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

Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

sequoiacapital.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#51

Post by abraham »

gknoy wrote: post #33
Irishsteve wrote: post #21

America Online President and Chief Operating Officer Bob Pittman said: "Acquiring ICQ fits perfectly into our multiple-brand strategy. Like CompuServe, ICQ substantially broadens our reach in important markets not served by AOL-branded products. In addition to its international reach, ICQ has tremendous appeal among young, technically sophisticated Web users and there is remarkably little overlap with AOL."

... shortly before they shuttered the ICQ service and merged it with AIM.

ICQ is still around.

http://www.icq.com/en

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#52

Post by yanivs »

Whatsapp is great and the numbers speak for themselves, but I think that promoting the $0 marketing spend brings a wrong notion to consumer facing startups. Usually it's ok to spend here and there to get your initial user base or to learn about your product/market fit. Otherwise you're just relying on blind luck.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#54

Post by ma2rten »

habosa wrote: post #13

So I understand the value of WhatsApp now that the network is absolutely enormous, but can anyone shed some light on how WhatsApp differentiated itself at first? It seems like it's just basic user-to-user messaging over data, with a list-like interface that looks like every messaging app on my phone. How did they convince people that this particular proprietary solution was the best? Did they somehow remove friction…

WhatsApp equals Free SMS, plus you can create groups. That is what their value proposition was back then, that is what it is now.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#55

Post by pyre »

RandallBrown wrote: post #26
locusm wrote: post #22

My experience when I first used WhatsApp on a droid phone was... * Absolute piece of cake to get started/configured * Absolute piece of cake to message friends * No 22c charge from carrier per SMS Pretty good recipe for success.

Are you outside the US? I haven't paid 22 cents for a text message in YEARS.

Presumably you're paying a flat-fee that's more than $1/year though.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#56

Post by ma2rten »

d23 wrote: post #39
rwissmann wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that alone. Here in the UK SMS is often unlimited. People still prefer to use Whatsapp. I and most of my friends have virtually stopped using SMS. Another advantage are international SMS. Again more relevant for say Europeans than for Americans.

I guess I still don't get it. I can send images and group chat via SMS. Does this really do anything any different? I'm not asking just to be contrarian -- I'm just wondering if I should try it out and try to convince my friends to do the same.

- Unlimited SMS plans are less common than unlimited data plans in Europe.

- You can not do group chat via SMS. You send a SMS to multiple people, but they will only see your number and can't reply to the group (unless I am missing something). I feels more like chat room for your friend group or family.

- In Europe mobile phone providers have historically tried to rip off people with MMS, which may be a reason why they are unpopular.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#58

Post by mynameishere »

kumarski wrote: post #44

Just for good measure................ Activison-Blizzard – $13.9B Alcoa – $12.2B American Airlines – $12.3B Akamai – $10.9B AmerisourceBergen – $15.9 Blackstone Group – $17.8B Campbell Soup – $13.6 Chesapeake Energy – $17.2B Chipotle – $17.1B Citrix Systems – $10.7B Coach – $13.5B Consolidated Edison (ConEd) – $16.2B Discovery Communicatons – $19.1B Dr. Pepper Snapple Group – $10.2B Expedia -$10.2B The Gap – $19B Fid…

That list is restricted to companies at a similar capitalization to "WhatsApp". In contrast, Ford Motor Company is valued at 60 billion (about 3-4 times more than "WhatsApp"). I would suggest quite plainly that the trademark "Ford Motor Company" alone is worth more than the every part of the "WhatsApp" enterprise combined, including whatever technology they may have created, if any.

Obviously the investment banking refugees working at Facebook aren't stupid, and I suspect they're going for the big kill, with other people's money as usual. Maybe "WhatsApp" will be the next big thing. Who cares? If I was writing a check out for 16 billion, it sure wouldn't be for the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

But...not my money.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#59

Post by bad_user »

mertd wrote: post #32
habosa wrote: post #13

So I understand the value of WhatsApp now that the network is absolutely enormous, but can anyone shed some light on how WhatsApp differentiated itself at first? It seems like it's just basic user-to-user messaging over data, with a list-like interface that looks like every messaging app on my phone. How did they convince people that this particular proprietary solution was the best? Did they somehow remove friction…

Zero signup = zero friction. You install the software, and your contacts who have WhatsApp immediately show up on your WhatsApp contact list. It was basically a free SMS replacement at first. Of course that came with a massive security hole, where your "behind the scenes" login password was MD5 of your phone's imei. That, as far as I understand, has changed now.

It's not really zero signup. WhatsApp does have a signup process that requires setting your name and confirming your phone number. An SMS message is involved too, which means that WhatsApp Messenger can only work on mobile devices connected to a mobile network and that can receive SMS messages.

This is the reason for why I stopped using it in favor of Facebook's messenger, because it doesn't work on the desktop or on iPads or other tablets that aren't capable of receiving SMS messages. Coupled with the fact that people can routinely use multiple phone numbers at the same time, or temporary phone numbers while traveling, it makes for a frustrating experience.

Facebook's acquisition makes no sense to me. All of my friends and acquaintances that were using WhatsApp have already switched to Facebook's messenger and/or Hangouts. If I open WhatsApp right now and send a message, it probably won't reach its target - for example WhatsApp is listing my wife as a user, yet she uninstalled it months ago. And I'm as far away from Silicon Valley's echo chamber as it gets.

But whatever, it's their money.

Re: Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp

#60

Post by oevi »

habosa wrote: post #13

So I understand the value of WhatsApp now that the network is absolutely enormous, but can anyone shed some light on how WhatsApp differentiated itself at first? It seems like it's just basic user-to-user messaging over data, with a list-like interface that looks like every messaging app on my phone. How did they convince people that this particular proprietary solution was the best? Did they somehow remove friction…

As a daily WhatsApp User myself, here are the reasons why I prefer it over other similar messenger services:

1. It's the facebook of messengers (now it's just facebook...). In most of Europe an Africa there's a 90% chance , that your friend with a smartphone has also WhatsAp installed. Even the older generation (40+) uses it frequently. In Africa, they even have a song about it [1].

2. Cross-Platform: It's available on most common smartphone platforms and looks almost identical across these. There are no hassles of sending stuff (videos, locations) across these platforms. Changing your smartphone is not a problem as long as you keep the same number.

3. It feels snappy: In comparison to iMessage, FB Messenger it's fast and has no disturbing gimmicks. You see messages instantly and it feels like a chat when iMessages feels more like bloated sms...

4. It works in places with unreliable network like rural regions. iMessages fails here often, FB apps also need a stable connection to work properly.

5. A few years ago unlimited text plans were not as common as in the US. Because of this people looked for an alternative to paying ~19c per text (EU). WhatsApp was one of the most polished solutions with a low entry barrier.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaFkpVrC2sw

Post reply on HN