Meta launches Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp subscriptions

Post by drnick1 » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:43 AM UTC

ValentineC wrote: post #121

drnick1 wrote: post #46

Just stop using Meta products. It's really not as hard as it seems. Nobody needs FB to communicate with friends and family. Send texts or emails or use your phone.

Good luck trying to not use Meta products (specifically WhatsApp) as a (non-tech) professional outside the US needing to communicate with their counterparts. The best compromise for such people, I guess, would be a work phone number that's solely for business WhatsApp communication.

Post by nxpnsv » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:48 AM UTC

qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

Post by wahnfrieden » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:55 AM UTC

bigmadshoe wrote: post #245

sdthjbvuiiijbb wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've missed the point of the comment that you've replied to. There's a well known adverse selection effect because the people who would pay for no ads are exactly the people who you most want to be able to serve ads to: people with lots of disposable income, and people who are power users who see the most ads. As a result the actual amount that they would need to charge for an ad-free version is higher than the ave…

Fair point. I think it depends on the person. I know plenty of people without much disposable income who still pay for several subscriptions.

Post by gmueckl » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:57 AM UTC

adjejmxbdjdn wrote: post #220

qqtt wrote: post #98

I'm going to go against the grain here and say this is probably a positive thing for Meta products, and honestly every other "free" service to provide these kinds of revenue avenues. How many times do we hear things like "if the product is free, you are the product" - well, the consequence of that is development resources tend to be pulled into directions that benefit advertisers. By having material subscription reve…

> By having material subscription revenue coming in for things outside the advertising space, the product managers can justify investing in features that otherwise would be passed up due to lack of revenue potential from advertising. You’re a Meta decision maker presented with 3 options. Which one do you pick? (remember, you’re not you…you’re a Meta decision maker trying to justify a trillion dollar valuation). - Pos…

Post by ipaddr » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 5:05 AM UTC

tgma wrote: post #192

bigmadshoe wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually look this information up! For example, Instagram makes approx $2-50 ad revenue per user per year, depending on the region. Apparently it’s highest in North America. So Of course this would get pretty expensive for all the services we use. But I personally would happily throw $100-$250 per year at my most used apps to stop being advertised to.

If you are in the US and in a demographic who posts on Hacker News, $100-$250 is likely below your monthly revenue contribution to Google alone.