Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 533 posts

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#161

Post by wyclif »

outime wrote: post #136
drnick1 wrote: post #46

Just stop using Meta products. It's really not as hard as it seems. Nobody needs FB to communicate with friends and family. Send texts or emails or use your phone.

>It's really not as hard as it seems Only on HN could someone post a take like this without getting laughed at. Outside our very geeky HN bubble, hardly anyone (let's say in Europe, but all my friends in the US use it as well) uses anything other than WhatsApp. There's literally zero reason for the average user to switch.

WhatsApp as the only contact point is a pretty strong signal that the user is from a developing world country. I'm not from that part of the world, so I don't use WhatsApp.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#162

Post by angled »

qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

Aren't people here old enough to recall paying for WhatsApp's original subscription fee?

Circa 2016: https://www.techspot.com/news/63504-whatsapp-waves-goodbye-a...

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#163

Post by angled »

embedding-shape wrote: post #122
ethanpil wrote: post #120

Anyone here remember the early days of WhatsApp, pre-Facebook, when it required an annual subscription fee of $1?

Remember clearly the first time that message popped up, asking for $1/year, and I think you could basically "skip for now" and then it'd pop back up again later again. I remember thinking how brilliant it was, just hitting 100K active users in a year would be $100K, more than enough for a person, and at their scale they'd make it work long-term. Then of course eventually the $20B purchase happened and it became a pro…

Absolutely, I just linked to this in another comment, I couldn't easily find another story: https://www.techspot.com/news/63504-whatsapp-waves-goodbye-a...

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#164

Post by zeristor »

apsurd wrote: post #112
qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

Heard it here on HN: problem is paying a subscription is purely additive. eventually, inevitably, they’ll take the subscription AND sell your data, serve you ads, etc. it being against what your payment contract states just means they’ll reinvent and rename the tiers.

Pray they don’t change the terms a second time.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#165

Post by skillina »

Larrikin wrote: post #96
apsurd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's actually being said is that these people are not your friends/family and probably shouldn't be. That definitely sounds harsher than intended. It's a meditation really. Nobody needs FB and Instagram. (please read as a meditation)

"just don't meet people because they don't communicate via your one specific method"

That statement applies to the person who won't be your friend because you don't have an Instagram, not to the person who refuses to install an arbitrary app as a precondition to becoming friends.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#166

Post by HnUser12 »

WarmWash wrote: post #149
sensanaty wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You paying just signals that you're someone to push more ads to and to harvest more data on, since it means you have disposable income to spend on something as useless as instagram or facebook. Meta isn't going to stop harvesting all your information just because you pay for a subscription, they'll harvest and sell your data AND take your money.

If I'm paying and still getting unwanted ads...then I am no longer going to be paying. I'm not sure what win Meta sees here.

You may not get ads in the app, but they can still sell your data for other services who will give you ads.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#168

Post by dymk »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #156
cm11 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Youtube Premium track and build profiles and use and sell them? I assume so because Google, but does Premium remove advertising (in the broad sense of the business model and profiling) or remove just ads? YT in general seems "kinder" than others at a few things, like you can remove history and activity and even get a blank homescreen. Aside: I think it's funny how with an NYT subscription, you still get not only…

“full” premium removes all advertising, and it’s quite pricey in the US. “Lite” premium removes ‘most’ ads but doesn’t allow downloads at all.

It’s $16/month for full premium. It’s all relative, but I wouldn’t describe that as quite pricey for a platform with that large a library.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#170

Post by rahkiin »

wyclif wrote: post #161
outime wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's really not as hard as it seems Only on HN could someone post a take like this without getting laughed at. Outside our very geeky HN bubble, hardly anyone (let's say in Europe, but all my friends in the US use it as well) uses anything other than WhatsApp. There's literally zero reason for the average user to switch.

WhatsApp as the only contact point is a pretty strong signal that the user is from a developing world country. I'm not from that part of the world, so I don't use WhatsApp.

If you count -all of europe- as a developing country, sure.

In europe we never had free unlimited texts. Internet was cheaper than calling/texting, especially with everyone having wifi at home and work. So a cross-platform messaging app appeared and has replaced text and calling.

Post reply on HN