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

231–240 of 372 posts

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

#231

Post by acjohnson55 »

chime wrote: post #121
chinhodado wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most frustrating change for me was FB (or Messenger later) used to send me an email when I received a message, with the message content inside the email. A few years ago they removed the content from the email and forced me to log into FB or Messenger to see the message. It's extremely user hostile.

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.

An easy solution would be to offer a "no preview" flag. But this also doesn't make sense because presumably the person's email account (where the preview would appear) is as private as their messenger. People who don't want to send info in email tend to send links to a secure portal, which they could do just as well in Messenger, preview or not.

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

#232

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

cma wrote: post #64
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…

Imagine how useful it would be if when there is a notification about a friend on Facebook, you could peek it by swiping on the notification in the android drawer like you can with texts, without entering the Facebook app. Nope. Engineers are dedicated there to increasing other things than the utility of the app. Interests aren't aligned with the users. Same with removing chronological feeds. Turn things more and more…

Except to show that notification on your phone, Facebook needs to give a 3rd party (Phone Manufacturer) access not only to your data, but data about your friends.

This is something people are currently very upset with them for doing.

So they can make things convenient, or keep your data safe, but its hard to do both.

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

#233

Post by jjrh »

nougatbyte wrote: post #200
Kalium wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Isnt this what diaspora and mastodon are doing?

There is no shortage of options out there, the issue is onboarding people. Even google couldn't swing it with google plus.

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

#234

Post by ponderatul »

I see why he wouldn't agree even with the least intrusive advertising place. Because it's just a slippery slope from there. That starting point can be used in conversations to leverage the 'advertising model' further, and we can end up with another facebook, easily.

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

#235

Post by Jonovono »

majidazimi wrote: post #180
FigmentEngine wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"supported by grants and donations" according to their site.

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.

Messaging apps, like social media services need your friends to be on the platform for it to be useful. If you start putting friction into that process then the services are instantly not useful. Everyone of your friends that doesn't join makes that thing much less useful for you.

You say "everyone" is willing to pay that. I'll tell people about an amazing app that solves their problems they are complaining about and they go and see it's a couple dollars (one time purchase) and still complain and usually don't buy it.

There will never be a popular messaging service or social network that relies on subscriptions (maybe subscriptions for additional features though)

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

#236

Post by sonnyblarney »

ameister14 wrote: post #211
sonnyblarney wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yes, that's about right. Not much of a company, relative to the $17B he raked in because of their ad-value to FB.

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

#237

Post by rhoursour »

thieving_magpie wrote: post #196
ttul wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never understood why North American bathroom stalls don’t just go to the floor. Jesus Christ how much would it really cost to enable some damn privacy.

I'm torn on this one. One the one hand I would love that extra privacy. On the other, I really value knowing if someone is in the stall next to me and how many people are in the bathroom. If the stalls extend to the ground how am I supposed to scan for legs? Someone could be hiding in there waiting to frighten me! I cannot use the bathroom until everyone has left it. Just how am I supposed to verify that some quick-f…

How do you use the bathroom on a plane?

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

#238

Post by jjrh »

majidazimi wrote: post #180
FigmentEngine wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"supported by grants and donations" according to their site.

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 think the issue is more if you ask for any amount of money it immediately turns people off.

The process of putting in your creditcard number, entering your password for google play/paypal/etc is just enough of a barrier to go 'whatever!'.

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

#239

Post by kbenson »

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?

I think perhaps what's being described is akin to a bulletin board with fliers outside the doctors office, with general advice to the public, not specific directed advice to a patient about their specific health issues. I'm not sure that falls afoul of HIPAA, I would imagine it doesn't since it's not specific at all.

At the same time, that also makes it irrelevant to the point at hand, since it's not Facebook messenger at all, just general health posts and items offered by that medical group.

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

#240

Post by atonse »

skbly7 wrote: post #55
innagadadavida wrote: post #20

Apple should port Messages app to Android and other platforms, this is a great opportunity for them to capitalize on. It is unlikely though, as the strategy is to get people to buy iPhones to get Messages.

Blackberry and BBM went this route already, and we know what happened to them. I think it is high time for Apple to jump the ship and get messages into Android. :)

Why? Having messages be iOS only, is working out perfectly for them.

Most iOS users get annoyed at the android users when they get green bubbles, instead of getting annoyed at Apple.

As long as that continues to be true, I don't see iMessage ever coming out for Android.

Post reply on HN