatever religion and can't have pork anymore? Now we have a choice between not inviting you at all, or trying the restaurant next door.
> Are you still on WhatsApp?
That would actually be marginally better. No everyone is on f-ing Snapchat. I'm in Denmark, which like the US is pretty big on iMessage, so originally we where using that. Then my sister got an Android phone, and the group chat obviously broken, because no RCS back then.
Everyone has SMS, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger and Instagram (except me for Meta products). So no one is really keen on adding a fifth app, where for me it would remove Snapchat, bringing me down to just SMS and Signal.
That would actually be marginally better. No everyone is on f-ing Snapchat. I'm in Denmark, which like the US is pretty big on iMessage, so originally we where using that. Then my sister got an Android phone, and the group chat obviously broken, because no RCS back then.
Everyone has SMS, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger and Instagram (except me for Meta products). So no one is really keen on adding a fifth app, where for me it would remove Snapchat, bringing me down to just SMS and Signal.
If only signal had a proper (electron is not proper) desktop client…
I mean, I try every now and then to get someone to write me on Signal, because they won't find me on Whatsapp, but even once close friends don't seem to find it necessary and continue to use Whatsapp. Guess I am not important enough in their life. Others are a little misinformed, they think using Signal is just a German thing, but are willing to try. Others have their entrenched messenger being Whatsapp and they will take that to their grave with them, before they try anything else for a person they don't know well yet.
With some people it worked though and we are using Signal for some time now. Maybe it is too much to expect a 100% success rate for switching.
With some people it worked though and we are using Signal for some time now. Maybe it is too much to expect a 100% success rate for switching.
Well you're in luck because it's in the GreaseMilkyway filters out of the box:
https://github.com/kasnder/GreaseMilkyway/blob/main/app/src/...
Thankfully it’s not intrusive - you can pretty much ignore the bottom menu and have adfree chat, I’ve been doing it for years.
The moment they start placing calls to action and distraction in that view is the moment people will move - telegram is a drop in replacement with more features, I won’t argue it’s the ideal choice but at least it keeps meta on their toes as a potential competitor.
The moment they start placing calls to action and distraction in that view is the moment people will move - telegram is a drop in replacement with more features, I won’t argue it’s the ideal choice but at least it keeps meta on their toes as a potential competitor.
Telegram introduced ads in 2021.
I know. My point is that they act as a bottom for how much WhatsApp can be enshittified. Once they go below there’s not a lot of friction against switching.
Exactly. I just never open that tab
You'll love Telegram, then.
And I fully expected to be contradicted by people telling me that they can't live without WhatApp because their contacts use it. I've never installed WhatsApp and my contacts can either contact me on any non-spyware app they choose, or by SMS. It actually works, telling people that you don't have WhatsApp.
And I fully expected to be contradicted by people telling me that they can't live without WhatApp because their contacts use it. I've never installed WhatsApp and my contacts can either contact me on any non-spyware app they choose, or by SMS. It actually works, telling people that you don't have WhatsApp.
I actually love and use Telegram (even if it's slowly enshittifying as well) and most of my IM is done on Telegram. Like it or not, UX is way ahead of Signal.
But I have a bunch of close (to hearth) and very far (geographically) friends who arent techies and who couldn't care less about ads or privacy related stuff. So, Whatsapp is unfortunately still needed.
But I have a bunch of close (to hearth) and very far (geographically) friends who arent techies and who couldn't care less about ads or privacy related stuff. So, Whatsapp is unfortunately still needed.
"People"->Management and C-suits.
How do one cope on a day to day basis with this level of blatant bullshittery, apart from justifying it with a golden salary?
Is this person aware that her role is to enact a farce, or even engineer such farce?
(And, to begin with, the whole notion of them having to/having had to focus-group these decisions - so as to, perhaps - give them a "veneer" of grassroots pseudo-democracy is preposterous.-
Why don't they just come out and say "because, profit!" or some good ol' fashioned BS about "value-creation" or some other American thing like that ...)
Why don't they just come out and say "because, profit!" or some good ol' fashioned BS about "value-creation" or some other American thing like that ...)
