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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#301

Post by Groxx »

socalgal2 wrote: post #286
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 see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. not see = Steam

>Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason.

Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.

Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning).

I generally agree it's far out of balance, but I do think it's broadly understandable.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#302

Post by Workaccount2 »

pydry wrote: post #156
Workaccount2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By far the choice of most marginally savvy and above internet users is an ad-model where they themselves ad-block. Which somehow is spun to be morally righteous.

Once google's shareholders have wet their beak, the on-campus sushi bars and manicurists and $400k pay packets are paid for and the Taylor Swifts of the world are paid off there isnt much left of your subscription to pay for the long tail of content creators who dont have Taylor Swift's leverage. Which is why many of them say things like "skip these ads if you like Im not getting any of it" or "Im here primarily for…

Youtube has a 55/45 (creator/google) split with content creators. YT premium views also pay substantially more. Most of the money youtube makes goes to creators.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#303

Post by scarface_74 »

yibg wrote: post #170
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…

Similar situation as flights. People complain about lack of space, misc fees etc. But when it comes down to it, people for the most part, still pick the cheapest flight. I think the other factor is a bit of anchoring. I know this impacts me anyways. If there is a "free" alternative, then that's where I'm anchored at. I can watch youtube for free so paying for it seems like a bad deal. Where as there is no free altern…

For the most part, people are not who make the airline the most profitable, companies paying employees to fly do.

Even then the second most profitable line of business for airlines are credit cards and the banks who buy miles in bulk for their customers. Of course this is a US perspective.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#304

Post by fn-mote »

AndrewDavis wrote: post #297
makeitdouble wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It'd be interesting to see open data about this. My understanding is games with microtransactions optimise for "whales", people who spend inordinate amounts of money. While the majority of users don't pay anything, or at most very little.

You need a funnel to find the whales. Free users < sometimes pay a bit < regularly $10/week < whale

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#305

Post by Marsymars »

xp84 wrote: post #82
barnabee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love to know the expected ad revenue per user for makers of apps like WhatsApp, Instagram. I’m pretty convinced I’d pay 10x or more than that amount for a completely ad free version but I can’t be sure.

Don’t underestimate how expensive ads are and thus how much money they can bring in. Marco Arment, the developer of Overcast podcast player, has made remarks in the past about how the ad-supported version is completely viable and may actually make him more money per user than the price of his paid option. In his case, he runs his own contextual ad system. Obviously Meta is in a completely different league in terms of…

> Part of me thinks the reason why they don’t offer that paid ad-free version of Facebook (which they built to try and appease the EU regulators) in the US is because their ARPU is so high that people would laugh at the price “Facebook/IG Premium” would have to cost.

The ad-free one doesn’t have to cost more than the ad-supported ARPU. There’s a pretty reasonable argument to be made that social media services with near-ubiquitous uptake should be regulated as utilities, and regulators could reasonably place the price at cost + a marginal profit margin as determined to be reasonable, like they do for other utilities that are privately-owned.

> Also, don’t forget that at least for now, paid subscriptions to social media apps would need to pay a 30% rent to the platform owner duopoly.

They don’t have to offer paid subscriptions via IAP.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#306

Post by Marsymars »

irjustin wrote: post #24
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…

This is only true if they introduce them. i.e. FB doesn't have a paid service, but obviously Youtube does. The problem is Whatsapp is a closed ecosystem so unlike email we can't just buy a provider. And I do pay for youtube. The experience is well worth it and I'm thankful I can afford it (it's not a lot but many can't).

> This is only true if they introduce them. i.e. FB doesn't have a paid service, but obviously Youtube does.

FB does - “Meta Verified” for $16/month (presumably different depending on locale), but the benefits aren’t very good. (A verified badge, Increased account protection, Enhanced support, Upgraded profile features, Bonus stars and stickers)

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#307

Post by anon-3988 »

nkrisc wrote: post #145
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have the actual stats, but, sadly, it seems like a gigantic chunk of the “i would rather pay a small fee to use a service rather than paying for it with exposure to ads” crowd is mostly all-talk. And I am saying this as someone who genuinely believes in the “small fee instead of paying with ad exposure” approach. The one specific example of this that made me think so is the Youtube Premium situation. So many…

Taking the YouTube example, and many others like it, I only use it because it is free. If YouTube was subscription only, hypothetically, I would just not use it , and my life would be same as it is now. There are a great many services that are nice to have, but very few I would bother paying for out of my wallet. Given the choice of paying for them or not using them, I would just walk away from most of them.

This would be fine if you also don't use Adblock. You can't say I use the bakery for free as long as I have the backdoor access key and therefore "free".

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#308

Post by eddythompson80 »

Groxx wrote: post #301
socalgal2 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people would never pay for software. I see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. not see = Steam

> Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning). I generall…

> Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable.

That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#309

Post by Groxx »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #308
Groxx wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. Quite a lot of paid software does not meet that bar. It's far more likely to both cost you money and waste a few hours (much longer than that food demanded, unless you got food poisoning). I generall…

> Even mediocre food is still functional, and usually still enjoyable. That's not even remotely close to being true. Plenty of people would order a $25 dish at a place and not like it. Not finishing the dish, or throwing a way a half eaten candy bar or bad-tasting-$6-cup of coffee is very normal. Plenty of (if most) food is meh or not enjoyable. It just serves a purpose and fills you and you move on.

If you're routinely buying and throwing out $25 plates of food, then you're in a different income bracket than many people. And then, yes, avoiding a $3 app is more nonsensical than for most.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#310

Post by nicoburns »

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.

They only had 55 employees when facebook bought them. I suspect their infrastructure costs were much less than you've suggested too. There's a reason whatsapp only supported one device: they didn't store messages after they were delivered.
Post reply on HN