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

Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 372 posts

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#22

Post by JustSomeNobody »

valeg wrote: post #10

The clash of cultures... I prefer WhatsApp's one though.

> Some Facebook employees mocked WhatsApp with chants of ‘Welcome to WhatsApp—Shut up!’

Pretty sure I would, too.

Edit: This was ambiguous. I didn't mean I'd mock WhatsApp. I was agreeing with the orginal post that I'd prefer WhatsApp culture.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#23

Post by GFischer »

rmsaksida wrote: post #19
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #13

I kind of have to wonder what Jan Koum and Brian Acton were thinking (OK, I don't really wonder - they got paid billions of dollars, who wouldn't do it). But, of course, if you sell a company for billions of dollars, there is the obvious expectation that within some time frame your company will earn revenue and profit to support that valuation. You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solut…

> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't What about business features? Pretty much every business in my country advertises a Whatsapp number, from large companies to mom-and-pops. People contact them over Whatsapp to ask questions, make complaints, order stuff, everything. I can't believe Face…

Every company I've worked for wants an official WhatsApp business API.

And apparently that's what they proposed to Sandberg, according to the article, but the financial projections were nowhere near what ads would bring.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#24

Post by debt »

rmsaksida wrote: post #19
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #13

I kind of have to wonder what Jan Koum and Brian Acton were thinking (OK, I don't really wonder - they got paid billions of dollars, who wouldn't do it). But, of course, if you sell a company for billions of dollars, there is the obvious expectation that within some time frame your company will earn revenue and profit to support that valuation. You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solut…

> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't What about business features? Pretty much every business in my country advertises a Whatsapp number, from large companies to mom-and-pops. People contact them over Whatsapp to ask questions, make complaints, order stuff, everything. I can't believe Face…

Lotta smart people at Facebook, I imagine they've looked at this and have come to the conclusion that it's not lucrative as you think.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#25

Post by dingo_bat »

> When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end.

I cannot believe this. Seriously, I think this article is bs.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#26

Post by nottorp »

1123581321 wrote: post #8
nottorp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the WSJ subscription FAQ: When can I cancel? You may change or cancel your subscription at any time. To change or cancel your subscription, please contact Customer Service at 1-(800)-JOURNAL (568-7625) or 609-514-0870. We do not accept cancellations by mail, email, or by any other means. With those terms, they can all starve for all I care.

Have you ever called to cancel the WSJ? I have stopped the WSJ three times and the FT twice (same phone service.) It’s easy to do. They will make a retention offer but will not do things like hang up on you, require you to have moved out of your area, make you wait, etc. Of course I prefer self-service cancellation to be an option, but if the personal service route is handled well, it’s a small negative in my book, n…

Oh wait.

>They will make a retention offer but will not do things like hang up on you, REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE MOVED OUT OF YOUR AREA

You're stating this like it's a normal requirement for canceling subscriptions. I understand you're praising WSJ for not doing that but...

Do you accept treatment like this in the US? Are press subscriptions a lifetime commitment over there? Do I need to indenture my firstborn to any magazine that I subscribe to as well?

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#29

Post by mentos »

GFischer wrote: post #23
rmsaksida wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't What about business features? Pretty much every business in my country advertises a Whatsapp number, from large companies to mom-and-pops. People contact them over Whatsapp to ask questions, make complaints, order stuff, everything. I can't believe Face…

Every company I've worked for wants an official WhatsApp business API. And apparently that's what they proposed to Sandberg, according to the article, but the financial projections were nowhere near what ads would bring.

Ha think about all of the surface area on Facebook employees faces/arms that you could tattoo advertising on. I wonder if they have considered the financial opportunity cost there?
Post reply on HN