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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#891

Post by 6c696e7578 »

evrimoztamur wrote: post #637
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…

We do not need federated messaging at the consumer app level, we need a replacement that's available at the cellular network level (just like SMS). RCS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services ) is trying to do this, but it might be too little too late.

I think that's the wrong direction, the cell providers will bargain for ways to put their junk into it.

XMPP installed on the handset by default should be fine.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#892

Post by bachmeier »

mikestew wrote: post #811
bachmeier wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.

So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?

Well, I'm saying we should be hesitant to immediately throw out blame for pursuing profit, because it's not just more money for Zuckerberg and other billionaires. If retirement funds were growing at 2%, the same people criticizing this decision would be looking for alternative investment vehicles.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#893

Post by phyrex »

owebmaster wrote: post #783
xeromal wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious how whatsapp makes any money besides the handful of companies that use it as a customer support portal

WhatsApp integrates into the rest of Meta ads machine so it distribute leads from facebook and instagram directly to whatsapp. It also makes money with spam.

WhatsApp makes absolutely no money with spam. There isn't a per-message cost or however you think that would work

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#894

Post by wvh »

sigotirandolas wrote: post #185
wvh wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am conflicted because to some extent, paying for some of these services feels like paying a blackmailer, spying on you, holding a whole ecosystem hostage and even jeopardising mental health and the public discourse. I pay for email and some other services. Some other services, not so much. I find it hard to support some companies financially because I don't agree with their basic modus operandi. It's not the money;…

To be devil's advocate, this is the kind of all-talk argument the parent was referring to. Once the paid option is available, people will demand it to be [cheaper / better / someone else] and still not pay. While I don't love my money going to Google, I find YouTube's overall quality astronomically higher than Instagram/Twitter/TikTok/etc. and the amount of censorship/"moderation"/controversy has been relatively limi…

I got divorced last year, had a rough period, watched some self-help videos, Youtube found out and started increasingly serving unwanted content. I did not appreciate the attempt at pushing my proverbial buttons. I do not need gender war content when I look for a guitar review. Youtube is excellent and has replaced television for me the last 10 years. But I just don't trust or want an algorithm trying to hook me, and I'm generally already old and wise enough to unplug when I need to. To me, this goes a bit beyond being choosy. I don't want to be profiled.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#895

Post by tenthirtyam »

yakkomajuri wrote: post #769

I guess this was expected, but it makes me feel really powerless in the sense that I can't really move away from WhatsApp. I have a couple of friends that I message via Signal and even convinced my dad to use it a while back, but here in Brazil WhatsApp is _everything_, and I doubt most people care about this at all. In my case, I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and…

I had this problem some years ago. Eventually I just told everyone I would be uninstalling whatsapp on date XX/YY, which I then did. Some people installed signal and stayed in touch, others didn't. Life didn't change much. Now I'd like to move to my own matrix server but I think appx 0.0% of my social group would follow me down that rabbit hole. :-(

More extreme, a friend of mine one day eliminated his cellphone entirely but kept Skype on his laptop. So now it's email or nothing with him and sadly it's been nothing for some time now.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#896

Post by palata »

stuporglue wrote: post #863
palata wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that WhatsApp may be necessary to talk to businesses (because Signal didn't develop that, and I honestly don't think they should). But what would prevent people from using WhatsApp to talk to businesses and Signal to talk to friends? I have been using multiple channels with friends forever: phone call, mail, email, MSN Messenger, Facebook, IRC, ICQ, WhatsApp, Threema, Signal, Slack, Discord, Matrix, ...…

For 1:1 conversations I think you're right. Having multiple channels for communication is fine. Where it breaks down is for group conversations. If Person A won't use Signal and Person B won't use WhatsApp, you can't easily have group communications. And it only gets worse as the number of people in the group goes up.

In my experience, people who use Signal usually also have WhatsApp. It's really mostly that many people absolutely refuse to install Signal on their phone. Like they have all sorts of apps (including social networks that are sometimes downright malware), but they will fight against Signal for some reason I don't understand.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#897

Post by mvieira38 »

dataexporter wrote: post #883
mvieira38 wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last night I just removed myself from every friend groupchat and blocked everyone there, while leaving a status message about how they can reach me on Signal or call me. If they are actually your friends they'll come around, and families survived before Whatsapp existed. I'm also brazilian, I just won't stand with people dismissing what matters to me as if I'm a nutjob for not using their fascist app

I admire the conviction, but I think you're underestimating the social inertia that platforms like WhatsApp benefit from. The unfortunate reality is that most people won’t follow you. Not because they don’t respect you or your concerns, but because the cost—in effort, friction, or just breaking habitual patterns—is too high. Social coordination is fragile, and it leans heavily on lowest-common-denominator tools. What…

Your predictions assume I live in a contemporary, "atomic", social organization where people aren't integrated in tight-knit communities apart from the internet. My core friend group meets a few times a week because of church-related activities at a fixed weekly schedule, to the point where if someone is missing with no explanation they get a phone call. Football night is also at a fixed, weekly schedule with no need for Whatsapp, and I run game night, so...

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#898

Post by RileyJames »

tenthirtyam wrote: post #895
yakkomajuri wrote: post #769

I guess this was expected, but it makes me feel really powerless in the sense that I can't really move away from WhatsApp. I have a couple of friends that I message via Signal and even convinced my dad to use it a while back, but here in Brazil WhatsApp is _everything_, and I doubt most people care about this at all. In my case, I'd love to just go over to Signal fully but then I couldn't talk to family, friends, and…

I had this problem some years ago. Eventually I just told everyone I would be uninstalling whatsapp on date XX/YY, which I then did. Some people installed signal and stayed in touch, others didn't. Life didn't change much. Now I'd like to move to my own matrix server but I think appx 0.0% of my social group would follow me down that rabbit hole. :-( More extreme, a friend of mine one day eliminated his cellphone enti…

This message reminded me to email a few people. Thanks.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#899

Post by mr_toad »

farzd wrote: post #396
Xenoamorphous wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Whatsapp became a paid app, I can’t remember the details as I believe they varied by platform (iOS vs Android) but it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter. I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it. This is coming from SMS costing €0.25 per message (text only!) and also coming from people who would gladly pay €3 for…

Consumer stance on paying for software has changed drastically now because of AI. Even outside of utility software like Chat GPT, people are paying for image generators etc.

I that paying for software or paying for a service? When I pay Netflix it’s not because of their app.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#900

Post by unsignedint »

sebastiennight wrote: post #890
muppetman wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's the same, is it? That's just Spotify letting you play files on your local device. With YT Music you upload them from one device to the YT Music cloud, and then any device can access them/stream from the YT Cloud. You can't upload your music to Spotify, only use it to access media that's stored locally on your device.

Last time I tried, I was able to load the local file on desktop, and then sync that playlist on mobile (to listen to the "desktop song" on mobile even when offline). So I'd argue it provided similar functionality.

Spotify seems to rely more on cross-device sync. As the name of the feature suggests, it depends on having the actual media file stored locally. In contrast, YouTube Music stores everything in the cloud.

Local files work fine if you're always playing music on devices you own and that have local storage. But if you're using media devices like a Chromecast (unless you're casting directly from a device that has access to the local files), or on machines where you don’t have sync privileges—like a work computer—YouTube Music will work, but Spotify won’t.

Post reply on HN