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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#661

Post by jowea »

tigroferoce wrote: post #489
Daisywh wrote: post #472

I remember switching to WhatsApp many years ago, mainly because it had no ads and encrypted chats, while other apps were constantly crammed with ads and features I didn't need. Now I feel like I'm slowly going back to that old path. Sometimes it really feels like no app can really stay clean for long.

I think this is two sided topic: - on one side there is the increasing number of features in WhatsApp that nobody asked for and that make the experience worse and worse, I agree. Yet, on the other side of the world a 1B people in China use WeChat for so many things beside communicating, so I understand Meta's appetite to become the West WeChat. Still I hate it. - on the other side there is the business model of Whats…

I read somewhere that their monetization was in WhatsApp Business

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#662

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

sebastiennight wrote: post #642
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have bad memory in general, but of this in particular, I'm very sure. Because I remember that some people actually switched to Telegram upon receiving the message saying they had to pay before some deadline or they would lose access to WhatsApp, and I thought "at least this is a silver lining, some people are switching to Telegram".

I also distinctly remember that I didn't pay by the deadline (although I planned to cave in later) but finally the threat didn't materialize and I didn't lose access (or maybe I did, but for a day or two). Some people did pay and didn't get any advantage over those of us who didn't.

This was in Spain, so maybe the issue is that the specifics vary per country. In particular, I think your point 1 wasn't really true here. WhatsApp monopolized messaging (including even elderly population) because it was free. You wouldn't convince most people here (and especially the elderly) to pay for an app, it would be dead on arrival. Perhaps the charge after the first year you mention was somewhere in the official small print, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure everyone was using it under the assumption that it was free. They only tried charging a fee that single time I'm mentioning, and they backtracked fast.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#663

Post by vips7L »

tacker2000 wrote: post #591
vips7L wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How you can say that imessage is any “better” is a complete mystery to me. We’re literally in a thread about being served ads in WhatsApp.

They are both not a good solution to good, secure, ubiquitious and “free” messaging.

Yes let’s keep moving the goal post.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#664

Post by bonoboTP »

bapak wrote: post #643
homebrewer wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It replaced SMS, which was costly, so the deal was pretty clear. Back in those days people were quite aware of SMS prices and 1 EUR/year to replace SMS was a no brainer. It was very popular despite the price. For many people, it was the only app they actually bought.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#665

Post by wkat4242 »

palata wrote: post #593
wkat4242 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the "one more account" is really a problem. WhatsApp is the standard messenger in most of the EU. And I don't want to go to signal because it's only marginally better. It's still American and still a walled garden (no third party apps allowed, no federation). It's a slightly less smelly walled garden.

I don't get this. Everyone is used to juggling between multiple apps, many of which allow to send messages. People are fine talking over Discord AND WhatsApp AND three others, but somehow "it's unbearable to add Signal". And it's not exactly "yet another app", it's pretty much a clone of WhatsApp. So if everybody moved to Signal, we could just get rid of WhatsApp. Which gets us to your second point: > And I don't wan…

I don't use the others you mention. Only telegram because many communities are there (it's the only chat app with good group chat functionality)

But it's exactly because I already have to deal with too many of them that I don't want to add more.

Also I don't like moxie's attitude but that's more of a personal concern that won't apply to most. Like not allowing third party clients or federation and shooting many suggestions down on github. It's his right to do that but it's also mine to not want to use it. For a "just a little bit better" experience I'm not moving to that.

I use matrix a lot and I think this is by far the best and most open option but most people don't know it. I bridge all the other apps through it now. Also, arathorn is a much nicer person who responds much better to criticism.

> If there was a non-American alternative to Signal, surely I would go for it. But there isn't. In the meantime, Signal is by far the best alternative to WhatsApp in terms of privacy.

But I wouldn't be able to actually move. It would just be yet another one. Not even much better in any way than whatsapp.

> Not to mention that there is actually a valid reason to not allow third party apps (spoiler: security). Last time I heard a fork of Signal making the news, it was pretty bad.

I don't care so much about that (and I work in cybersec). What matters more to me is being in control of my data. Being able to export them wherever I want etc.

I had an issue recently with whatsapp where they locked my account because of "spam". I wasn't spamming but they probably thought my matrix bridge was suspicious. However because of that bridge I could still access my chat data. I couldn't in whatsapp itself. Signal could do the same to me. So I would only use it bridged to Matrix anyway, like I do whatsapp.

And in terms of security: I don't believe neither WhatsApp nor Signal is good enough to prevent a state actor from reading my messages. Even if they can't get in the app they can compromise an endpoint. And even a bad third-party app will be sufficient to prevent drive-by hackers with a pineapple from reading my messages. So I don't see much difference there.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#666

Post by dgellow »

ndriscoll wrote: post #653
evrimoztamur wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The time when XMPP was supported by google (and Facebook IIRC?). Running jabber for small groups was pretty simple, and you had Adium and pidgin, both were simple to use and just neat software

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#667

Post by hocuspocus »

dgellow wrote: post #659
evrimoztamur wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

GSM is long dead but yes you need a SIM and a MNO as the connection is provisioned using IMS service entitlement.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#668

Post by dgellow »

hocuspocus wrote: post #667
dgellow wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

GSM is long dead but yes you need a SIM and a MNO as the connection is provisioned using IMS service entitlement.

Then why would we need such a protocol? I want to be able to chat using any of my devices.

That’s what makes Telegram and WhatsApp great

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#669

Post by mrweasel »

Yeri wrote: post #583
mrweasel wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SMS is definitely not free. You may have a bundle that includes X (or unlimited) amount of SMS, but there are plenty of subscriptions out there (maybe not in the US) that charge by the SMS, or come with bundles of only having, say, 50 free SMS per month. In all fairness, no one uses SMS, and no one uses iMessage (outside of the US maybe?). WhatsApp is omnipresent in Singapore. For example, every business, every suppo…

It's obviously very area specific. The only difference in the subscriptions I have available is the amount of data included. They all have unlimited SMS and calls, it's been that way for years.

I do get that I'm probably in one of the few areas outside the US where iMessage is pretty big, but even then SMS (probably RCS now) is how you communicate with Android users.

It also doesn't chance the fact that it make no sense for me to pay for e.g. WhatsApp, when I have the SMS available at no additional cost.

Post reply on HN