Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 372 posts

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#81

Post by projectramo »

justaguyhere wrote: post #74
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

I am not a fan of his, but is the situation going change unless people are willing to pay for these services? Most people wouldn't even pay for something as useful/important as email, let alone social networking (I can never understand the need for something like Facebook)

Yes, someone should make a messaging app with end-to-end encryption that costs $1/year. I think it would do well.

edit: this is supposed to be a WhatsApp joke.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#82

Post by cm2012 »

rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Facebook ads genuinely add value though. 78% of randomly polled US consumers discovered a new product that interested them on Facebook: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/internettrendsreport2018-180... (From Mary Meeker's 2018 report).

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#83

Post by swsieber »

cm2012 wrote: post #82
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Facebook ads genuinely add value though. 78% of randomly polled US consumers discovered a new product that interested them on Facebook: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/internettrendsreport2018-180... (From Mary Meeker's 2018 report).

But how much value do they also take away? My bet is that they are a net drain.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#84

Post by Yetanfou »

justaguyhere wrote: post #74
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

I am not a fan of his, but is the situation going change unless people are willing to pay for these services? Most people wouldn't even pay for something as useful/important as email, let alone social networking (I can never understand the need for something like Facebook)

People pay for internet access. They can hang something at the end of their internet access pipe which supplies them with these services at their own cost (electricity and hardware, mostly when using free software). So yes, it is possible to envision a future where this situation has changed for the better.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#85

Post by Djvacto »

Angostura wrote: post #62
Djvacto wrote: post #9

So, I use WhatsApp as my primary source of communication. Knowing facebook owned it always made me a little nervous, but given that it was end-to-end encrypted, I figured Facebook wasn't getting any more from me then they would from all my facebook-using-friends who would send me SMS's before. But I'm worried about how long I can continue to use the service moving forward, which is sad as this is my main way to commu…

Surely they’re getting a lot more info. Whatsapp demand complete access to your Contacts to work properly. So they know your full name and address, your bank, the names addresses and perhaps jobs of your friends and colleagues etc.

How do they get bank?

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#87

Post by alokrai »

mycorrhizal wrote: post #72
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much yo…

WhatsApp had a subscriber model (99 cents per year). It was still very successful in India, a relatively poor country. I remember visiting villages in India, where people who are quite poor by western standards, still preferred using WhatsApp to other services.

I think that reasonably priced subscription model, perhaps taking in account the per capita income of the country, could help preserve privacy while also ensuring mass access to technologies.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#88

Post by chmars »

projectramo wrote: post #81
justaguyhere wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a fan of his, but is the situation going change unless people are willing to pay for these services? Most people wouldn't even pay for something as useful/important as email, let alone social networking (I can never understand the need for something like Facebook)

Yes, someone should make a messaging app with end-to-end encryption that costs $1/year. I think it would do well. edit: this is supposed to be a WhatsApp joke.

It’s called Threema:

https://threema.ch/en

(Signal is free, though, and Open Source …)

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#89

Post by ChuckMcM »

mycorrhizal wrote: post #72
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much yo…

In the past the function of the "phone company" was a paid for service which provided for your communication needs. You didn't have to listen to ads before you could talk to your friends but you did occasionally get unwanted calls.

This medium reached people rich and poor, all around the world.

The challenge here is greed.

One of the interesting topics in economics is the ability to subvert the supply-demand curve by extracting economic value without the participants awareness. In classical economics the equilibrium point is met when the buyer thinks they are paying too much and the seller thinks they are getting to little for a good or service. In the idealized experiment the buyer doesn't have any other choice, nor does the seller have any other customer to turn to.

But in our internet connected world there is an "invisible" (to the buyer) stream of value which is personal information about the buyer. To date there hasn't been a good way for the buyer to see or negotiate that value. GPDR helps that but it doesn't go far enough in some ways.

What GPDR doesn't supply (yet?) is the practical way of enforcing the theft of personally identifiable information for financial gain. So in your example of a hybrid ad model, if you 'opt out' and now pay a fee, how do you know that they aren't still just selling your data? And if they are selling your data to get extra value out of you being a customer, what recourse do you have when you discover it? What risk are they taking by pursuing that path and maximizing their revenue?

EDIT: From the article -- At the time of the sale, WhatsApp was profitable with fee revenue, although it is unclear by how much. (99 cents per year)

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#90

Post by hkmurakami »

mrlatinos wrote: post #21
valeg wrote: post #10

The clash of cultures... I prefer WhatsApp's one though.

Yup, peace and quiet with privacy in mind. Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand.

they're paid to not understand it.
Post reply on HN