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

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#151

Post by stavros »

Guest9081239812 wrote: post #137
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…

My site has about 30k active registered users a day. The vast majority are long term members that have been on the site for years, so they're quite dedicated to the service. Even so, only about 50 of them pay to remove advertising.

How much do you make per user on ads, and how much is the subscription?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#152

Post by cookie_monsta »

Guest9081239812 wrote: post #137
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…

My site has about 30k active registered users a day. The vast majority are long term members that have been on the site for years, so they're quite dedicated to the service. Even so, only about 50 of them pay to remove advertising.

This is really interesting. Can you say how much it costs the user to remove ads?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#153

Post by timewizard »

filoleg wrote: post #34
mrtksn wrote: post #8

Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services? I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as conten…

I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…

> crowd is mostly all-talk.

I want to pay the small fee, through a simple to use portal, that makes it obvious how to cancel, and if I'm being obligated to a multi month term or not. I also want my payment card details to be perfectly secure and for none of my private information or usage to be sold to third parties.

> who actually pays for YT Premium.

Have you ever asked them "why don't you?" Or "what would it take to get you to pay?" Or even, "would you take a free month to see if it's worth it?"

Point being I don't think the problem is nearly as black and white as you've apparently surmised.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#155

Post by basisword »

mrtksn wrote: post #8

Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services? I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as conten…

>> Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services

Some of us actually paid for WhatsApp! I think it was about $1 a year when it launched. At the time it was providing significant value, especially in areas where cross-border communication was common.

I'm sure $1 isn't enough to cover costs anymore but someone could make a nice living charging $5-10 a month for something similar. The problem is people will always sell out to investors and fuck over their users. It's inevitable.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#156

Post by pydry »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #51
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…

By far the choice of most marginally savvy and above internet users is an ad-model where they themselves ad-block. Which somehow is spun to be morally righteous.

Once google's shareholders have wet their beak, the on-campus sushi bars and manicurists and $400k pay packets are paid for and the Taylor Swifts of the world are paid off there isnt much left of your subscription to pay for the long tail of content creators who dont have Taylor Swift's leverage.

Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for exposure, I make my money elsewhere".

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#157

Post by okdood64 »

perks_12 wrote: post #35

WhatsApp has S-tier status here in Germany. If I had access to a proper API I would pay them per message, without them needing to make their UX worse. If anything, if I had to pay per message, I'd be incentivized not to send too many messages, keeping the distractions for the user at a minimum.

> S-tier status here in Germany

What does this mean exactly?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#158

Post by timewizard »

jobigoud wrote: post #146
yapyap wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify I get because the Spotify free experience is HORRID. Youtube is also moving into that direction.

I think a good amount of people pay for Youtube just to be able to listen to audio with the screen off, which is a completely artificial restriction they added to the free version. Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.

> Such a strange business model, making the free version below acceptable.

That's because the core product is not anywhere near worth what they charge for it. The youtube interface is a nightmare for users and creators alike. I have very little controls over what I do and don't see, how I can filter or search for content, or how I can search for new content. History of both videos and comments are effectively non existent and impossible to reasonably search or archive.

It's not a service so much as it is a copyright clearinghouse.

If they had an actual experience with worthwhile features to offer then they wouldn't have to artificially degrade the free experience to convince you.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#159

Post by Hoasi »

yapyap wrote: post #125
cameldrv wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know lots of people that pay for YT premium. Lots of people pay for Spotify too. I even pay for Kagi.

Spotify I get because the Spotify free experience is HORRID. Youtube is also moving into that direction.

It's unclear to me how the paid Spotify experience compares with free, but you still get ads with the paid one. Also, you need to curate heavily because Spotify's algorithm will push certain types of content. If you listen to a podcast once, it is hard to get rid of it, as it will keep popping into your feed, or whatever they call their interface.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#160

Post by jobigoud »

egypturnash wrote: post #122
Funes- wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should've made sure of how Signal works with regards to chat history before you removed the app from the old phone.

"the iphone 4's antenna isn't a bad design, you're just holding it wrong" - steve jobs

To be fair Whatsapp works the same, if you are not careful when changing phone you will lose your history. That's because they don't actually store your messages on their servers, they are just synchronized between devices.
Post reply on HN