Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal

Post by enscr » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:31 PM UTC

sirkneeland wrote: post #42

enscr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure he'll get a chair but that's where it stops. FB, the company is about targeted advertisements based on your profile, activity etc. There's no reason why they won't do that with Whatsapp. They have most definitely not paid $19 billion to get only 99 cent revenue every year. They perhaps are eyeing for much more per user.

One element of corporate strategy is that there is strategic value not simply in having [acquired company X] but also having kept it out of competitors' hands. Facebook owning it means Google, Apple, Microsoft etc don't. Facebook likes that.

Post by dhimes » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:39 PM UTC

izzydata wrote: post #49

dhimes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This meme needs to be shouted from the mountaintops until everybody understands it. Indeed you are correct- a company can be pure evil and charge you for wrecking your privacy. But if the app is free, that's all they can do and it's pretty obvious they are going to do it. If they are charging you for the product, there is at least some hope that they won't, and if they do, they have crossed a moral line- in the same…

This isn't a "meme". Please stop using that word where it doesn't belong.

Post by dhimes » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 4:44 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #48

dhimes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This meme needs to be shouted from the mountaintops until everybody understands it. Indeed you are correct- a company can be pure evil and charge you for wrecking your privacy. But if the app is free, that's all they can do and it's pretty obvious they are going to do it. If they are charging you for the product, there is at least some hope that they won't, and if they do, they have crossed a moral line- in the same…

> This meme needs to be shouted from the mountaintops until everybody understands it. This meme needs to die in a fire as it is actively harmful for understanding economic interactions in the real world.

Post by shawabawa3 » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 5:12 PM UTC

JTon wrote: post #36

kevcampb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it seems that they very rarely collect those fees, if at all. I've certainly had my android install over one year, and no request for payment. See plenty of other similar reports online. Suspect getting users to pay $1 is going to be a real pain, not for the cost, but for the convenience factor.

You say rarely, but I've never heard of any accounts of them collecting the fee. Do you know if they have?

Post by kristiandupont » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 5:46 PM UTC

enscr wrote: post #55

amirmc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The meme maybe a cliche but it's true" No, it is false and that's why it needs to die. It prevents a wider discussion about business models and leads to (imho) ridiculously oversimplified views that are restricted to advertising and only within the product in question. In the worst case, people may use the heuristic that paying for something somehow gives you a voice (it doesn't) or prevents a company from product…

"You are both the customer and the product" - that's oversimplified as well. You've just put FB, Google, Credit Cards & Whatsapp in the same bucket. That ain't right either. There's overlap between being a customer & being the product. But the range is so wide that there's no harm in simplifying it by saying FB makes you the product & Whatsapp (pre-acquisition) is the product.