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

Why we don't sell ads (2012)

blog.whatsapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#41

Post by duskwuff »

mkr-hn wrote: post #22
rayiner wrote: post #14

Remember the internet back when ads were just something you ran across on cheesy low-quality (or porn) sites? http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/09/16/the-web-in-1996-1997/ http://allthingsd.com/20090720/yahoo-home-pages-over-the-las... http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/time-10-big-websites-looked-15-...

That's because low quality sites were the only ones that would run the kind of ads we had back then. Then someone built an ad blocker and forced the industry to rethink its approach.

I think you've got your chronology off. Ad blocking was a response to widespread advertising on web sites, not vice versa!

Ad blocking software has only become common in the last five years or so, as web browsers with "extension" support have become widespread. It was very rare before that.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#42

Post by leephillips »

general_failure wrote: post #8

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…

Grigori Perelman

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#43

Post by rdtsc »

klochner wrote: post #33
wdewind wrote: post #28

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.

Not $19B great for _you_.

In other words we can go with your price analysis or with the actual number paid for it. I'll go with the actual number.

A simpler example: Is this bottle of wine worth $200? Maybe not to you...You can make fun of that price. That's cool, free speech, say what you want. But it is selling at that and someone keeps paying that amount for it.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#44

Post by netcan »

when advertising is involved you the user are the product

How about: If you're work at a startup where the business model is 'get acquired,' you are the product.

Incidentally, I don't really agree with either of these statements, at least not in their strong forms. The problem with advertising is usually bad advertising. Ads (especially online ads) are usually annoying in inverse proportion to their value. Spam is on the low value & annoying end of the spectrum. 90% of annoyance probably comes from 10% of the value. Regarding privacy, advertising is just the most visible part of something wider and the hidden part of this iceberg is the most worrying.

Anyway, that's besides the point. This "old" blog hints at something sort of hypocritical or schizophrenic about startup culture. On one hand its hackery and lone wolfish and disruptively anti establishment. We can beat you from our basement in our sandals. Hang your cubicles. We don't need bosses or talks from HR departments. We don't need to communicate in corporate speak. There's a hard to deny anti corporate drone streak.

On the other hand, the investment and incentive to found startups is based around the ability to get big fast. Huge. Very fast. Multi billion dollar acquisitions and IPOs in 5-10 years.

Huge means "corporate." Either the startup becomes a huge corporation or their product is put in the hand a big corporation. The real people feel o company where cute memes sound like 'don't be evil' start to sound like "for your convenience…"

I don't have any normative message.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#45

Post by antisocial »

Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. – Tyler Durden, Fight Club

That's an awesome quote. Personalized ads (retargeting etc are even worse). I didn't realize this before I worked for an ad network. Once I understood how retargeting works (and also after implementing a humble feature), I realized how unethical it is to constantly tempt the user to buy something he or she can not afford or even if she can afford it, the money she could have put to better use by saving. I resigned from that company after a short stint even though it had a great work culture, great team etc. But had they offered me some crazy stock options, may be I wouldn't have had the moral courage to quit, with an underwater mortgage and financial insecurity.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#46

Post by rdtsc »

awda wrote: post #36
wdewind wrote: post #28

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.

$500M/yr in raw revenue? How do you grow from there? Lower costs? Grow your revenue? Half a billion is getting close to max adoption. Do you up your prices?

I'll stick with just getting $500M/yr. That is more than most start-ups will ever make.

Once I get there I can solve other problems as they come up. Would that be a reasonable approach?

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#47

Post by debt »

The more I think about the acquisition the more I wished WhatsApp would've stayed on their own. $500 million a year is great. I wish they would've pulled a Craigslist and become more of a cultural institution than another acquisition; focus more on making chat amazing.

I feel like that would've had a larger, net positive effect on the public consciousness. People would see WhatsApp doing it for what's right(don't be evil) then what's profitable and I think that's just a good sentiment to have out there in the aether.

They could've easily, easily taken on the Google/Facebook conglomerate.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#48

Post by gabriel34 »

So, I uninstalled whatsapp a bit before the acquisition and have been wondering if they sold my past messages along with their company; I really hope that is not the case. I know draconian EULAs ToCs and "Privacy" Policies are all legal, but I trusted them and prefer to give Facebook as little info as possible.

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#49

Post by thisiswrong »

debt wrote: post #47

The more I think about the acquisition the more I wished WhatsApp would've stayed on their own. $500 million a year is great. I wish they would've pulled a Craigslist and become more of a cultural institution than another acquisition; focus more on making chat amazing. I feel like that would've had a larger, net positive effect on the public consciousness. People would see WhatsApp doing it for what's right(don't be…

> They could've easily, easily taken on the Google/Facebook conglomerate.

Even better that any of these NSA-friendly conglomerates is the ChatSecure App:

"-UNBEATABLE PRIVACY: We keep your messages 100% private using state of the art Off-The-Record (OTR) encryption. Your conversations cannot be logged or intercepted by anyone.

-AD-FREE: We want your love, not your money" [1]

[1] https://guardianproject.info/apps/chatsecure/

Re: Why we don't sell ads (2012)

#50

Post by wdewind »

awda wrote: post #36
wdewind wrote: post #28

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.

$500M/yr in raw revenue? How do you grow from there? Lower costs? Grow your revenue? Half a billion is getting close to max adoption. Do you up your prices?

Remember how small Whatsapp is (~50 employees). They don't need to do any of those things to have a fantastic business for a long time to come.
Post reply on HN