Live data from Hacker News

Facebook

blog.whatsapp.com

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Facebook

#71
post #36

The fact about WhatsApp that blew me away is that they have 72% DAILY active users. I can't think of any other service with that kind of engagement. Even Facebook must be impressed at how often people come back to WhatsApp.

You're kidding right? It's text messaging. Do you have any idea what kind of engagement phone calls have?

Re: Facebook

#72
post #36

The fact about WhatsApp that blew me away is that they have 72% DAILY active users. I can't think of any other service with that kind of engagement. Even Facebook must be impressed at how often people come back to WhatsApp.

> I can't think of any other service with that kind of engagement.

SMS ?

Re: Facebook

#73
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your definition of a real company which excludes WhatsApp?

One that generates revenue?

Revenue is a part of it, but also remember that it's only a proportion of generated value. The fact that so many people use the app to communicate indicates that it's providing them with substantial value, even if the company chooses not to capture more of that value.

Re: Facebook

#74
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One that generates revenue?

They charge $1/year/user, though the first year is free. One year ago they had 200m users. That number has not shrunk.

There is a free year, and then it seems like "everyone" gets a free year renewal.

I would not be surprised if 10% of their userbase or less had ever paid. Which is still a good number, but not the one you make it out to be.

Re: Facebook

#75
post #62
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers are staggering: 450 million users in less than three years. That's a real company. That's more users than most startups will ever see in a lifetime of use let alone daily usage.

Yea, whatsapp has a nosebleed valuation because of it's user base size and lock in effect(zuck hopes at-least, vulnerable to changes in ios and android default messenger), but i'd say its definitely real. I respect them a lot more than say groupon, because they are actually a reasonable size(just 32 engineers) for the complexity of their tech, and they provide a really useful service. Compared to say groupon which hi…

That's apples to orange, you are comparing the tech employees of a tech company to the sales employees of a marketing company that needs to call its customers and prospects all over the world again and again.

I have no love for Groupon but that comparison is nonsense.

Re: Facebook

#76
post #75
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, whatsapp has a nosebleed valuation because of it's user base size and lock in effect(zuck hopes at-least, vulnerable to changes in ios and android default messenger), but i'd say its definitely real. I respect them a lot more than say groupon, because they are actually a reasonable size(just 32 engineers) for the complexity of their tech, and they provide a really useful service. Compared to say groupon which hi…

That's apples to orange, you are comparing the tech employees of a tech company to the sales employees of a marketing company that needs to call its customers and prospects all over the world again and again. I have no love for Groupon but that comparison is nonsense.

I'm just saying groupon it's a stupid company that wastes capital IMO(obviously everyone has a different idea of how capital should be put to use). If groupon actually had a good product, retailers would be calling them.

Re: Facebook

#77

That's splendid news! I firmly believe that it is consumer apps, and consumer apps alone, that can give blazing home runs like this one. Despite the risk, numerous deaths, blood and corpses all over the place. Somehow valley since last September had been running after enterprise junk but that's not where the gems lie (My opinion of course!). There is money in enterprise but no home run possible over there. Edit: I li…

It depends what you consider a 'home run'. I consider building a sustainable business that will generate revenue and create products for the next 10/20/30 years a home run. I would consider building an app, having no business model (admittedly Whatsapp app was generating revenue although I doubt it was much), and being lucky enough to get acquired by a company willing to pay stupid amounts of money to kill a competit…

> admittedly Whatsapp app was generating revenue although I doubt it was much

I imagine they made ~$100m last year (400m active users, I'm guessing 100m of which using for more than a year), which is almost guaranteed to go up. For a company with ~50 employees how is that not sustainable?

Re: Facebook

#78
post #60

Here’s what will change for you, our users: nothing. Here's what will change for us: http://i.imgur.com/3Px9d9K.jpg

That's what I don't get. If nothing will change for the users, then why did Facebook acquire them? Why did they bother? Just so that they can run statistics and include WhatsApps numbers in there as well because they now belong to the same organisation?

Re: Facebook

#79
"Almost five years ago we started WhatsApp with a simple mission: building a cool product used globally by everybody. Nothing else mattered to us.

Today we are announcing a partnership with Facebook that will allow us to continue on that simple mission."

Should be followed with this then:

"This is why we are not going to keep any money to ourselves and invest in our infrastructure and employees."

Hate CEO bullshit, just be frank.

Re: Facebook

#80
post #21

~$40/user. Skype, second time, sold for ~$15/user. Time Warner just sold for ~$4/user. Good thing for FB bank account that "OTT messaging" is just a fad while the carriers get their acts together ; )

Is it even possible to monetize the app to such extent? I tried to use it a few times but never managed to see any hard money potential inside.

You "monetize an app like that" by selling it to FB or the stock market.
Post reply on HN