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
It's either "if you can't beat them join them" or "kill it with fire".
lynx97(2)
Pay for services that you use instead of forcing companies to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service?
I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it
I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it
> forcing them to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service?
Corporate advocates love to whine about cost yet seem to be blind to the context of the situation.
Meta captures enough of the entire global spend on ad revenue to be considered the biggest player in ads, yet we should spare sympathy for the poor servers of whatsapp - famously optimised to scale to 1B users with 50 engineers - which are now compelled to resort to inserting ads in order to cover the costs to run operations and keep the lights on.
These users just don't want to pay for anything, shame on them for using free services subsidised by massive corporations that undercut the market with the explicit aim of expanding the audience and clawing it back later. It's not Meta / Whatsapp's fault that they're exploiting this situation they've shrewdly developed over years, it's the individual moral failing of each user of the service.
Meanwhile ragebait / propaganda / angry racist uncle news is free on Facebook and shared in various forms, and meaningful news + journalism is locked behind various paywalls and other costs. Why won't these people just pay???
Corporate advocates love to whine about cost yet seem to be blind to the context of the situation.
Meta captures enough of the entire global spend on ad revenue to be considered the biggest player in ads, yet we should spare sympathy for the poor servers of whatsapp - famously optimised to scale to 1B users with 50 engineers - which are now compelled to resort to inserting ads in order to cover the costs to run operations and keep the lights on.
These users just don't want to pay for anything, shame on them for using free services subsidised by massive corporations that undercut the market with the explicit aim of expanding the audience and clawing it back later. It's not Meta / Whatsapp's fault that they're exploiting this situation they've shrewdly developed over years, it's the individual moral failing of each user of the service.
Meanwhile ragebait / propaganda / angry racist uncle news is free on Facebook and shared in various forms, and meaningful news + journalism is locked behind various paywalls and other costs. Why won't these people just pay???
Oh my God, thank you SO MUCH for this comment.
I remember when it was 1€/year. Absolutely totally worth it! And I'd gladly pay again if they would only let me!
It felt a little weird that they didn't differentiated pricing. Charging 1€ is adds a little to much overhead per transaction, and maybe not everyone has a credit card. It seems to me that an alternative would be to charge e.g. 5, 10 maybe even 20€ per year in western countries, then step the amount down depending on the economy in each region, bottoming out at e.g. 5€. Then just let the app be free in the rest of the world.
That way a user in Europe could "subsidize" 4-10 users in the developing world. Maybe that's a little to social democratic for a corporation.
That way a user in Europe could "subsidize" 4-10 users in the developing world. Maybe that's a little to social democratic for a corporation.
[deleted]
They will make so much more than 1€/year/user with (y)our data.
This fails to account for network effects, where most people are already using a specific messaging app and people are unable to migrate elsewhere without sacrificing a ton of contacts. Even if someone is willing to pay, that won't magically transfer over their contacts.
In order to truly solve this problem there has to be some kind of federation and cross-platform standards so that alternatives are able to rise up and compete with big tech.
In order to truly solve this problem there has to be some kind of federation and cross-platform standards so that alternatives are able to rise up and compete with big tech.
at the beginning, they "charged" $1 (or £3 as you said), but this "fee" was often just waived. You never really had to pay it to use whatsapp. The money was there as a form of advertising, to differentiate whatsapp from the others - because by making it seem more premium via attaching a price, it makes the people using it feel more superior and thus the platform more easily propagates; and it's also why they "secretly" let you use it for free if you refused to pay.
FWIW, £3 is closer to $4.
Nah. I only use WhatsApp because friends and acquaintances of mine use it. I have NEVER had the need to send a video, nor a photo to anyone. I would be totally happy using iMessage or even SMS. The ONLY reason I have WhatsApp installed is peer pressure. No need for any of its features. No need to pay for it either.
Agreed, iMessage and SMS are both free, so why would I pay for WhatsApp again? With RCS starting to work better, I don't really see a need for 3rd. party messaging apps. I do like Signal, but honestly I don't have a need for it.
SMS is definitely not free. You may have a bundle that includes X (or unlimited) amount of SMS, but there are plenty of subscriptions out there (maybe not in the US) that charge by the SMS, or come with bundles of only having, say, 50 free SMS per month.
