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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#671

Post by arisudesu »

And so, WhatsApp has reached parity with Telegram in features, in the sense that both now show ads (even though Telegram was initially promoted as always free and without ads, it was the first to abandon this promise and shamefully removed it from the main page).

Time for a new messenger, and I don’t mean Signal, but the creation of some kind of old Skype, with a peer to peer protocol. It was very good before Microsoft bought it. Of course, if the code is open and does not require a proprietary server part.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#672

Post by shufflerofrocks »

prmoustache wrote: post #459
k_bx wrote: 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.

I shifted to Telegram a few years ago, and it was such a rich experience for me. Off the top of my head:

- much much better performance - a good desktop client - open source message clients - scheduling messages - better search - many small gestures/UX features that feel thoughtfully implemented - better channels - message threads - chat folders - very easily programmable & deployable bots for moderation or implementation into your work flow - a lot of customisable settings

Telegram is so much further in performance and feature than it's counterparts it's laughable. Almost all of the new features in Whatsapp/Signal were first implemented in Telegram.

Some of them, as you said, are feasible because of the non-e2ee chats, but a lot of them are just plain universal.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#673

Post by hocuspocus »

dgellow wrote: post #668
hocuspocus wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

WhatsApp isn't terribly different here.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#674

Post by upofadown »

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…

I think the most valid criticism of Matrix for interoperability is that it was promoted as an interoperability standard but it was made incompatible with everything existing at the time. XMPP was based on XML for example, but Matrix is based on json. So by introducing yet another standard, Matrix creates yet another standards fork and dilutes everything that came before.

We have to get to the point where progress in messaging is incremental, not revolutionary.

How do you tell that an open standard is "dead"? There are zillions of XMPP servers around with lots of people quietly using them. For a standard to be "alive" does there have to be a large revenue stream associated with it? Does it need a large commercial entity promoting it?

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#675

Post by lynx97 »

Cipater wrote: post #610
lynx97 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The idea that more diverse leadership leads to better outcomes doesn't mean women are incapable of wrongdoing. Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong. That's a strawman and you know it. Be better, come on.

> Be better, come on.

I am male. I can't "be better", I am already "the problem". Which is a reason why I am so fed up be the fight of the sexes. Its overboarding accusations on all sides. And I am not willing to "turn the other cheek" anymore.

> Nobody said women are perfect angels who can do no wrong

Ahem, the "believe all women" crowd did and do.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#676

Post by guappa »

fanwood wrote: post #539
EbNar wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd literally PAY for a mod taking away the "updates" tab. I don't care about stories nor I want channels shoved in my face. I just need to message someone, from time to time.

I found the solution by convincing all my friends and family, one by one, to move to Signal. I still use Whatsapp for people who did not migrate, but it's surprisingly possible (if not easy) to convince people to use another app

If only signal had a proper (electron is not proper) desktop client…

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#677

Post by fsflover »

fouronnes3 wrote: post #466
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 is becoming painfully apparent that the cycle of enshittification is truly inevitable, right up there next to the second law of thermodynamics.

Unless it's an open, federated system.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#678

Post by purerandomness »

torben-friis wrote: post #617
EbNar wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd literally PAY for a mod taking away the "updates" tab. I don't care about stories nor I want channels shoved in my face. I just need to message someone, from time to time.

Thankfully it’s not intrusive - you can pretty much ignore the bottom menu and have adfree chat, I’ve been doing it for years. The moment they start placing calls to action and distraction in that view is the moment people will move - telegram is a drop in replacement with more features, I won’t argue it’s the ideal choice but at least it keeps meta on their toes as a potential competitor.

Telegram introduced ads in 2021.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#679

Post by hliyan »

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…

It is my view that you will never escape ads by paying for any content/service that is suitable for displaying ads. Reason: by the very act of paying for the service, you signal to advertisers that you are a person with purchasing power -- the very type of person they want to target. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. And if your service provider is under pressure to increase profits, and they're finding it hard to increase market share or innovate, they will reach for one of two solutions: (1) let service quality decline through cost cutting, and then introduce higher priced service tiers, or (2) ads. This is unfortunately what we see in reality.
Post reply on HN