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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#551

Post by ivell »

tcfhgj wrote: post #249
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…

I am not interested in paying Google for anything. It's a company too big and powerful through immoral business (ads) I block all ads and wish commercial ads would cease to exist even though it would mean I couldn't use somethings anymore without payment.

I can understand weapons industry or alcohol industry as being immoral. However I do not understand how ads are immoral. It is annoying for some, while for some it is informative. Businesses inform the public about their services through ads.

Or do you mean how Google implemented its ads?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#552

Post by anshumankmr »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #516
b0a04gl wrote: post #427

everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about reven…

The next one to enshittify will be Threads. Right now it's in the honeymoon stage where there aren't any ads so people are encouraged to use it and help grow the platform.

I used Threads for the first day. And seeing occasionally promo pics that James Gunn posts of Superman. But from my ancedotal experience, Threads is already full of bots, escort services, and random tweeters who I have no interesting in following. I feel Threads might be shut down eventually or integrated into Instagram perhaps.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#553

Post by mrweasel »

lynx97 wrote: post #537
yarekt wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay for services that you use instead of forcing companies to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service? I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it

Nah. I only use WhatsApp because friends and acquaintances of mine use it. I have NEVER had the need to send a video, nor a photo to anyone. I would be totally happy using iMessage or even SMS. The ONLY reason I have WhatsApp installed is peer pressure. No need for any of its features. No need to pay for it either.

Agreed, iMessage and SMS are both free, so why would I pay for WhatsApp again? With RCS starting to work better, I don't really see a need for 3rd. party messaging apps. I do like Signal, but honestly I don't have a need for it.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#554

Post by chgs »

keiferski wrote: post #360
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

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.

On the other hand paying for service is the oldest profession going

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#555

Post by mrweasel »

SlowTao wrote: post #363
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…

When the Apple App store came along it was wild seeing how quickly software went from $10 down to 0.99c in the space of less than a year. And then it was only a matter of time before it dropped to zero. Once it hit zero, the tolerance for payment of any kind went to zero as well for a very large portion of people. Apps and the internet in general, for most people, is considered almost weightless and zero cost. In the…

I'd really wish Apple would add a "Exclude apps with in-app purchase" filter to their app store. I don't mind paying for an app, I mind subscriptions and in-app purchases.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#556

Post by bootsmann »

b0a04gl wrote: post #427

everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about reven…

> most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws

Network effects are much much smaller for messaging apps vis-a-vis social networks because there is no problem in incrementally moving your DMs from one place to another.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#557

Post by mirekrusin »

anshumankmr wrote: post #547
d3vmax wrote: post #426

Alice Newton-Rex, head of product at WhatsApp: “Alongside of private messaging, people were saying they wanted to hear more about topics, teams and organizations across WhatsApp.” - I am pretty sure NO ONE asked to hear about more topics and organizations across whatsapp.

How long before they make it into a Slack/Teams competitor?

I've never seen ads in slack?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#558

Post by UnreachableCode »

frm88 wrote: post #453
wheybags wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should anyone appreciate paragraphs of text from someone who thinks Europeans can't use payment cards? What reason would I have to presume the content of said paragraphs is better informed, given they have trivially disprovable rubbish up front?

You might want to have a look at the usage stats of payment cards (here specifically credit cards) globally. You would realise that usage is low in Europe, compared to the US. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/people_with_credit... . Most payments are done with regular banking and/or bank specific cards. The latter are not accepted by online platforms, the former has indeed transfer fees in many countries. Th…

>The latter are not accepted by online platforms

This is not true.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#559

Post by UnreachableCode »

dgfitz wrote: post #142
UnreachableCode wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe isn't a country. And we have credit cards here.

Wow. Way to flippantly shit on the paragraphs of explanation they gave of their own free time. Europe though, yeah they’re killing it.

>Way to flippantly shit on

o_O

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#560

Post by overfeed »

bapak wrote: post #525
osculum wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp used to be a paid app, and I paid for it back in the day, as did lots of my friends.

You can't have both a paid app and an app with billions of users. You can use WhatsApp to talk to people across the world, you bet your ass that nobody would be using it in Indonesia and Brazil if it costed one dollar, vastly diminishing its value. If you want a free app that only part of users worldwide can afford there's already iMessage.

> You can use WhatsApp to talk to people across the world, you bet your ass that nobody would be using it in Indonesia and Brazil if it costed one dollar, vastly diminishing its value.

WhatsApp had payments (or a pilot) pre-acquisiton. At $1/year, it was an amazing value proposition even for those earning $1/day. IIRC, this was when WhatsApp had 3-500M users globally. Interestingly, they allowed people to pay the subscription on behalf of a contact, so the Indonesian expat in Australia could pay for friends and family in Indonesia, and the aervice could have reached a bullion users and 500M/year revenue with about 200 employees

Post reply on HN