In all fairness, no one uses SMS, and no one uses iMessage (outside of the US maybe?).
WhatsApp is omnipresent in Singapore. For example, every business, every support channel, every delivery company uses WhatsApp. WhatsApp QR codes are everywhere (similar to QQ/wechat in CN).
Most iPhone users I know in Singapore never even set up their iMessage (which is also only available on iOS and is a total pain to get to work if you're dabbling in various sim cards, as is very common in SEA). So yes, there's a very good reason WhatsApp is very popular in some parts of the world (similar to BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) until quite recently in Indonesia). It's become too big to fail and took over a very very big portion of (private/business) communication in many parts of the world. And it 100% needs more regulation.
In all fairness, no one uses SMS, and no one uses iMessage (outside of the US maybe?).
WhatsApp is omnipresent in Singapore. For example, every business, every support channel, every delivery company uses WhatsApp. WhatsApp QR codes are everywhere (similar to QQ/wechat in CN).
Most iPhone users I know in Singapore never even set up their iMessage (which is also only available on iOS and is a total pain to get to work if you're dabbling in various sim cards, as is very common in SEA). So yes, there's a very good reason WhatsApp is very popular in some parts of the world (similar to BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) until quite recently in Indonesia). It's become too big to fail and took over a very very big portion of (private/business) communication in many parts of the world. And it 100% needs more regulation.
It's obviously very area specific. The only difference in the subscriptions I have available is the amount of data included. They all have unlimited SMS and calls, it's been that way for years.
I do get that I'm probably in one of the few areas outside the US where iMessage is pretty big, but even then SMS (probably RCS now) is how you communicate with Android users.
It also doesn't chance the fact that it make no sense for me to pay for e.g. WhatsApp, when I have the SMS available at no additional cost.
I do get that I'm probably in one of the few areas outside the US where iMessage is pretty big, but even then SMS (probably RCS now) is how you communicate with Android users.
It also doesn't chance the fact that it make no sense for me to pay for e.g. WhatsApp, when I have the SMS available at no additional cost.
Not like whatsapp works decently if you have 2 sim cards… you can use 1 phone number per phone and the other one is just ignored.
Fair enough, but it keeps working with your (old) sim. iMessage deregisters every time, and it stops working for me. And you have to head back in settings and register again.
I've found the process to be very buggy and rarely works.
I've found the process to be very buggy and rarely works.
in a lot of countries not called America / Western Europe SMS costs are high. Hence why Whatsapp took off.
Even phone calls there's nothing called unlimited mins / unlimted sms everything is metered - off-net / on-net data sold by bundles etc
with some carriers you can even buy whatsapp "bundle" where you can access whatsapp but not regular data
I guess it feels worth it if you actually like it.
I've always hated WhatsApp but use it due to network effect: in my country you pretty much can't have a normal social life without it (and even things like customer service often use it as well).
When they started threatening with charging money, it felt like a punch to the gut. So I'm using this product I hate because I'm pretty much forced, as I'd rather be using Telegram or various others that I strongly prefer, and now that they've captured entire societies and communities with their free app, they're going to make ME pay?
My feeling is that capitalism is just not a good model for messaging apps with network effects. Regulation is sorely needed, at the very least for interoperability (like the phone network), and maybe more.
I've always hated WhatsApp but use it due to network effect: in my country you pretty much can't have a normal social life without it (and even things like customer service often use it as well).
When they started threatening with charging money, it felt like a punch to the gut. So I'm using this product I hate because I'm pretty much forced, as I'd rather be using Telegram or various others that I strongly prefer, and now that they've captured entire societies and communities with their free app, they're going to make ME pay?
My feeling is that capitalism is just not a good model for messaging apps with network effects. Regulation is sorely needed, at the very least for interoperability (like the phone network), and maybe more.
I think your chronology is wrong.
It is extremely unlikely that you used WhatsApp "before they started threatening with charging money" but would have preferred Telegram at the time.
Why?
1. Because WhatsApp was a paid app from the beginning ($0.99 after the first year of using it)
2. Because WhatsApp was bought by FB in early 2014, who made it free.
3. Because Telegram was founded in late 2013
It is extremely unlikely that you used WhatsApp "before they started threatening with charging money" but would have preferred Telegram at the time.
