Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19385516
WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
71–76 of 76 posts
Re: WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understand why ads and subscription fee needs to be an exclusive or for how the big players monetize. I'd happily give Google $5/month for Gmail, $10/month for YouTube (I already do), $10/month for google search etc or $40/month for their complete package if they remove ads and respect privacy then. It's less than other "semi-essential" services I have to use like my ISP or car and if they make more than that…
If you can afford $40/month to use Google, then they can make much more than that simply showing you ads.
[deleted]
Re: WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
#73This is how most people resolve cognitive dissonance. He wants the money and a clear conscience about the decision that brought it. The only way he can have both is if he'd been tricked, so even though that's not what happened that's the narrative he prefers. What he probably doesn't realize yet is that he has just created a new counterpoint to his perception of himself as an honest and ethical person. The cycle will continue until he learns to take responsibility for the moral consequences of his own actions. I wish him the best of luck on that journey.
Re: WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
#74With the proposed 1$/yr/user it is going to take around 19 years to become profitable (with 1bn paid users). Facebook obviously wants a return earlier. The founder did take those billions, so not sure what he was expecting to happen, ads looks like the only business model to turn profit quickly in this sort of business. Besides, there are so many people using WhatsApp in developing countries that wouldn't pay if they…
I never understand why ads and subscription fee needs to be an exclusive or for how the big players monetize. I'd happily give Google $5/month for Gmail, $10/month for YouTube (I already do), $10/month for google search etc or $40/month for their complete package if they remove ads and respect privacy then. It's less than other "semi-essential" services I have to use like my ISP or car and if they make more than that…
Youtube is still useful when not all of your friends use it. Chat apps are not
Re: WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now Facebook have less money that they can use to influence the world in stupid/evil ways, and the WhatsApp founders have more money they can use to influence the world in good ways. Correct. > since Facebook now owns the service of WhatsApp, they have the adopted duty of popularizing it—a service that inherently resists the kind of centralized analytical approaches Facebook uses to make money There's nothing inher…
Not inherently decentralized, no. But it’s “inherently” E2E-encrypted, in the sense that that’s why people (or, a large segment of people) use the app. If it doesn’t do that, people will stop using it. Maybe “inherently” is the wrong word. Is “Diet Coke” inherently a diet drink? That’s the idea I’m trying to get at here: that people wouldn’t buy a “Diet Coke” that isn’t made with a sugar substitute, because then it w…
> Not inherently decentralized, no. But it’s “inherently” E2E-encrypted, in the sense that that’s why people (or, a large segment of people) use the app. If it doesn’t do that, people will stop using it.
People used and loved WhatsApp long before it was e2e encrypted. I know, I was one of them.
In fact, IIRC was pretty bad before they implememted the new e2e encryption.
I used to think people chose them because they promised no ads and no tracking.
I now think most people used it because it was a user friendly messaging solution.
Re: WhatsApp co-founder accuses Facebook of trading privacy for revenue
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understand why ads and subscription fee needs to be an exclusive or for how the big players monetize. I'd happily give Google $5/month for Gmail, $10/month for YouTube (I already do), $10/month for google search etc or $40/month for their complete package if they remove ads and respect privacy then. It's less than other "semi-essential" services I have to use like my ISP or car and if they make more than that…
If you can afford $40/month to use Google, then they can make much more than that simply showing you ads.
You hear that sometimes but I don't buy it. If that was the case than 1st class in an airline would be plastered with ads, but it isn't.