Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 372 posts

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#71

Post by Yetanfou »

innagadadavida wrote: post #20

Apple should port Messages app to Android and other platforms, this is a great opportunity for them to capitalize on. It is unlikely though, as the strategy is to get people to buy iPhones to get Messages.

That would just be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. The real solution to all these problems lies in the use of decentralised services, e.g. XMPP+OMEMO connecting to a private server. This could be the same server as the one hosting any other privacy-sensitive services, e.g. Diaspora or GNU Social or something along those lines. It could also host a private mail server, a private "cloud" server, a private (meta-)search engine and any other services which you'd rather not have data-mined.

...and all that would fit on something like a Raspberry Pi 3B+ nowadays...

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#72

Post by mycorrhizal »

rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative?

Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information.

Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much you can afford.

The best solution I can think of is keeping the current model, but adding regulation and government oversight to limit some of the most damaging effects i.e. creating platforms that abuse human psychology to keep people clicking and make them addicted to these platforms.

I'm genuinely interested in other models people suggest.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#73

Post by manigandham »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #65
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

To be honest all of the Silicon Valley innovators have this cult of personality that once you look behind the curtain they act in their own self interest (which isn't a bad thing). For example Elon Musk has his "Iron Man" persona that puts himself on a pedestal and projects an ideal that his companies will solve the worlds problems. Once you look behind the curtain you see that he uses this to justify long hours by h…

> The innovation he has is an acceptance of failure for mission critical systems and quality assurance like cars or rockets.

That's definitely not the case unless you're really just out of touch or purposefully trolling here.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#74

Post by justaguyhere »

rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

I am not a fan of his, but is the situation going change unless people are willing to pay for these services? Most people wouldn't even pay for something as useful/important as email, let alone social networking (I can never understand the need for something like Facebook)

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#75

Post by solarkraft »

skbly7 wrote: post #55
innagadadavida wrote: post #20

Apple should port Messages app to Android and other platforms, this is a great opportunity for them to capitalize on. It is unlikely though, as the strategy is to get people to buy iPhones to get Messages.

Blackberry and BBM went this route already, and we know what happened to them. I think it is high time for Apple to jump the ship and get messages into Android. :)

Apple has a pretty good market share and in their home market (because it's viable there, many other countries have insane prices) iMessage is compatible with Android users by SMS. This may be good enough, plus iMessage is just one of the features they sell with their devices. I doubt these cases are very comparable.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#76

Post by vxNsr »

panarky wrote: post #15
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #13

I kind of have to wonder what Jan Koum and Brian Acton were thinking (OK, I don't really wonder - they got paid billions of dollars, who wouldn't do it). But, of course, if you sell a company for billions of dollars, there is the obvious expectation that within some time frame your company will earn revenue and profit to support that valuation. You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solut…

> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" FTFA Facebook promised not to put ads on WhatsApp. The terms of the acquisition agreement require accelerated vesting of incentive comp to Koum and Acton if Facebook renege on their promise.

and yet:

>>>Mr. Acton initiated the clause in his contract allowing for early vesting of his shares. But Facebook’s legal team threatened a fight, so Mr. Acton, already worth more than $3 billion, left it alone, according to people familiar with the matter.

Turns out facebook sucks as a company.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#77

Post by doctorsher »

Djvacto wrote: post #9

So, I use WhatsApp as my primary source of communication. Knowing facebook owned it always made me a little nervous, but given that it was end-to-end encrypted, I figured Facebook wasn't getting any more from me then they would from all my facebook-using-friends who would send me SMS's before. But I'm worried about how long I can continue to use the service moving forward, which is sad as this is my main way to commu…

I totally understand. You are facing the classic dilemma of privacy vs convenience. Personally, I distrusted facebook so much that I have avoided any of their products since 2013. Obviously a major win for my privacy, but it sacrificed some convenience -- then I had no real-time way to communicate with my relative in India.

In the end, you'll have to do some introspection to see if the convenience gained is worth the privacy lost. How essential is it that you communicate in real-time with your relatives? Would your relationship be substantially different if you sent email or wrote letters?

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#79

Post by newscracker »

Djvacto wrote: post #9

So, I use WhatsApp as my primary source of communication. Knowing facebook owned it always made me a little nervous, but given that it was end-to-end encrypted, I figured Facebook wasn't getting any more from me then they would from all my facebook-using-friends who would send me SMS's before. But I'm worried about how long I can continue to use the service moving forward, which is sad as this is my main way to commu…

For all the rap it gets for its own crypto, I would still recommend Telegram as an alternative because of its superior UX. It shouldn’t be very difficult to move from WhatsApp to Telegram (of course, I do understand that people who are not used to technology much may have difficulties).

I wouldn’t recommend Signal to anyone who’s not paranoid about privacy and security. It still needs to improve a lot on UX, reliability and many other fronts.

Re: Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

#80

Post by lyzan »

mycorrhizal wrote: post #72
rm999 wrote: post #57

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 ). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising…

Maybe I'm just not creative enough, but what is a better alternative? Let's say you have a subscriber model, but than what kind of world will it be where only the wealthy have access to these communication technologies and access to social information. Or you have a hybrid ad model with the ability to opt out by paying some fee. Than what kind of world will that be when privacy is a luxury item limited to how much yo…

Free version for those with verified low income?

(I've been toying with models like this for awhile, and not to say its an easy or simple solution to implement, especially when considering bad actors, but it seems the best chance at getting something "fair")

Alternatively could steal from games and add "cosmetics". Charge extra for things like themes that personalize but don't necessarily improve the experience. Items with enough value that people will "want" it but not "need" it.

Post reply on HN