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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#271

Post by cosmic_cheese »

nsagent wrote: post #183
andrepd wrote: post #3

Would be nice if these kinds of articles would at least take a paragraph to plug some alternatives, such as Signal.

I used to use Signal exclusively rather than Whatsapp, but I've had lots of issues sending media. This has not been a problem with Whatsapp, so I've recently begun to use Whatsapp more. There are also issues with message history that I've encountered on Signal that don't exist on Whatsapp. If Signal could address these concerns I'd be happy to move away from Whatsapp. With this news I'll likely need to reassess my us…

WhatsApp’s desktop app is also a good deal better. Signal is very mobile-centric which I’m sure makes sense for a lot of people, but I’m sitting in front of a real keyboard for most of my days and so it’s a nice when desktop clients are first-class citizens and not afterthoughts.

It’s frustrating that it’s basically only Telegram and WhatsApp that take desktop platforms seriously.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#272

Post by wat10000 »

timewizard wrote: post #158
jobigoud wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exi…

I feel the exact opposite. YouTube is the only streaming service I pay for, and it's well worth it. I have no trouble finding things I want to watch and there's a huge amount of it. Other services don't have nearly as much good stuff, and it's too hard to find among the crap.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#273

Post by RestlessMind »

Zak wrote: post #257
homefree wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel a bit for Brian Acton - iirc he refused to sell because the 500M users paying $500M dollars was more than enough to fund his tiny team (of 30?), but when the offer went up to 19B$ it's just kind of hard to turn down - there's extreme opportunity cost there. Most people would sell before that, 19B$ of principle is quite a lot. I think it's just if you're empire building - and Zuck is insanely good at this, one…

Now Brian Acton has a huge pile of money to help fund Signal, so I don't think he has to feel too terrible about selling out. > Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat. Google also had the opportunity to do this. Around the same time iMessage launched, Google made Hangouts the default SMS app on Android with a simi…

I used Hangouts including the dogfood versions internally at Google. Problem was it was too complicated because it was designed by Googlers for Googlers. So it supported desktop and mobile, work email and personal email and phone numbers, text and video, and so on. In short, every single complexity conceivable was crammed into the app.

Whereas Whatsapp was simple - only phone numbers to sign up, only text and images, only mobile phones. That simplicity meant my parents could onboard smoothly and operate it without having to navigate a maze of UX. I literally saw Whatsapp winning in real time vs Hangouts and other alternatives.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#274

Post by SkyeCA »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #200
sdeframond wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight. Flight comparators don't show "avaliable legroom" in their metrics. As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more.

> As far as I know some companies charge more for seats near entrances where there's more space, so people are willing to pay more In my anecdotal experience, the people complaining about leg room are precisely those who are not paying for additional leg room. (Similar to how people who compare modern air travel with service in the 1960s aren't purchasing the inflation-adjusted equivalent ticket, which would almost a…

I may be the exception, but as someone who's 194cm tall I am both paying for more legroom and complaining about legroom.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#275

Post by RestlessMind »

cherryteastain wrote: post #261
homefree wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel a bit for Brian Acton - iirc he refused to sell because the 500M users paying $500M dollars was more than enough to fund his tiny team (of 30?), but when the offer went up to 19B$ it's just kind of hard to turn down - there's extreme opportunity cost there. Most people would sell before that, 19B$ of principle is quite a lot. I think it's just if you're empire building - and Zuck is insanely good at this, one…

> 500M users paying $500M dollars There's no way they actually earned $500M/year. Even if Whatsapp had 100 employees making $200k/year on average, that's $20M on salaries. Add an another very generous $80M on infra/admin etc costs and they'd have been making $400M profit. With that much profit achieved within such a short period, in the QE funny money era they could have IPO'd at $50-100 billion easily.

Correct. I used Android phones back then and so did all my family members and most of my friends. No one I knew paid a dime for Whatsapp.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#276

Post by wat10000 »

qwerpy wrote: post #220
nytesky wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YT Premium is pretty expensive. I think it costs as much for one user for a multi-device plan on Netflix? They don’t create nor curate much content. I am curious about the poster who has learned so much from YouTube — I have tried learning many topics from science to programming to home repairs, and finding a quality program can be very challenging, and there are a lot of programs which are actually elaborate sales p…

There's great content on YouTube but there's a lot of garbage. AI-generated slop, clickbait thumbnails/titles that actually don't payout, sales pitches, and plain old low-quality garbage. The lack of a thumbs down really makes it hard to avoid these. I realize that thumbs down is also used to punish "wrong" political viewpoints and companies, so it's a hard problem. But as a viewer who never uploads content, it only…

My recommended feed mostly consists of chess, machining, Mario Maker, fighter jets, and assorted other things like that, which is exactly what I want to see. There's some dumb stuff in there, but it's easy to skip over and it learns to recommend what I actually watch. And there is a thumbs-down button, at least for me.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#277

Post by [deleted] »

makeitdouble wrote: post #202
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Whatsapp became a paid app, I can’t remember the details as I believe they varied by platform (iOS vs Android) but it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter. I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it. This is coming from SMS costing €0.25 per message (text only!) and also coming from people who would gladly pay €3 for…

> people would never pay for software. I mostly share your conclusion, but I think there is a specific twist: most people will pay for on the spot transactions. We see it in spades for games: in-app purchases and season passes have a lower barrier of acceptance. I assume buying stones to unlock a character must be thought at the same level as buying coffee, as just a one-time purchase that doesn't require further cal…

[deleted]

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#279

Post by RestlessMind »

doix wrote: post #26
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 remember WhatsApp costing money, 1$ per year or per lifetime or something. I paid for it, I think it was a WinRar situation though, where deleting and reinstalling the app gave it to you for free or something. I'm guessing most people didn't pay though, since they scraped the fee (even before FB bought them). I guess it was just too little money to be worth the effort.

I was on Android back then and never paid for Whatsapp. Neither did any of my family or friends who used Android phones back in 2012-13

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#280

Post by temporallobe »

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 would be fine with the consumption model as long as it’s reasonable, but I honestly believe that streaming services hate this idea because it’s not as profitable as the ad model. In fact I am becoming more and more frustrated with services that I am paying for which show me ads even for “ad-free” experiences. For example, I pay for the highest tier of ad-free Hulu and Disney+ but Hulu somehow carves out exceptions for so-called non-Hulu content. So during some of those shows, you will see very frequent, very repetitive ads and it is quite obnoxious. There is literally not even an option to pay for a higher level of ad-free experience (I would!) because I guess they REALLY want to sell me Wegovy and SNHU and whatever other nonsense. The interruptions have gotten so obnoxious that I have lost interest. The only other option is to simply buy the episodes I am interested in. Or stop watching streaming content altogether.
Post reply on HN