Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

nytimes.com

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#641
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.

The questionnaire that produced these results:

Would you like to hear more about topics, teams, and organizations? If no, please explain using at least 1000 characters (required)

[ ] yes [ ] no

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#642
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

I guess it feels worth it if you actually like it. I've always hated WhatsApp but use it due to network effect: in my country you pretty much can't have a normal social life without it (and even things like customer service often use it as well). When they started threatening with charging money, it felt like a punch to the gut. So I'm using this product I hate because I'm pretty much forced, as I'd rather be using T…

I think your chronology is wrong.

It is extremely unlikely that you used WhatsApp "before they started threatening with charging money" but would have preferred Telegram at the time.

Why?

1. Because WhatsApp was a paid app from the beginning ($0.99 after the first year of using it)

2. Because WhatsApp was bought by FB in early 2014, who made it free.

3. Because Telegram was founded in late 2013

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#643
post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nonsense, it was very popular in my low-income country even back then. They charged something like half a day of income of a manual laborer per year, and everybody was happy to pay since it made your life so much easier. Of course, there's no going back now that everybody is accustomed to using it "for free".

If you read other top-level comments, you'll find that many people are simply allergic to paying for software. A lot of people don't have cards or even bank accounts so it's just not possible.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#644
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.

I did appreciate the ads on Facebook circa 2010. They were often for niche products I had not heard of and were genuinely interested in. I can't say it's like that anymore, sadly, but I can imagine someone genuinely appreciating exposure to something new.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#645
post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you probably (or more likely your employer) pay Slack.

The free version doesn’t show ads. Come on.

The free version is a loss leader to build mindshare amongst people who are (later) in a position to buy licenses.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#646
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…

Y'know what, I'd have no problem paying for my "core services" if it were that easy. What I have a problem with is paying for potentially so many services:

* phone

* email

* whatsapp, because others use it

* signal, because it's actually good

* telegram, because that one group is on it

* my todo list app

* duolingo

* a good mapping app without ads

... and so on. And the same for my kids. And before you blink, you suddenly pay several hundred dollars per month.

Aka the slippery slope.

One of the problems seems to be that everything comes with transaction costs, so for example Signal cannot easily charge me a single dollar per month, which I suspect is a price point that would work for both me and them (if every one of their users paid it).

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#647
post #605

Can we get a federated messenger already? Sure, we have email, but the MS/Google duopoloy has effectively unfederated that, with their inscrutable block lists and nonexistent appeals processes, allegedly in order to protect you from spam. Sure, XMPP is a thing, which has been mostly dead for well over a decade. Sure, Matrix is a thing, but every time I look at it, all I see is criticism of its specifications and poor…

The EU is pushing interoperability as the DMA forces gatekeepers to open up, this should materialize via MIMI:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mimi/about/

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#648
post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sub…

1 day salary for chat app?

Are you nuts?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I simply say "I'm on Signal" and if it's important enough, they go and install it; it's been fairly frictionless, after all how hard is it to download an app and go through the fairly minimal registration process Genuinely curious. I am in WhatsApp groups for my kids soccer teams (who will be there at the game, can my kid drive together with you to the match), my kids school classes (Johnny lost his headphones did…

It's scenario 1. My children are still young, pre-school and reception so no such groups have come up yet. The odd parent that wanted to contact me has installed Signal or sent me SMS (RCS). For anything else, my wife is still on WhatsApp so she relays messages if/when they come up. EDIT: re: Work, my colleagues are all on Signal, we have lots of Signal groups to communicate.

So in a nutshell "I have someone else on WhatsApp who keeps me in the loop"

Expect this to scale, in my experience you can move your family over to another service. Groups of families your kid is somehow in contact with, not so much...

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#650
post #447

I really hope it helps them build a decent app, but I doubt it. In Ukraine, there's a huge problem of Telegram being so feature-rich compared to WhatsApp that it's impossible to convince people to do the switch, even under the national security threat.

What are the telegram features that whatsapp or signal users are missing? I've tried it in the past and all that could be done was due to the platform not having e2e encryption on standard chats.

Native desktop client for one.
Post reply on HN