Facebook should really be split up. WhatsApp would have been such a great alternative to Facebook now - but with that acquisition the consumers are really the ones on the loosing end.
Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
301–310 of 372 posts
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#302The clash of cultures... I prefer WhatsApp's one though.
Me too. I hate the culture that tech-companies seem to be gravitating towards in general - gimmicks like open-plan offices, frequent parties and outings, games etc. I didn't get into software development for the perks - I did it do solve problems with software, and these companies seem to be missing the point that software development requires extended periods of focus.
I wish I could find out more about WhatsApp's culture in this respect. Something like Valve's new employee handbook[0] or Netflix's culture deck[1]. I can only really find second-hand articles referring to its culture [2]
[0] https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/Valve_NewEmployee...
[1] https://www.slideshare.net/BarbaraGill3/netflix-culture-deck
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/40459142/whatsapps-cofounder-on-...
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
My employer has been using Workplace for over a year. It took over a year to finally hear it from other colleagues that they don't see some posts, which I started telling from the very first day. And the reasoning to use it? "People are familiar with it from home". Well.. how about using something else and spend 30 mins on educating people? Oh, that might mean no new yacht for shareholders this year.
> It took over a year to finally hear it from other colleagues that they don't see some posts, which I started telling from the very first day. I wonder if you have to pay FB to promote them? /s
Better still, you pay Facebook to _bury_ them. You raise all the important concerns about how the project you're working on is going to completely fuck up, and quietly arrange for Zuck to get a little richer while ensuring none of your cow orkers see these messages. Then you pull them out at the inevitable blamestorming meeting and say "But look! I raised all those big red flag problems on date[1] date[2] and date[3], and was ignored by everybody!"
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#304I'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…
What do you expect for a free product? The entitlement of people is astounding.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#305I'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 on vacation in India right now and real life here seems to be exactly like the vision you are outlining... just walk around the city and every few meters people are offering you goods that you never knew existed... there is a fine line between useful offerings (e.g., a market) and herassment in every day life.
For me it’s all about keeping the choice with the user and away from the seller. To my mind, there should be strong evidence that you are really looking for something before sellers are able to interrupt/contact you.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won’t even let you view messages on the mobile website either. Instead they restrict that and force you to install the Messenger app. Yelp does the same thing and feels just as scummy of a tactic. Basically both companies try to force you to install an app you don’t actually need so they can mine your contacts and personal data. No thanks to your tricks and traps business model.
Last I tried, mbasic.facebook.com would let you look at messages on the mobile web.
You can also tell your browser to view Facebook in desktop mode, and you can then see the messages. Not a pleasant user experience, but fine for the rare times when I need it.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#307Earlier 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…
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 ser…
You are conflating the model with shifts in technology. The US landline infrastructure was really expensive on a per-user basis. Mobile was much cheaper to implement, and the shift from analog to digital audio drastically decreased the cost of call transmission.
Those same digital technologies mean a regulated social media monopoly could be much narrower. E.g., we could split Facebook into infra and client apps, or core features versus add-ons. You could make the social graph owned by a non-profit, and regulate it with a board where client app developers are represented. That would provide a much better balance of power than we saw with telcos versus consumers.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I tried, mbasic.facebook.com would let you look at messages on the mobile web.
You can also tell your browser to view Facebook in desktop mode, and you can then see the messages. Not a pleasant user experience, but fine for the rare times when I need it.
It looks fine if you go to m.facebook.com and request the desktop version of the page.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Would agree with your sentiment, but Whatsapp itself is an example of a messaging service that relied on their 1$/year model and had around 200 million active users before it went free.
They started charging after they had achieved scale.
Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally understand. You are facing the classic dilemma of privacy vs convenience. Personally, I distrusted facebook so much that I have avoided any of their products since 2013. Obviously a major win for my privacy, but it sacrificed some convenience -- then I had no real-time way to communicate with my relative in India. In the end, you'll have to do some introspection to see if the convenience gained is worth the…
At this point, it isn't about privacy vs. convenience, it's about privacy vs. being able to have a social life. People aren't going to install a more privacy-supportive messenger just for you, they'll gradually let you drop out of their lives just like you would with a friend that you can only reach by driving to their farm 6 hours away.
People had social lives before facebook existed... it largely consisted of going places and seeing people regularly. This still works, believe it or not.