Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

reuters.com

201–210 of 303 posts

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#201
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatsapp is what people use in some countries for contacting a restaurant to reserve a table, contacting a bike shop to ask if you can bring your bike down for servicing, etc. It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. Skype was never used that universally.

> It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. I know. And I think it's insane and horrible.

Why? The "public" telephone network is still provided by a business. You can't host your own phone server for people to call.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. They weren’t allowed to do that under old TOS, and the whole point of this update is to allow data sharing when contacting businesses, that will allow building business tools. https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/answer...

I understand the objective on making (more) money. Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? For me this 'shedding freeloaders and privacy-oriented-users' helps them more than not. We have discussed pricing and volumes of customers before in this forum, multiple times, and for multiple products/services. Is it better to have 1000 users and make $1 from ea…

> Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user?

In one case you make $1BN and in the other you make $4BN. So yes, the latter would objectively be better. :-)

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The niche that Whatsapp filled and which brought it to massive adoption was not the same as Skype's. In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- o…

> Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. “Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....

You can find a bad take on almost any issue from the Guardian. That article only exists because The Guardian doesn't like Rupert Murdoch.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the objective on making (more) money. Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? For me this 'shedding freeloaders and privacy-oriented-users' helps them more than not. We have discussed pricing and volumes of customers before in this forum, multiple times, and for multiple products/services. Is it better to have 1000 users and make $1 from ea…

That may be straightforwardly true for another service — Maps, Email, etc. — but the draw of a messaging platform is its network effect. "All the freeloaders" is half the reason that WhatsApp is popular: no matter who you want to contact, they likely had a WhatsApp account — from your elderly mother to your college friends to the B&B that you're going to stay at abroad. If it goes from "everyone I know is on WhatsApp…

> If it goes from "everyone I know is on WhatsApp" to "1 in 20 people I know are on WhatsApp" maybe I'm less inclined to continue to fork over $20.

Let’s be real, I don’t think this is a realistic ratio of users lost. They made a cost benefits analysis and are going on with the plan.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#206
post #201
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. I know. And I think it's insane and horrible.

Why? The "public" telephone network is still provided by a business. You can't host your own phone server for people to call.

The public telephone network is incomparably more interoperable than something like WhatsApp. You cannot self-host it, but you can keep the exact same phone number while switching providers (which is even more flexible than email), phone manufacturers and OSes, and "client" (phone modem) implementations at will.

No such thing is possible with WhatsApp. Various implementations come from the same company, do not have feature parity (e. g. phone calls are not supported on certain mobile OSes), and definitely don't allow anything in the way of integration with the outside world. A PSTN connection can be hooked up to a PBX to let you automate voice and all kinds of other things, while SMS can be synced to the computer using an app with the appropriate permissions. In short, PSTN is malleable, while WhatsApp is not.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#207
post #14

I'm so disappointed in this. Whatsapp is a functional tool. It was successful since it worked. Facebook has entirely failed to utilise it - to allow external systems to connect in so that businesses can do business on there. The voice calls are also a disaster. They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for…

> They've now come along to start messing with the privacy to start selling ads. It is insane that they're able to make such a mess of this. Is there a word for anti-innovation?

Yes, "capitalism".

The problem with capitalism is that despite lofty claims about it spurring on innovation and such, it pretty much does the opposite. I don't imagine that this will be a popular comment on here, but alas, it is how it is.

Innovation means experimentation with uncertain outcomes, but humans (including investors) generally dislike uncertainty in their lives. Those two factors combined mean that from a capitalist perspective, it makes a lot more sense to invest in a tried-and-true method with a veneer of innovation but predictable returns, than to truly innovate.

If you truly want innovation, then what you need to do is to take away the personal cost of failure (including but not limited to financially) as much as possible - across the board. The VC startup model is often claimed to do this, but really it just moves the cost of failure to the investors, it does not eliminate it.

In a capitalist socioeconomic model, where having a cost of failure is a fundamental tenet of the ideology (it's what defines the hierarchy), this sort of "anti-innovation" will always keep happening. It's simply the logical thing to do under the circumstances.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#208

It's really hard for me to understand why and how something fails or succeeds to grab the public's attention. I've been complaining and refusing to use WhatsApp for years, mostly because it's centralized at the worst possible company. But a boycott of one is not a powerful move and no one cared. Now, for whatever reason, nothing has effectively changed and millions suddenly care. I mean, I'm glad they finally do, do…

Your complaining was working, just very slowly, like water dripping on a stone.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#209
Honestly, as an engineer, looking at the way FAANG are becoming middle-men in just about every part of human life, I would rather ban all social media and more generally mass communication software outright than try and regulate it. It feels to me like it's gotten to the point where this type of software is doing more harm than good.

I know that the software itself is not the issue, the tech has potential to do good, but as humans we are just better off without it, if you ask me.

PS. Not looking to argue. Just wanted to vent.

Re: WhatsApp to move ahead with privacy update despite backlash

#210
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the objective on making (more) money. Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? For me this 'shedding freeloaders and privacy-oriented-users' helps them more than not. We have discussed pricing and volumes of customers before in this forum, multiple times, and for multiple products/services. Is it better to have 1000 users and make $1 from ea…

> Why have 1bn users and make $1 per user? Isn't it better if then have 200mn users and make $20 per user? In one case you make $1BN and in the other you make $4BN. So yes, the latter would objectively be better. :-)

Not necessarily. Sometimes more users is better than higher revenue.

If those 200 million users have to choose between paying you $20/year or paying only $1 and joining a network with 1 billion users...they'll probably choose the later. Then you won't see those 4 billion dollars.

Post reply on HN