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

WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

seirdy.one

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#21

Post by throwaway2245 »

samhh wrote: post #8
mantap wrote: post #6

The problem with WhatsApp is not that users are locked in. You can install as many chat apps as you want. WhatsApp has no exclusivity over its users. The problem with WhatsApp is that it only has one alternative. In terms of chat apps that use the signal protocol there's two: WhatsApp and Signal. And Signal is not quite as good as WhatsApp. It's certainly much improved but it's not there yet.

The vast majority of users don't care about the underlying encryption. That's a problem, in a sense, but the core problem here is the network effect. That it's the natural behaviour of people doesn't make it not a problem.

It makes a difference that there is not an obvious comparable alternative.

The network effect works both ways: if key people in my network are convinced to switch, other people will follow.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#22

Post by alexashka »

I don't know why this focused on WhatsApp when this is the fundamental problem of free markets - somebody is going to win, and then they're not going to want to give up their top spot, using all sorts of barely-legal tactics to accomplish that goal.

Notice I said barely-legal - there lies the answer - the legal system. You're not going to fix dominant players abusing their power with anything but laws and culture that make it untenable to treat people like shit.

Now comes the kicker - who is going to make sure the law-makers and law-enforcers don't abuse their power? Where's your 'free software' solution to that dilemma?

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#23

Post by kiwidrew »

amelius wrote: post #11
kitkat_new wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few alternatives, actually. There is also Element (based on Matrix), and XMPP which use encryption based on the Signal Protocol. Both are mentioned in the article. And yes: users are locked in, because your whole social network is expected to be on WhatsApp. 1) you need to convince others to find you on alternatives (every single person even people you just met, you have to explain what&why; also: workpla…

By the way, this whole problem of network-effect based lock-in was already solved for telephony in the old days. Why do we have to solve it again?

Because regulation is bad and therefore we have been left at the mercy of the invisible hand of the free market.

Even this recent spate of "deplatforming" events can't seem to sway (a certain subset of) the tech community towards the idea that some amount of regulation can be a good thing.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#24

Post by olah_1 »

The point about simplicity is important and often overlooked.

> Complex software that can’t be developed by a different group of people creates dependence, step one of user domestication. That alone is enough to open the door to problematic developments.

This was one of the goals of Urbit[1]. Reduce complexity to increase freedom.

It’s true that Urbit uses esoteric naming for Hoon, but there are many contributors at this point and from what I understand, it is possible for one person to maintain the whole thing. Assuming that’s true, it’s an amazing accomplishment in simplification of software.

[1]: https://urbit.org/blog/precepts-discussion/

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#25

Post by sn_master »

tambourine_man wrote: post #19

WhatsApp gained many users at first by running on most of the early feature phones (largely Java ME if I’m not mistaken). These days you target two platforms, iOS and Android, and you’re done, but back then running everywhere was a big feature. Interesting article, I find domestication analogy quite apt.

Outside the US, texting was/is charged per-message rather than unlimited texting. It was/is very expensive to send thousands of texts vs the fixed-rate data plans.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#26

Post by kappi »

cameldrv wrote: post #18
smoovb wrote: post #12

WhatsApp grew to its size because of its first mover advantage. The completion, SMS, had the highest cost of data transmission on the planet, so not hard to see the reason for its growth. WhatsApp squandered their early lead with slow development and so competitors like Line, Viber, Wechat and Telegram all came later and added features and took market share. If you are an international business person, you have all t…

Except in group chats. The switching costs are higher for those.

Agree, active whatsapp users have so many groups with huge number of members. whatsapp switching cost is high because couple of group members refuse to switch, so group remains in whatsapp. Without group chats migrating to new platform, it remains a ghost town.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#27

Post by rodgerd »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #20
laurent92 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had SMS supported group text, Whatsapp would have never existed in the 1st world (and had SMS been free in Asia, Whatsapp would have never existed at all).

When WhatsApp first came out, lots of people (in the West) paid punishingly high costs for sending an SMS at all. Being able to communicate via [free wifi/a much smaller data cost] was a big selling point.

Yes, I suspect it's a function of average-age-on-HN, but certainly remember when teens would have a phone plan based on how many "free" texts were included.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#29

Post by vinay427 »

sn_master wrote: post #25
tambourine_man wrote: post #19

WhatsApp gained many users at first by running on most of the early feature phones (largely Java ME if I’m not mistaken). These days you target two platforms, iOS and Android, and you’re done, but back then running everywhere was a big feature. Interesting article, I find domestication analogy quite apt.

Outside the US, texting was/is charged per-message rather than unlimited texting. It was/is very expensive to send thousands of texts vs the fixed-rate data plans.

I think it was also a timing issue. Paying per SMS was a thing in the US when texting was novel ($0.10/SMS or so, IIRC?) but the US seemed to move to unlimited texting sooner than most places. However, today in the European country I live in it's almost impossible to find plans that don't include unlimited SMS, but it perhaps happened "too late" to take over messaging now that online platforms offer effectively free international messaging and calling as well.

Re: WhatsApp and the Domestication of Users

#30

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

Cynddl wrote: post #4

“WhatsApp’s existing users were held captive by the fact that leaving WhatsApp meant losing the ability to communicate with WhatsApp users.” I'm confused. I thought everyone was identified by their phone number, which can be used to receive texts from anyone.

People in some countries have become quite unaccustomed to sending SMS, a legacy of expensive per-message costs (which is why WhatsApp originally took off). So, you can text them, but they might not answer you back unless they can do it through Whatsapp.
Post reply on HN