31–40 of 78 posts
"Because our business model is to get bought, not becoming profitable."
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't have to sell to FB they chose to. They had a history of flipping to paid versions of the app to cover costs and reduce growth. Their actual competitors were carriers who charge exorbitant SMS fees internationally. At ~500M users their plan to simply charge $1/yr would have covered their costs.
I don't see it that way. After selling to FB it became clear that hey intended to launch VoIP. If they actually wanted to launch a high-quality product, better voice service than the one offered by carriers (and therefore much better than what Viber has to offer), they would probably have struggled to do it without the help of FB. Every carrier on earth would be against them.
"Because our business model is to get bought, not becoming profitable."
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
[edit] Seems my comment is being misunderstood. My point was that FB wouldn't pay $19B unless they planned to monetize beyond the $1/user/year model.
While I strongly support any business model that tries to escape from the typical ads monetisation strategy, we can see (two years after this post was published) that not relying on ads has not been the best long-term strategy for WhatsApp for two reasons: 1. They didn't manage to stay independent and had to sell to Facebook. I always thought that they had a very good chance to expand their product and built a platfo…
They didn't have to sell to FB they chose to. They had a history of flipping to paid versions of the app to cover costs and reduce growth. Their actual competitors were carriers who charge exorbitant SMS fees internationally. At ~500M users their plan to simply charge $1/yr would have covered their costs.
"Because our business model is to get bought, not becoming profitable."
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
Only a small percentage of their users have ever paid. Most users get to use it free of charge every year.
While this writeup may be meaningless in the long term it's still nice to see in comparison to other apps of the "moment".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
It's great, but it's not $19B great. [edit] Seems my comment is being misunderstood. My point was that FB wouldn't pay $19B unless they planned to monetize beyond the $1/user/year model.
Edit: responding to your edit:
> My point was that FB wouldn't pay $19B unless they planned to monetize beyond the $1/user/year model.
Maybe. I think it's more likely that the social industry has started to peak, and that we'll continue to see FB at the top, buying off small companies as they become threats. Take a look at the movie industry, or any industry with a traditional "Big 4" group of companies.
Most people's morals and ethics, however "religious" and staunch they sound, is up for sale. It's just a matter of finding the right price (as long as what you want from them is not illegal). I am yet to meet someone whose morals are not for sale. I only know figures like Gandhi but I never got a chance to meet them (and some books told me they were flexible when it came to themselves - re: his wife's medical treatme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users pay $1/year after the first year. At almost half a billion active users that's a pretty great business model.
It's great, but it's not $19B great. [edit] Seems my comment is being misunderstood. My point was that FB wouldn't pay $19B unless they planned to monetize beyond the $1/user/year model.