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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#931

Post by elric »

fsflover wrote: post #787
elric wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the client ecosystem. I'm talking about the server ecosystem. There is only one fully-featured one, Synapse, everything else is in Alpha or Beta, feature-incomplete, or abandoned. When I looked into writing my own implementation, the protocol seemed underspecified to me. "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus. This was a few years ago, so maybe things have improved. But given that no…

All I said applies to servers, and I even mentioned servers explicitly. Why don't you want to use Synapse? > "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus. What's wrong with that?

Is it really an open ecosystem if there's only one real implementation? Is there really a specification if the reference implementation is the real specification? Do we want to put all of our eggs into one basket? YMMV, but for me the answer to all those questions is "no".

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#932

Post by fsflover »

account-5 wrote: post #916
fsflover wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you, after 20 years, can process all your chat history with a (locally run!) AI, you may find a lot of interesting things about yourself and your friends.

But why? Genuine question, What's the point? It's not going to improve anything.

Why are you so sure it's not? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#933

Post by fsflover »

klabb3 wrote: post #925
EuAndreh wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite its flaws and issues, email is federated and has been working at scale for decades.

I agree. That’s an interesting model for chat. But remember, modern email is quite complex when you add all the standards for authenticity and security together, as well as informal requirements like spam filtering. But even if self-hosting were a pain, it’d still be an improvement over today’s fragmentation-by-app status quo.

> But even if self-hosting were a pain, it’d still be an improvement

Why hypothetical? Matrix already works sufficiently well.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#934

Post by fsflover »

elric wrote: post #931
fsflover wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I said applies to servers, and I even mentioned servers explicitly. Why don't you want to use Synapse? > "Do what synapse does" seemed to be the concensus. What's wrong with that?

Is it really an open ecosystem if there's only one real implementation? Is there really a specification if the reference implementation is the real specification? Do we want to put all of our eggs into one basket? YMMV, but for me the answer to all those questions is "no".

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#935

Post by account42 »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #131
mrtksn wrote: post #8

Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services? I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as conten…

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…

I don't think you can make the conclusion you make.

In this case the service started as free (and thereby training people that it costs nothing) and and only later tried to pull the rug out under people after locking them in via network effects. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to financially reward such tactics.

It's also that people already pay ridiculous amounts of money for their own internet connection. There is no reason why with A paying for internet and B paying for internet that A and B should pay again just to be able to talk to each other. Of course the technical reality is different but that's at least partially due to how WhatsApp designed their system.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#936

Post by account42 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #484
DecentShoes wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Yet, if you don't charge for the software itself, but instead you make that purchase only unlock a skin or some fake currency in that software, and worse, only have a small chance of being the one that user wants, suddenly people will pay 10, 20, or 100 dollars for your software, over and over again.

It's gambling at the core that's the issue here. We used to have robust regulation of it for decades (and it was recognized millennia ago that gambling is bad for societies anyway), the problem is that the global gambling industry moved far too fast for regulations to catch up - and now we're at a point where children, even toddlers are getting lured into gambling mechanisms. It's all lootboxes nowadays. Personal tak…

Agreed. Gambling laws are stuck at the notion that you need real cash payouts for an activity to be gambling when psychologically a database entry with enough lipstick can be just as enticing.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#937

Post by account42 »

latexr wrote: post #592
lugu wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the problem of many platforms is that they don't let you "own" the software (whatever that means). Steam experience is closer to the feel of ownership because: - Most games don't just randomly upgrade. They are stable. - Steam is cross platform enough that you can use the software on different devices as if you were copying it. - Your steam account isn't the center of your digital life, it's access isn't subject…

I don’t buy that justification, most people have never and will never spare a thought for “software ownership”. I’d bet the truth is closer to “people don’t see games as software, but as entertainment. Paying for them is no different to paying to go to the movies, buy a song on iTunes, use Spotify, or Netflix”. Apps (“software”) and games are fundamentally different in the public’s perception. Look at the App Store,…

People aren't willing to pay for mobile games any more than for other apps.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#938

Post by account42 »

whilenot-dev wrote: post #413
DecentShoes wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but they did it because Australia forced them to.

I doubt that, EU consumer rights already stated that "the consumer shall have a period of 14 days to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract". Steam purchases count as "digital content" in that case. [0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/oj#art_9.tit_1

You can doubt whatever you want but the fact is Steam did NOT offer refunds until they were sued in Australia and lost.

As for EU consumer rights, look at Article 16 (m) in the link you posted:

> Exceptions from the right of withdrawal

> Member States shall not provide for the right of withdrawal set out in Articles 9 to 15 in respect of distance and off-premises contracts as regards the following:

> [...]

> (m) the supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium if the performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent and his acknowledgment that he thereby loses his right of withdrawal.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#939

Post by account42 »

prmoustache wrote: post #463
socalgal2 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people would never pay for software. I see this and not see this. See this = friend wants to check out app but it costs $1-$3. I'm like, that's less than a coffee or a candy bar that you consume disposably. Why not just try it and if it's sucks throw it away, the same way you might with a new food item? That argument doesn't work on them for some reason. not see = Steam

I think it depends on the demographic. I still see a lot of people who are afraid of purchasing on the internet and give out their card number. My mother in law ask her daughters to call her a uber when she needs one because she is afraid of installing the app and giving her credit card number[1]. Yet she has all the social medias installed on her smartphone. [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own dau…

> [1] The irony is she apparently don't care the her own daughters would have to take that risk for her.

That's not a fair assessment. Maybe she simply thinks heir daughter will be better at not getting scammed and she could very well be right about that.

Re: WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

#940

Post by account42 »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #339
emseetech wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, do people not pay for it because there are still so many free competing services? If everything goes the way of ads and (for lack of a better term) enshittification, could consumer attitudes change?

There is a market for paid software services with a promise of not enshittifying. Kagi and Fastmail are two examples. Now, this market probably isn’t going to put you in the Fortune 500, but is enough to run a profitable business.

The problem is that there is also tons of services that promised not to enshittify but then changed their minds when they thought that fucking over their users would be more profitable. That includes even Google, look up their early views on ads. Because of this those promises are often (IMO rightfully) ignored as hot air. The only way to ensure that your software doesn't get enshittified is to legally guarantee that you are not dependent on a single vendor for future development - the most effective way to do that is insist on open source software.
Post reply on HN