Why?
1. Because WhatsApp was a paid app from the beginning ($0.99 after the first year of using it)
2. Because WhatsApp was bought by FB in early 2014, who made it free.
3. Because Telegram was founded in late 2013
I have bad memory in general, but of this in particular, I'm very sure. Because I remember that some people actually switched to Telegram upon receiving the message saying they had to pay before some deadline or they would lose access to WhatsApp, and I thought "at least this is a silver lining, some people are switching to Telegram".
I also distinctly remember that I didn't pay by the deadline (although I planned to cave in later) but finally the threat didn't materialize and I didn't lose access (or maybe I did, but for a day or two). Some people did pay and didn't get any advantage over those of us who didn't.
This was in Spain, so maybe the issue is that the specifics vary per country. In particular, I think your point 1 wasn't really true here. WhatsApp monopolized messaging (including even elderly population) because it was free. You wouldn't convince most people here (and especially the elderly) to pay for an app, it would be dead on arrival. Perhaps the charge after the first year you mention was somewhere in the official small print, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure everyone was using it under the assumption that it was free. They only tried charging a fee that single time I'm mentioning, and they backtracked fast.
I also distinctly remember that I didn't pay by the deadline (although I planned to cave in later) but finally the threat didn't materialize and I didn't lose access (or maybe I did, but for a day or two). Some people did pay and didn't get any advantage over those of us who didn't.
This was in Spain, so maybe the issue is that the specifics vary per country. In particular, I think your point 1 wasn't really true here. WhatsApp monopolized messaging (including even elderly population) because it was free. You wouldn't convince most people here (and especially the elderly) to pay for an app, it would be dead on arrival. Perhaps the charge after the first year you mention was somewhere in the official small print, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure everyone was using it under the assumption that it was free. They only tried charging a fee that single time I'm mentioning, and they backtracked fast.
It's definitely not unlikely because I very clearly remember WhatsApp being a paid app from the beginning, but I also remember no one actually having to pay for it. Couldn't tell you how exactly it worked but I've used it since I was a kid to talk to my friends and family, while we didn't even know how to do online payments.
While I definitely oppose ads in WhatsApp, I do know several people who use WhatsApp as a tool to get news, know what's going on in their town and/or community (sports club, etc), among other things. It's their way of being in the know, their reddit, RSS feed, news client, etc.
I am sure that no one asked for ads and that people will get very little value out of having ads shown to them. Also, no one went around "asking for ads". Nonetheless, I am also pretty positive many people do want to “hear more about topics and organizations across WhatsApp". In fact, until a year ago I wasn't really aware of just how much people live in these WhatsApp islands/bubbles, but clearly they do!
It's the usual Facebook trick: run an AB test with and without ads, observe CTR and sales without too much drop off on one side and conclude that "everyone is better off with ads" (without really trying to filter out bot traffic)
They had Sir Humphrey Appleby run a poll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks
TBH the product team in whatsapp needs to find some way to be meaningful. What could justify being a head of product or product manager in a chat app? New emojis? Gif support? New backgrounds? No, let's just make whatsapp like instagram. She's going to get a promotion now or move on to some new business as chief product officer.
No offence to the product team, i know that this is how it works in tech. It's the same for engineering and design teams in every single b2b/b2c business. There is no concept of feature completeness anymore, every single service has to copy from others or be something instead of 10 other services.
No offence to the product team, i know that this is how it works in tech. It's the same for engineering and design teams in every single b2b/b2c business. There is no concept of feature completeness anymore, every single service has to copy from others or be something instead of 10 other services.
I did appreciate the ads on Facebook circa 2010. They were often for niche products I had not heard of and were genuinely interested in. I can't say it's like that anymore, sadly, but I can imagine someone genuinely appreciating exposure to something new.
From TFA:
"Meta’s ad business is “in as strong a position now as it’s ever been,” said Brian Wieser, an analyst and founder of the consulting firm Madison and Wall. The company’s share of the global digital ad business is around 15 percent, he said. Last year, almost all of Meta’s $164 billion in revenue came from advertising."
