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

321–330 of 533 posts

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#321

Post by mrweasel »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #53

Honestly don't know how Meta keeps customers. Facebook is hanging on for dear life with geriatrics and marketplace. Insta is a cesspool of fake content that needs to die in a dumpster fire. Not sure why you'd use WhatsApp over alternatives like Signal now. It's almost like the people still using Meta services are metaphorical bots or low agency human beings.

Yes, you could use Signal, but my take is that people don't want yet another account for something. Facebook works and it has all the other activities people need to keep track of. For most you wouldn't be replacing Facebook or WhatsApp with Signal, you'd add Signal to an already busy phone.

People don't care about the platform, they just want shit to work and for better or worse, Facebook works for them.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#323

Post by brianmiddleton »

HnUser12 wrote: post #166
WarmWash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You WILL be getting ads in the app, though. There's nothing in the article that says you won't. This is like Snapchat's subscription. You get more features, but still have the ads. This isn't replacing "if it's free, you're the product", it's "if you're willing to pay, you're an even more valuable product".

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#324

Post by brianmiddleton »

derencius wrote: post #284

I was paying for the ads-free subscripton for instagram and I recently I canceled as a way to reduce social media usage. And the ad version of Instagram is so annoying that it is helping a lot more. If this new sub becomes a status signaling, it might work.

The article mentions that this is a subscription for additional features. It doesn't say anywhere that you won't get ads. I think the ads-free subscription option is only available in certain markets, like the UK.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#326

Post by pishpash »

bigmadshoe wrote: post #182
tgma wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who spew I'd rather pay, I'd rather pay often majorly underestimate how expensive Google and Facebook would have to be in the western world to offset the ad revenue per person. The irony is this is especially true for you if money is no object to you, as you'd be disproportionately valuable to the ad machine. It's not going to be ten bucks folks.

You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.

So they successfully blackmailed you.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#327

Post by brianmiddleton »

darth_avocado wrote: post #125
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…

Id pay money to not see ads. Like YouTube premium. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. Can’t believe they rolled out all these different plans and left out the one thing a lot of people would buy.

Someone willing and able to pay for something as frivolous as Instagram or Snapchat makes them priceless to an advertiser. They want to make it easier to identify those people.

But yeah, when Snapchat rolled out their subscription program, I was all set to buy it to get rid of the annoying ads and AI in my chat list, then I realized I could do none of that. So now I just use it a lot less, which is probably better for them anyway.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#328

Post by AnthonyR »

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.

Haha I love the super out of touch takes on here sometimes. Not using WhatsApp or Facebook where I live absolutely introduces major difficulty to communication and even every day interactions where almost 100% of communication in various social groups is happening on these platforms. Should I ask them to move?

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#329

Post by oulipo2 »

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…

[dead]

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#330

Post by erremerre »

drnick1 wrote: post #258
doom2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The annoying thing is how many businesses and communities rely on Meta platforms instead of their own websites and sometimes it's the only way to contact them. If I want to check if the small neighborhood grocery has something in stock? No phone, only Instagram DMs. When I was on vacation abroad and wanted to see if an out of the way farmers market was still happening despite rain? Only Facebook. The good thing is th…

> want to check if the small neighborhood grocery has something in stock? No phone, only Instagram DMs. You can use a throwaway account for that or other things such as FB Marketplace. It's not ideal because it generates traffic on FB, but it's better than handing over all your private communications to Zuckerberg.

Not sure what country are you from. Last time I tried to make a throwaway account to sell something in Facebook Marketplace I was welcome with a submit picture to test if you are real which when uploaded with a IA generated picture got blocked.
Post reply on HN