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

361–370 of 533 posts

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#361

Post by qwertox »

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…

> "if the product is free, you are the product"

I feel like this is no longer true. You are now the product regardless of you paying for it or not.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#362

Post by wasmitnetzen »

tgma wrote: post #173
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.

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.

Ultimately the consumer is paying for the ad spend as well, so it can't be an outsized part of the budget.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#363

Post by fhennig »

tencentshill wrote: post #242
apsurd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe for a second you'd pay $50 per month! Yeah you'd do it to prove a point. 6 months later, no way in hell.

Meta "average revenue per person" around $50 per year. Absolutely reasonable to replace with a subscription. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680125...

per year, not per month

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#364

Post by brianmiddleton »

cpt_sobel wrote: post #353
brianmiddleton wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Don't they already have some subscription to get rid of ads?

In some countries, but not everywhere. I know it exists in the UK, maybe EU as well.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#365

Post by prmoustache »

sunaookami wrote: post #318
prmoustache wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone ever paid the whatsapp subscription fee. I remember they announced it, nobody accepted paying it and the app kept functionning and they dropped the idea.

Friends of mine did for Android or the app stopped functioning. You also had to pay a one time fee to even download it on iOS. But yeah, most users didn't have to.

Maybe they enforced it first on some regions and since it backfired other regions didn't have to pay.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#366

Post by onel »

pj_mukh wrote: post #11

I would pay $49.99/mo for an unlimited plan that brings me only my friends' status updates (not their hyper-political likes and comments), just their life updates. Daily stories are great too. But JUST that, no influencers, no ads. I realize Meta's data shows that our user revealed preferences tells them that we like all the dopamine hijacking garbage but that's like saying "Well users like drugs, so we gave them mor…

That was the premise of halloapp. I think it was $5 a month and encrypted like WhatsApp, and you had a feed only from your contacts. It was founded by a guy who worked for WhatsApp for a long time. Apparently it went under in 2024. I think messaging is just a commoditized service. People will not pay for it

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#369

Post by m000 »

I think this is all theatrics to avoid EU regulation. Subscriptions for Meta products have already been a thing in the EU for several months.

It went a bit like this:

- EU mandates that users should be given the option to opt out from non-essential cookies.

- Meta responds by implementing an ad-free subscription-based model in EU, which allows them to dodge regulation.

- EU of course sees through their scheme and prepares to sanction them.

- Meta rolls-out subscriptions worldwide, so that it becomes harder for EU to claim that subscriptions were specifically created for dodging EU regulation.

Re: Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

#370

Post by slumberlust »

skillina wrote: post #157
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…

I've been considering writing a nastygram to the NYT about their nonsense popups. Every time I open their web page I get not only the family account popup, but also a "use our app, it's better!" popup. I refuse to install your app just because you intentionally trash the web experience with popups.

Article yesterday suggesting we name these interrupting popus dickovers.
Post reply on HN