TL;dr: Advertising business injects more advertising.
"Meta’s ad business is “in as strong a position now as it’s ever been,” said Brian Wieser, an analyst and founder of the consulting firm Madison and Wall. The company’s share of the global digital ad business is around 15 percent, he said. Last year, almost all of Meta’s $164 billion in revenue came from advertising."
TL;dr: Advertising business injects more advertising.
People = upper management in this case. They are people too (at least until they get automated away by some LLaMA in the future).
She didn't mean "users", she meant "people at her work".
these guys don’t use their own product. everyone i know uses only 2 things: direct message and group chats.
everything else is just noise.
everything else is just noise.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How long before they make it into a Slack/Teams competitor?
I've never seen ads in slack?
Because you probably (or more likely your employer) pay Slack.
The free version doesn’t show ads. Come on.
The free version is a loss leader to build mindshare amongst people who are (later) in a position to buy licenses.
They do try to upsell you hard though... 1st party ads are still ads
How is that an ad? You get limited set of features for free, if you want to use other features, they tell you it's only available in paid version.
They advertise in the sidebar, offer discounts for the first month, occasional free trials of Pro features. You don’t have to try to use a Pro feature to get the sales pitch.
>Alongside of private messaging, people were saying they wanted to hear more about topics, teams and organizations across WhatsApp.”
That was in response to this.
That was in response to this.
Just another reason iMessage is coming out on top.
iMessage is successful because it is designed to reward other iMessage users and punish those who dare not use an iPhone. It's social engineering in the pursuit of profit by the overwhelming market leader (in the US) and it's working really, really well.
imessage is irrelevant outside of the US.
That literally means nothing when it comes to determining which is the better platform.
Imessage is a platform also owned by big tech, and the primary motivation and goal of Apple is to keep users locked in to their own ecosystem.
As a a result, imessage doesnt support any other mobile platforms properly, and even discriminates against users that dont have an iphone. The world outside of the US doesnt have 80% iphone penetration.
How you can say that imessage is any “better” is a complete mystery to me.
Both apps (whatsapp and imessage) are just here to serve their big tech overlords in their own bigger picture.
As a a result, imessage doesnt support any other mobile platforms properly, and even discriminates against users that dont have an iphone. The world outside of the US doesnt have 80% iphone penetration.
How you can say that imessage is any “better” is a complete mystery to me.
Both apps (whatsapp and imessage) are just here to serve their big tech overlords in their own bigger picture.
> How you can say that imessage is any “better” is a complete mystery to me.
We’re literally in a thread about being served ads in WhatsApp.
We’re literally in a thread about being served ads in WhatsApp.
They are both not a good solution to good, secure, ubiquitious and “free” messaging.
Yes let’s keep moving the goal post.
Brian Acton must be rolling in his grave
...oh wait
...oh wait
I was wondering why it took so long for the enshittification to commence in earnest. It already slowly started, with various social media features nobody asked for, but now it is official: whatsapp is dead.
Especially given that Trump already helped so many people move away from Meta, I see the whatsapp monopoly coming to an end pretty soon.
Especially given that Trump already helped so many people move away from Meta, I see the whatsapp monopoly coming to an end pretty soon.
Enshittification.
And the enshitification continues...
I got 99 problems, WhatsApp aint one.
This post was no.5 on hacker news, minutes later I’m surprised it is now somewhere around 67.
This seems like a good time to mention that FreeFollow.org is looking for private beta testers for our app that combines the pub/sub model and slick UX of social media (posts, comments, following) with the economic model of webhosting (pay to host a group, not to participate in them) and the E2EE design of 1Password (but using OPAQUE which is actually the protocol used by WhatsApp, rather than SRP).
Our initial use case -- why we're building this -- is parents who are currently using text groups in Apple Messages or WhatsApp to share photos/videos of their kiddos with friends/family and want something less interruptive and more casual, but for whom social media is so toxic and untrusted as to be a non-starter.
Our initial use case -- why we're building this -- is parents who are currently using text groups in Apple Messages or WhatsApp to share photos/videos of their kiddos with friends/family and want something less interruptive and more casual, but for whom social media is so toxic and untrusted as to be a non-starter.