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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#651

Post by HenryBemis »

Jach wrote: post #635
tialaramex wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about iOS but a modern Android will periodically delete permissions from apps you aren't using, the app stays installed but it's now just a harmless icon and wasted storage space as I understand it.

You also have the ability to easily setup a "Work profile" that's functionally like a second user with its own apps that don't talk to your normal profile apps, and you can shut the whole work profile off when you don't need it so the apps can't even run until you turn it back on. My preferred way of setting it up is with Shelter installed via FDroid.

You are preaching to the choir here :) My point is not for "us, the techies" and privacy-oriented people. My point is clearly for the 50%-60% that think that "we are trying to take their precious WhatsApp from them" and they don't understand that their car insurance is gradually 20% more expensive than others because they keep posting photos from bars on FB.

I keep 'lean' devices, the apps that I actually use, battery lasts from days to weeks (phone, tablet respectively) and NoRoot Firewall (on Android) makes sure that my phone stays 'silent' to the apps and target IP-addresses of my choosing.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#652

Post by hocuspocus »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #637
elric wrote: 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…

We do not need federated messaging at the consumer app level, we need a replacement that's available at the cellular network level (just like SMS). RCS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services ) is trying to do this, but it might be too little too late.

In practice RCS is entirely run by Google outside China, the path to federation was killed around 2019 when Google decided every MNO should eventually move to Jibe if they wanted access to a global interconnected RCS, same on the client side.

I don't think it's too late as iOS finally supports RCS. But so far Google hasn't shown willingness to let unsanctioned clients connect to Jibe.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#653

Post by ndriscoll »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #637
elric wrote: 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…

We do not need federated messaging at the consumer app level, we need a replacement that's available at the cellular network level (just like SMS). RCS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services ) is trying to do this, but it might be too little too late.

Except RCS doesn't work on anything except phones, while XMPP works perfectly fine everywhere. IM was vastly better on computers back when you could use applications like pidgin or kopete.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#654

Post by coldtrait »

HenryBemis wrote: post #597
sebastiennight wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. The trick is to never mention "privacy", "no ads", or anything similar (which has negative perceived value). If you talk about that stuff, people will dilly-dally with the usual "well I already have too many apps, I'm not sure I want to install one more" I tell people that the video calls are better (which was true in my experience, back when I still used WA). Instant install

The fun fact is that those people have 100+ apps on their phones, which run in the background, draining their batteries, tracking the sh*t out of them, never actually use them (get value out of them) and they think zero about their privacy (probably use gmail or the sorts). Someone asked me to install Viber and it had 30 pages of advertisers/data brokers. I won't share a bowl of poop with them (WhatsApp, Viber, etc.)…

I only use viber because it is the only alternative for using TrueCaller in my country (India) that I know of.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#655

Post by hocuspocus »

debugnik wrote: post #443
ignoramous wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... Whatsapp became a paid app ... it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter ... Interestingly, WhatsApp put up paid plans to slow down user acquisition [0]. On Androids, in some countries, WhatsApp continued to work even if you didn't pay the $1/year fee. [0] https://youtu.be/8-pJa11YvCs?t=952

In Spain, most people who didn't pay in the first few days after the free period expired then received a free renewal.

In my case I don't remember having to let the trial period expire, it just got renewed automatically a couple times before WhatsApp became free.

I don't know any Android users who paid back then, only iPhone owners did.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#656

Post by fsflover »

elric wrote: 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…

> Sure, Matrix is a thing, but every time I look at it, all I see is criticism of its specifications and poor interoperability between implementations?

Not sure what you're talking about. Everything is working fine for me, and they even conduct a whole conference about it annually: https://2024.matrix.org/

With a large number of clients and servers and the lack of a walled garden (like with Signal), you will always find something non-interoperable. It doesn't mean that you have to use it.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#657

Post by cout »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #322
Groxx wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one said you’re routinely doing it. It just happens for thing at orders of magnitude higher than what can be asked for software. One bad coffee, or meal or a %20 tip on a $40 order of pizza is far more than the 1.99 or 3.99 software can ask for, and it’s still too much. Tipping $5 or a $10 is not a big deal, but a $1.99 app is like “ooof, is there like a free version?” It’s not even a blanket statement on software…

In my experience, a free and ad-free app is often better, because it was written by someone who doesn't have profit as a motive (often just a hobby). There are tons of great paid apps too, but it's hard to know which paid app is actually good and which is a slipshod app designed to profit from the rare user who will buy an app without much thought.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#658

Post by phyrex »

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…

It's been 11 years. If they hadn't been bought they'd have found a different monetization model long ago

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#659

Post by dgellow »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #637
elric wrote: 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…

We do not need federated messaging at the consumer app level, we need a replacement that's available at the cellular network level (just like SMS). RCS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services ) is trying to do this, but it might be too little too late.

How do you use that on your devices that aren’t using GSM?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#660

Post by bonoboTP »

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.

In most of the world SMS ("texting") was (or still is) a paid service per message (~5/10/20 cents per message or so, I can't remember exactly and would have to factor in inflation). But it was costly enough that people flocked to WhatsApp to avoid texting costs. Paying 1 USD or 1 EUR per year was a great deal to send unlimited texts.
Post reply on HN