Live data from Hacker News

Facebook

blog.whatsapp.com

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Facebook

#81

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…

> 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.

10/20/30 years? Look those aren't the days of Henry Ford or J.D.Rockefeller.. tech is changing ever-faster at an exponential rate. You wanna create products for 30 years, none of which will live on their own much longer than 3-4 years (if lucky/successful in their market) because everything is constantly changing? I agree: flipping a messenger toy to FB is a "lottery win", but "a sustainable business that will generate revenue" for 30 years, what is that supposed to be in today's environment? That's a bit of a pipe dream too, just the "nobler" one.

Re: Facebook

#82
What could be the purpose of this aquisition if nothing changes? I suspect WhatsApp won't change immediately but after some time they do small changes towards a facebook integration.

Re: Facebook

#83
"Almost five years ago we started WhatsApp with a simple mission: building a cool product used globally by everybody. Nothing else mattered to us."

That's probably a lie. That wasn't the first thing they thought before starting WhatsApp.

Re: Facebook

#84
post #83

"Almost five years ago we started WhatsApp with a simple mission: building a cool product used globally by everybody. Nothing else mattered to us." That's probably a lie. That wasn't the first thing they thought before starting WhatsApp.

This blog post is pure bullshit. They built a new version of ICQ, luckly people joined and network effects made them big -- not their competence or the quality of the product. They shouldn't be proud of their work.

Re: Facebook

#85
post #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?

Diversification. Aquire as many relevant products as you can to stay, well, relevant. If Facebook.com is losing users then it makes sense for them to use the money they have now to buy a company that's gaining users.

Re: Facebook

#86
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aka bubble

Re: Facebook

#87
post #4

I ask, cause I'm not sure- do anybody make real companies anymore?

This is a real company by any measure. Their revenue comes from charging users for using their app. Maybe the sentiment you are really expressing is that their revenue doesn't seem, ignoring all other aspects of the company's value, to justify the price of acquisition?

Re: Facebook

#88
post #39
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.

It's just the nature of the service. It's a text messaging app. When you get a text you open it. I bet gmail has a similar active user ratio.

Of course, but it's amazing that a start up with such basic features has gotten to the point where you can compare it to texting or email as far as engagement.

Re: Facebook

#89
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 ?

I'd pay $19B for SMS.

Re: Facebook

#90
post #88
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just the nature of the service. It's a text messaging app. When you get a text you open it. I bet gmail has a similar active user ratio.

Of course, but it's amazing that a start up with such basic features has gotten to the point where you can compare it to texting or email as far as engagement.

What do you mean? IT IS TEXTING! It's texting via a TCP connection and with the help of Apple's and Google's push messaging servers instead of going through the SMS channel of a GSM network. As a product it's the exact same as SMS/MMS. Just the technical implementation is different.
Post reply on HN