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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#351

Post by paulcole »

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…

> IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use

Do you use any free (as in no money comes out of your wallet) services today? If so, which ones?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#352

Post by boldlybold »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #334
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a "I don't want to see content like this" option you can signal on content and I find it works quite well

If only they would respect that when you tell them to hide shorts. Drives me crazy that they utterly refuse to let you turn those off.

Get a browser extension that does it, I finally looked for one after clicking the "not interested" button one too many times.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#354

Post by parpfish »

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…

A big part of that is having payment methods on file so the transaction is as frictionless as possible.

If somebody has never purchased an app, setting up payments in the app might be seen as “too much work, especially just for this one app”. But once you get the payments in there, each subsequent 0.99 payment is painless

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#355

Post by timewizard »

wat10000 wrote: post #272
timewizard wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Managing subscriptions and blocking (or unblocking) channels are subpar. Watch history, search history and comment history are all afterthoughts and it shows. Managing playlists and watching through playlists are unusual and glitchy. Search filters are weak. The audio only experience is just a gaping hole in the video player.

Youtube music is fine-ish. Search is pretty weak and prefers recommendations over results. The controls for playlist Play, Play with Shuffle, and Play with Autoadd are fairly confusing especially between the app and the desktop version. Creating and managing multiple playlists is a frustrating experience and not thought out at all. It constantly feeling the need to change the album art on my playlists.

You pay to not be annoyed. You're not paying for a "premium" product in any way.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#356

Post by parpfish »

leokennis wrote: post #7

At least in The Netherlands, WhatsApp could show a 60 second unskippable modal ad video on every launch, and still get away with it due to network effects. If you’re not on WhatsApp, no updates or news from your kids school, your sports team, your family, your car dealership etc. for you.

Here’s an advertising model I’ve thought about but never seen:

The app itself is 100% ad free and runs on credits. You get credits through se other portal by logging in to watch ads whenever it’s convenient for you.

Good app experience for the user, and potentially better experiences for the advertisers because they get the target audience when they are most open to ads (and not annoyed by them).

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#358

Post by whoisyc »

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

Thanks to Australian customer protection laws, Steam has some of the most lenient refund policies among digital software stores. You can usually get a full refund if your play time is less than a few hours. Plus there are frequent sales. Don’t underestimate the psychological impact of making people feel “I have to buy this now or the deal will be gone.”

I genuinely do not know how to get a refund from the google play store or the apple equivalent.

(The downside of the Steam policy is it makes Steam unviable for games that can be played in full very quickly. Develops can also game the system by dragging out early game so the player is over the refundable time by the time they reach the rough parts. But this is for another discussion.)

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#359

Post by udev4096 »

leokennis wrote: post #7

At least in The Netherlands, WhatsApp could show a 60 second unskippable modal ad video on every launch, and still get away with it due to network effects. If you’re not on WhatsApp, no updates or news from your kids school, your sports team, your family, your car dealership etc. for you.

WhatsApp has been selling your metadata to facebook for quite a while now. Their marketing gimmick of "end-to-end encryption" makes everyone think it's safe and private but here's the thing, your messages don't matter to them. It's the metadata they use to profile you. Remember the quote from Michael Hayden: "We kill people based on metadata."

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#360

Post by keiferski »

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

I think it is because humans spent thousands, tens of thousands of years not doing much other than searching for food and trading one physical object for another physical object.

The idea of trading something valuable for an abstract piece of software or paper is still not really natural to us, and is a learned behavior.

Post reply on HN