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

161–170 of 372 posts

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

#161

Post by mevile »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #136
mrlatinos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

" Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand" It's the part where What's App doesn't actually make any money and as a standalone business isn't worth a whole lot. The issue boils down to business model. It's really easy for WhatsApp founders to take the moral high road when he doesn't have to bother with trying to make a dime. The WhatsApp founder is in somewhat of a hypocritical position given that his $17 Bi…

Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp. He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars when he realized how fundamentally he disagreed with how facebook works. Prior to WhatsApp the founders had very little money.

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

#162

Post by ben_w »

satsuma wrote: post #145
chime wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend FB on this but I can see them doing this defensively. I've seen doctors offices using FB to keep patients updated with their activities (free 'Healthy Eating' seminar), which has unintentionally been used to sent messages like 'Hey Doc needs to reschedule your colonoscopy appointment'. I'm sure FB doesn't want to get involved with indirect HIPAA violations, even if the fault lies elsewhere.

wouldn't using facebook be a hipaa violation in and of itself? doesn't information like that need to be contained to pre-approved, secure methods?

IANAL, but there is a legal concept of ‘Joint And Several Liability’ — it might be the case that Facebook and the doctor were in violation.

Or it might have been just the doctor until someone complained and from that point on just the fact that Facebook knew about it might make them suddenly and automatically liable for further bad behaviour.

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

#163

Post by pitt1980 »

pvg wrote: post #113

This is one of the weirdly recurring founder stories of 'after you sold something for good money, you don't get to tell the buyer what to do with it'.

Depends on the terms of the sale, maybe 'if you want to tell the buyer what to do with it, get that in writing, and expect the sale price to reflect term you've added, and to maybe kill the deal altogether'

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

#164

Post by ChuckMcM »

jshen wrote: post #127
ChuckMcM wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t know how old you are, but phone calls were really expensive in the decades before 2000. It’s not something low income people could afford to do very often.

I expect this depends a lot on where you were living in the decades before 2000 and what you mean by "phone calls".

In much of the US, in the 70's, 80's, and 90's a telephone had a fixed monthly fee and 'free' calling to any other phone in the local area. Phone penetration was over 90%[1] in 1970 and rose to over 95% by 1980 suggesting that even those at 50% below the poverty line in 1980 (roughly 6% of the US population) had access to a telephone.

So for many living in the US they have probably experienced being able to talk with all of their friends for "free" as long as they want, and if they were old enough arguing with siblings about who got to use the phone longest.

Further, in the "current" epoch, the article suggested that WhatsApp was profitable at 99 cents per year when it was acquired. I would not be surprised if that it is still the case that such a messaging service does not require advertising revenue to be cash flow positive. It just needs enough subscribers.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/189959/housing-units-wit...

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

#165

Post by sonnyblarney »

mevile wrote: post #161
sonnyblarney wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand" It's the part where What's App doesn't actually make any money and as a standalone business isn't worth a whole lot. The issue boils down to business model. It's really easy for WhatsApp founders to take the moral high road when he doesn't have to bother with trying to make a dime. The WhatsApp founder is in somewhat of a hypocritical position given that his $17 Bi…

Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp. He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars when he realized how fundamentally he disagreed with how facebook works. Prior to WhatsApp the founders had very little money.

"Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp."

If you've worked in the mobile app business you might get that this could mean almost 0 in revenues.

People. Don't. Pay. For. Stuff.

Moreover, WhatsApp is huge in places like S. America where people don't have credit cards, or for whom $1 is even too much.

"He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars"

He took $17 Billion and is now publicly complaining that what FB is doing is immoral. He doesn't seem to have a problem taking money from that immoral business model.

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

#166

Post by majidazimi »

alokrai wrote: post #87
mycorrhizal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ensu…

The problem is greedy attitude of people. As long as one can earn more by selling user information, there is no incentive for reasonably priced subscription model.

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

#167

Post by Kalium »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #89
mycorrhizal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right! The phone model of pay-for-use has made telecommunications available all over the world to all kinds of people.

Yet, it might be worth contemplating a few details about that. First, it took decades to do so. During almost all of that period, phone use was very expensive for most people, making it something reserved for the rich. It's taken from 1876 to today for almost the entire world to have phone service.

Second, expansion of phone services was often controlled and directed by monopolistic companies. They invariably acted in incredibly greedy ways and had no compunctions about abusing their position(s). Extortionate long distance rates, asserting that only company-owned systems could touch the networks, and more were normal.

I understand why you view phone access as a good model, fundamentally different from an ad-based or subscriber-based model. Yet, it's possible that this approach historically had some rather significant drawbacks that might be worth contemplating.

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

#169

Post by ironjunkie »

That whole sentence where the WhatsApp guys have bigger desks and toilets than the Facebook guys.

Really feels like it is coming straight from a dystopian future, where the workers are kept happy with little candies, and the promise to work for a better world, while also policing each others to see who got it better next door, while the big bosses are in their towers planning their next move.

If you don't feel like a "sheep" or "token" after realizing that you are fighting over the size of a toilet or a desk, then you are deep deep into it.

Post reply on HN