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

WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

quastor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 462 posts

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#221

Post by hbn »

Tepix wrote: post #195
Traster wrote: post #45

I think one thing to consider is that WhatsApp is probably by nature a scalable application. It is in the end, simply a client app that sends data to other client apps. So by nature, you scale in parallel very well, there are no 1-all communications. So unlike something like facebook where the data all needs to go to a central server and be polled by an unknown (but potentially arbitrary large) number of clients, in…

Why do you assume that WhatsApp uses point-to-point connections? My assumption is that most devices cannot talk to each other directly and require central servers.

I could be wrong but I don't think he was saying "point-to-point communication" in the technical aspect of the term (i.e. peer-to-peer). Rather, just making the point that they're not storing tons of data on their server that has to be polled on demand by an unknown amount of clients forever. Even if there's a server between the users, once they receive a message and pass it onto whoever necessary, their job is done and they don't need to worry about that data any more.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#222

Post by dopamean »

topdancing wrote: post #73

You can very easily build your own WhatsApp server today by simply deploying https://www.ejabberd.im/ on a box and using https://conversations.im/ on an Android phone.

Comments like this always remind me of that old comment on here about how dropbox could easily be recreated with fsync or something.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#223

Post by GLGirty »

varelse wrote: post #201
y4mi wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You hire more "heroes". Pay what they're worth. Make them happy. i dont think its as easy as you make it sound. these "heroes" generally are as productive because they dont sync and already have a clear idea of what they want to achieve/how to implement what they wish. if you add a second person like that to the same team you run a massive risk of having two competing ideas which creates a lot of friction.

So make sure you're hiring a hero and not a primadonna?

The difference between hero or primadonna can be environmental. When there are multiple experts for a department/tech stack, you get heroes. If the bus number is one, a hero risks converting to a primadonna.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#224

Post by necheffa »

mywittyname wrote: post #219
altacc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in a range of companies, there is definitely an inverse correlation between company size and speed, especially for individual teams. At 500 people you're well into enterprise level organisation, where a lot of processes are put in place to minimize the amount of damage a single person can do to the organisation. That also puts a speed limit on those efficient and knowledgeable contributors. Some compani…

I think this is more correlated to maturity than size. It's just that size is highly correlated to maturity. I've been in large companies where I was the admin/owner of their AWS account. And I've worked at companies with 200 people where I have to submit tickets to get anything created in AWS. The major difference was how mature the product was.

I work on a suite of products over 50 years old that have been incumbent for about that long and still have a submit tickets to get just about anything done.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#225

Post by baktubi »

netcan wrote: post #208
baktubi wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Unix philosophy should apply here. The fact that WhatsApp did one thing well and it had a good business model (was it $1 per year?) is the important bit. When you say, “Now the app does dating…” I think the right move is to scrap the project because that’s a colossal fuckup. Unless you have Microsoft cash to have multiple colossal fuckups in a row, don’t add another dating app to your messaging app. Ergo,…

Maybe. I'm not saying that philosophy is bad, just that reality is complicated. " Scrap the project and move on " works in some contexts, not others. The way startups/products actually work, often, is evolutionary. If your texting idea didn't work, but you see a chance to pivot into something... are you really going to just fire everyone and tell investors "sorry?" That said, the "one thing well" philosophy really do…

Yeah I agree with the idea of pivoting. I suppose to clarify:

* Pivoting would leverage existing technology built in the process of initial concept. Which to me is the equivalent of scrapping the initial idea (while salvaging the generally-useful IP/technology).

* Adding a bunch of tangential features to a product to increase revenue is a colossal fuckup scenario (maybe the language is a bit over dramatic).

For instance, Google is great at search; gmail is cool; docs was innovative (albeit limited); and then… https://killedbygoogle.com/

Unfortunately, after seeing this time and time again it’s tough for me to get behind mainstream tech. I loved the old Microsoft/Nokia phones; and the Zune. You can tell a lot or love went into the design/engineering but then projects just get axed by corporate interests.

Meanwhile, you can by a mechanical device or appliance from 1950s and it’ll still work just fine.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#227

Post by allcentury »

emerongi wrote: post #88
M0r13n wrote: post #57

I'm honestly not that surprised about the size. In my experience, efficiency and the number of engineers have not necessarily correlated. For example, I used to work for a company with about 500 employees (relatively large by German standards) and now work for a competing company in the same industry with less than 150 employees. The core engineering team only consists of a dozen engineers. The output is noticeably l…

As long as the core system is built on solid engineering, this definitely makes sense. From my experience in a deadline-constrained environment, things end up being slapped together until they "just work". Adding new features gets more and more difficult and if you're still constrained by deadlines, then the solution is to hire more, which is effectively a brute-force solution to meet the deadlines. Output per employ…

Absolutely. This is also when bigger and more pervasive bugs enter the conversation. Decisions that kicked the can 2 years ago are now a big problem and no one team can fix it.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#228

Post by closeparen »

mywittyname wrote: post #219
altacc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in a range of companies, there is definitely an inverse correlation between company size and speed, especially for individual teams. At 500 people you're well into enterprise level organisation, where a lot of processes are put in place to minimize the amount of damage a single person can do to the organisation. That also puts a speed limit on those efficient and knowledgeable contributors. Some compani…

I think this is more correlated to maturity than size. It's just that size is highly correlated to maturity. I've been in large companies where I was the admin/owner of their AWS account. And I've worked at companies with 200 people where I have to submit tickets to get anything created in AWS. The major difference was how mature the product was.

My current employer has a nice balanced approach to this: everything is a code review. I may need a gatekeeper to approve my change, but I can always submit it.

It’s also safer this way. Not even the proper owners should routinely be on production shells or tools with live write access. They also go through peer review with each other. Once the infrastructure is in place for that, it makes sense to open up.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#229

Post by closeparen »

lumost wrote: post #215

My 2cents. Messaging is a weird app to focus on mau/dau. There have been many messaging protocols which scale to hundreds of millions of users, and there is prior art of large not particularly valuable chat systems like aim, gchat etc. No one is going to use a consumer messaging system which charges money or shows ads. Which brings to mind substantial questions on the business model others are using the messaging pla…

WhatsApp at this stage had a small signup fee.

Re: WhatsApp scaled to 1B users with only 50 engineers

#230

Post by varelse »

GLGirty wrote: post #223
varelse wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So make sure you're hiring a hero and not a primadonna?

The difference between hero or primadonna can be environmental. When there are multiple experts for a department/tech stack, you get heroes. If the bus number is one, a hero risks converting to a primadonna.

I find if you hire heroes with different skill sets you can avoid this dilemma. Or don't hire two Supermen. Hire Batman and Superman instead. But if a hero converts to a primadonna then they were never a hero. On the other hand if you're skimping a hero of the equipment and resources they told you they needed from day one, you're the a***.
Post reply on HN