Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by ameister14 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #165

mevile wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Bi…

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

It could, but it didn't. It meant revenues in the tens of millions.

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

#212

Post by genofon » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

oregontechninja wrote: post #201

genofon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! The worst for me was a couple of days ago, I started playing a video, I changed tab and the video stopped! I came back and it started again. I guess one of their main KPI it's time on site, like people are not spending enough time already, and regardless of how people want to use their website. Edit: rephrased one sentence

This might also be a feature of your browser. Firefox and chrome both implemented this a little while ago. If you pin the tab, it shouldn't stop playing video when you switch away. I forget which of the browsers, but it really helps people on bad laptops and what not.

but it doesn't append with youtube for example

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

#213

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:50 PM UTC

thelock85 wrote: post #178

jshen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was too expensive to dial out or accept collect, life went on for people rich and poor. I think we’ve entered a world where opting out of constant communication (like not answering your phone) is completely alien and in some cases unacceptable, which in turn makes the prospect of constant communication valuable. But I’m not sure how many use cases are out there for how constant digital connection improves outco…

> I think we’ve entered a world where opting out of constant communication (like not answering your phone) is completely alien and in some cases unacceptable

I left my smartphone and my smartwatch in my smart home when I went to work today (guess I'm not that smart).

I hear through the grapevine that my wife is losing her coolant because she can't text me every ten minutes, or locate me with Find My Friends.

I think I'll stop at a tiki bar on the way home.

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

#214

Post by RandallBrown » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

juhq wrote: post #97

"WhatsApp also negotiated for nicer bathrooms, with doors that reach the floor." This is not a norm in silicon valley/states?

I think it's partly practical and partly cost savings.

Shorter walls are cheaper, but it also makes it easier to clean, easier to help someone in case of an emergency, and easier to tell if the stall is occupied.

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

#215

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

pnutjam wrote: post #150

jshen wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your talking about long distance, local calls were inexpensive and available to all for low prices.

Depends on how "local" was defined in your area.

We had multiple independent local phone companies one place I lived. I could call into the next state for free (and by dialing just five numbers), but my friends two miles away in the same state were 35¢ a minute.

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

#216

Post by Apocryphon » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #144

zitterbewegung wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest all of the Silicon Valley innovators have this cult of personality that once you look behind the curtain they act in their own self interest (which isn't a bad thing). For example Elon Musk has his "Iron Man" persona that puts himself on a pedestal and projects an ideal that his companies will solve the worlds problems. Once you look behind the curtain you see that he uses this to justify long hours by h…

It pays to signal that you’re mission driven. Employees engage more.

Yes, but it can also be an easy way to justify exploitative work conditions worse than industry standard.

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

#217

Post by reaperducer » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:54 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #174

bawana wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about crowdsourcing a social network? Look at synology NAS boxes-they have a ton of apps. They have even developed a stupid-proof way of connecting NAS boxes securely over the net without opening router ports. If i choose to install the synology 'chat' app, i could designate a fraction of the NAS space as a se[arate volume to be used soley by the app and sandboxed from my LAN. And just as synology boxen can sync…

A decentralized social network, built on peer-to-peer connections, allowing people to connect with one another without being intermediated and monetized by some central party? Sounds idyllic! Is it possible that perhaps this has been considered before, and perhaps even implemented?

It was called a BBS network. One example was ARBNet.

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

#218

Post by ascorbic » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 7:56 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #187

majidazimi wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is everyone doing business with a black and white strategy? On one extreme, everything is free and funded by selling user information and on the other extreme, everthing is free but funded by donation. What is wrong with 2$/year model? Everyone (I mean truly everyone) is willing to pay that.

I disagree, some very poor people most likely prefer the ads then parting with 2$. One thing people forget about advertising it is a pretty good at price discriminating. Ads to rich people are worth more than ads to poor people so advertisers can make more money from those with more money to spend while still serving everyone.

WhatsApp's $1/year charge only applied in certain (rich) countries.

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

#219

Post by ascorbic » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #214

juhq wrote: post #97

"WhatsApp also negotiated for nicer bathrooms, with doors that reach the floor." This is not a norm in silicon valley/states?

I think it's partly practical and partly cost savings. Shorter walls are cheaper, but it also makes it easier to clean, easier to help someone in case of an emergency, and easier to tell if the stall is occupied.

They're a $500bn company. I think that can afford an extra foot of door.

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

#220

Post by mcintyre1994 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 8:00 PM UTC

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…

Do you know that those Indian people had actually paid for WhatsApp? I never had to pay, and most people I know (UK) don't seem to have done either. I don't know what the criteria was but it'd be pretty weird if they were charging people more aggressively in India than the UK. Maybe the whole not charging thing was a bug, it's always seemed weird.