21–30 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They lost something close to $138MM the year before Facebook purchased them. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/2014/10/28/faceboo...
I'm a philistine, can someone explain how they paid their engineers when they lost SO much money?
Why do we adhere to the assumption that number of users is the ultimate metric of software success? I would like to hear from devs who aren't interested in expanding for the sake of expanding, who still consider their apps to be very successful.
It's super easy to focus on a single metric (user growth) when you have a seemingly unlimited amount of capital and have no immediate pressure to turn _any_ revenue/profit. This article does a massive disservice to those who are not as fortunate who will inevitably be lead into failure. Note, this should not discredit the more interesting and glorified aspects of WhatsApp (strong leadership, technical aptitude, tech…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you serious? Everyone and their grandma in India uses WhatsApp. It's so pervasive that it's almost like the only means of communication for people with smartphone and internet access.
Whatsapp is no 1 market share in every country. If not no 1, only lost from wechat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seemingly unlimited amount of capital Did they burn through lots of money? > no immediate pressure to turn _any_ revenue/profit Didn't some people pay for it?
They didn't burn through lots of money at all based on facebook financials. And they charge $1/month for the app (although I don't think on all platforms). I don't recall if it was + or -, but their "profitability" was less than $10 million in either direction so they weren't making or losing a ton.
Which is cool in itself. What is deeply regrettable is the fact that they ended up selling to Facebook and thereby contributing to Facebook's aggressive and relentless mass surveillance system.
I wonder if they also cut themselves a raw deal in selling. They could have built a whole platform on top of WhatsApp without any innovation more subtle than copying WeChat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't burn through lots of money at all based on facebook financials. And they charge $1/month for the app (although I don't think on all platforms). I don't recall if it was + or -, but their "profitability" was less than $10 million in either direction so they weren't making or losing a ton.
I've used WhatsApp for years and have never been charged a dime.
https://blog.whatsapp.com/615/Making-WhatsApp-free-and-more-...
Why do we adhere to the assumption that number of users is the ultimate metric of software success? I would like to hear from devs who aren't interested in expanding for the sake of expanding, who still consider their apps to be very successful.
For a messenging app, with classic network effects, it’s a very relevant metric.
It's super easy to focus on a single metric (user growth) when you have a seemingly unlimited amount of capital and have no immediate pressure to turn _any_ revenue/profit. This article does a massive disservice to those who are not as fortunate who will inevitably be lead into failure. Note, this should not discredit the more interesting and glorified aspects of WhatsApp (strong leadership, technical aptitude, tech…
Where are you getting this from? Whatsapp was a very lean shop _because_ they had very little capital to work with. Even after Sequoia came along, they sailed a tight ship.
I think i see a pattern: WhatsApp: circumvent cellphone texting charges Airbnb: circumvent hotel laws Uber: circumvent taxi laws Amazon: circumvent state taxes Facebook: circumvent people's anonymity online Google: circumvent copyrights (take people's content slap on ads)