481–490 of 831 posts
What does WhatsApp offer that regular old text messages don't? Is it just a price thing? I can group chat, send images, and send video with everyone, even people with dumbphones just fine using text messages (MMS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably IPv6 will be a major change - that will allow every person to have an IP address for every device they have and retain that perpetually. Then we can have true direct messaging and use open protocols (XMPP?) each person choosing a client to manage their end; like how email works now. If you can send from Whatsapp to FB messenger, Viber, Skype and whatever - and vice versa - that's surely going to democratis…
>that will allow every person to have an IP address for every device they have and retain that perpetually. Wait... what? has someone implemented IP address portability while I wasn't looking? I mean, there was lots of talk a few years back, but my understanding is that the facts on the ground are such that when you switch ISPs, well, you are switching your IPv6 address (unless you are large enough to speak BGP)
My uncle in India runs a construction company, and literally every single aspect of company communication is done over WhatsApp. Each construction site has to constantly post pictures on WhatsApp, and basically all management and payroll decisions are made through WhatsApp discussions. Apparently this is not an uncommon practice, as businesses that were once administered by pen and paper are now using WhatsApp to imp…
I just can't get my head around that valuation. For something that's basically a feature, when they already have that functionality baked in, built out to a similar scale? It's not an acquisition for talent, or technology, so what is it? It's an acquisition for investors probably. To argue back against the people who say the kids are leaving FB. Well guess what, we BOUGHT the thing the kids are using. And it's 'mobil…
Users.
jackgavigan made a good point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I conjecture that this price is a reflection of the fact that facebook realizes their stock is way overvalued, and so they used this opportunity to make a huge purchase which would be too expensive otherwise. The fact that a huge amount of the purchase price in stock is a strong signal for this. These same sorts of deals happened in the first internet bubble (although this is clearly different as there is also a huge…
The biggest shareholder hero of dotcom 1.0 was Steve Case buying a real company (Time Warner) with bubble shares. But is whatsapp Time Warner? $1/user/year even with a huge user base is still not that much revenue.
If any Board of Directors tried to pull off that kind of stock-based deal today, they're going to have a proxy fight on their hands. These days, the shareholders of the target company are going to want cash.
But during Bubble 1.0, plenty of bubble companies acquired other bubble companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in countries with SMS charges The funny thing is that in places like USA, you pay exorbitant amounts (~20 USD per month) for text messaging (when the real cost should be almost 0), yet it's still not caught on here - which is kinda sad.
It's usually bundled with data, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in countries with SMS charges The funny thing is that in places like USA, you pay exorbitant amounts (~20 USD per month) for text messaging (when the real cost should be almost 0), yet it's still not caught on here - which is kinda sad.
It's just because it matters more that we have all of our contacts than save $20 a month. I think you'd need higher priced SMS or a very large WhatsApp userbase.
In India, you generally pay per text message - so if you can convince even 3 of your close friends to start using Whatsapp, you save (say) 20% of your phone bill.
Here in US, if you are going to send more than a few texts a month, you are going to be paying 20 USD. So there is no real monetary incentive (initially) for you and two of your friends to switch to Whatsapp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest shareholder hero of dotcom 1.0 was Steve Case buying a real company (Time Warner) with bubble shares. But is whatsapp Time Warner? $1/user/year even with a huge user base is still not that much revenue.
My dotbomb stock hero was always Cuban.
How much cash did Steve Case manage to withdraw from the stock market piggy bank?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because of network effects. (I'm not going to switch to the 2nd best app where I can only reach 10% of my friends.)
But the network effects are still there if you have an interoperable standard. You can use _any_ app that supports the standard and still connect to everybody in the social network. There is no reason why the social network of mankind should remain captured in the userbase of a single messaging app. And it is the abstract social network that does provide the network effects.
Would I be required to install a new app for checking an additional inbox?
400,000,000 active users [0] 16,000,000,000 USD ---- $40 per user That's an incredible cost. We can assume Facebook is paying for the userbase, the app itself and it's infrastructure would basically run itself. It's less appealing when you realise that there's probably a miniscule fraction of WhatsApp users that don't have a Facebook account. > WhatsApp will remain autonomous and operate independently. You can contin…