This article seems a little unfair to the WhatsApp founders when it suggests they should have known that any assurances Facebook made to them as part of the acquisition were obviously lies. Sure in 2018 it might be obvious to most of us that nothing Facebook says or promises can be trusted but I don't think that was necessarily as obvious when the acquisition happened and they can be forgiven for thinking they weren't being lied to.
Nah, 2014 makes no material difference. It's not the recent scandals that have somehow revealed Facebook to be the spiritual successor to Microsoft's "embrace and extend" strategy; this has been obvious for at least a decade. Maybe the public didn't realize it yet, but anyone in tech, especially a successful founding team would have been well aware.
That said, I'm not going to demonize these guys. Brian Acton clearly is repentant and putting his money where his mouth is in terms of supporting Signal, and that's worth a lot more than some principled nobody who never has enough clout to further his own principles in society.
They were really the second big acquisition and they got a huge valuation. Instagram was running pretty autonomously at the time (2 years prior) so between talking to them and seeing the arrangement and the belief they would be valued as employees like their company; I get it. Also it was huge money that can give you rose colored glasses.
I think what happened in their head is, they knew Facebook was kind of lying but they thought would be strong enough to prevent the worst from happening. They had built a very successful app in very little time with very little ressources; they just felt they were invincible.
So he repents from creating a walled garden that abused its power and is now funding another walled garden that has the same ability to abuse its power instead of supporting any of the federated alternatives.
I am not convinced Brian learned the right lessons here.
I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption, and then promptly sold those users to fucking Facebook. Whether they were just gullible and didn't do their due diligence, or if they were malignant, doesn't really make a big difference.
This gets the timeline a bit wrong. WhatsApp’s user base was largely built up during a period of lax security, including unencrypted message databases on Android SD cards, and easily spoofable addresses. The introduction of end-to-end encryption in conjunction with Open Whisper Systems was not until well after the FB acquisition and plans for it were undoubtedly part of the acquisition terms.
Contemporaneous to this was the rewrite of the privacy policy to allow sharing of metadata between FB and WhatsApp user accounts, which was a bit of a sell out.
Even prior to that, WhatsApp did not keep the messages in their servers. Yes, that's not the same as encrypting them. However, they were very clear from the beginning that they won't mine the messages for their ad-value.
> I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption
WhatsApp end-to-end encryption didn't actually begin until after the acquisition to Facebook had already gone through[0].
I am certain that, as of 2012-2013, WhatsApp wasn't even consistently using TLS to encrypt traffic. That's what made it so shocking when they suddenly leapt from some of the worst security practices of all messaging apps on the market to the best[1]. They built a massive userbase long before any efforts were made towards privacy and encryption.
[1] Signal didn't exist at the time, and yes, TextSecure existed, but almost nobody was using it compared to WhatsApp or any other chat app on the market today.
It's not like they secretly sold it Facebook. People knew what Facebook was about by the time of the acquisition and either didn't care, did a wait-and-see or switched to an alternative. Perfectly reasonable behavior by everyone involved. Your standard for "demon" is rather low ! :-)
They didn't chose it based on privacy. But they have an expectation of privacy. The post office doesn't read your letters, so why would you expect Facebook to read your messages?
It's difficult to understand for the average person just how much Facebook knows about you and what it can do with that information that isn't in your direct interest. At best they think it's weird how long-lost acquaintances show up as suggested connections, at worst they only notice when Facebook does something directly useful to them.
Sure, you can blame the users, but that's kind of unfair if you consider what kinds of markets WhatsApp already dominated before the acquisition.
Well I do and I switched after they announced e2e encryption, otherwise I never would have used it.
Why does every thread on Hacker News have to ask this freaking question? It’s obvious that the general public is computer illiterate, Sherlock, just like it is obvious everybody knows someone “good with computers” that can tell them what to use and having lived the sunset if Yahoo Messenger in my country, Facebook should be scared as it happened practically overnight.
A LOT. Even in developing countries people paid ₹50 (or the equivalent of a $1). WhatsApp changes this model a bit by partnering with carriers. Unfortunately my memory is not clear on whether that was before or after the acquisition.
Edit: Note: WhatsApp publicly claimed that a billion users paying $1 each is enough for them. Also remember, a lot of the technical complexity, infrastructure requirement and data storage requirements went away in their model of being just a conduit. They had no interest in reading, parsing, mining, storing or monetizing the messages. This let them run it with a lean crew.
That was technically their business model, but they gave you one year free and also extended your 'subscription' indefinitely if you decided not to pay after that - basically the WinRAR of messaging apps.
On iOS the app used to be $0.99 (one-off), which probably made them a couple millions. In 2013 they moved to a subscription model [1] but this was never implemented; I think nobody was ever charged.
I paid for it too. I like to think that "idiots" like us prove that there is demand for a paid ad-and-tracking-free messaging service, so maybe our efforts weren't in vain.
For a few billion dollars, it's pretty easy to see myself doing the same thing.
We're entering a world of a widening disparity between rich and poor. A billion dollars puts you, your children, and their children in the very wealthy side of that line for their entire lives. That's hard to say no to.
Also, the extreme divide between rich and poor has always existed. I’ve never seen a strong data-supported case that it’s any worse today than 100 or 1000 years ago.
The whole inequality discussion we've been a few years now all started with this book from Thomas Piketty (a statistical analysis). Maybe start with reading that?
I agree with this point, as I have a strong distaste for the premise the above poster used: "This is the way things have always been". Implying, why try to change them? Women regularly died in childbirth for thousands of years, but do we hear anyone complaining about knowledge of sterile fields and advances in modern medicine?
If anyone is looking for data-driven cases on the scale and negative consequences of the increasing divide between rich and poor, I've found some good resources in Robert McChesney's The Digital Disconnect, Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, and probably most famously Thomas Piketty's 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First century which Gates himself even recommended, ironically enough. All these books come under criticism for supposed ideological undertones, but even skeptics generally respect the underlying economic data.
Thank you for the sources. I’ve read about the latter but not the others.
I don’t know if inequality can be reduced on a macro level, but I would not bet on it.
Some things can be changed and some can’t. Your example of maternal health is great—we should be focused more on those types of biological things we can change, imo. Who cares if someone is richer than you if you are healthy and happy?
But inequality seems to be something nature loves. The sun gets 99% of the matter in the solar system, for example. Humans decimated all other large predators—examples abound.
Concentrated freedom and decision making power (for which money is just a proxy), might be a necessary evil. I think barring a drastic black swan paradigm shift (world government, computer overlords, or maybe some undiscovered push to an equilibrium driven by globalization...), there’s not much that might change that.
The difference is that wealth concentration is increasing, and that as a society we aim for what sort of reality we want to live in. Society is not a physics experiment so we try and influence it to suit us, instead of being a mirror of the natural world.
Well sure, the reduction of inequality is not a smart bet to take in the morally impoverished social climate that we live in. The original Pareto principle itself was born out of observations of the natural distribution of wealth among populations, so changes to that distribution will require active effort and hard work to create a sustainable economic structure. I'm not saying people don't have good reason to be cynical about improvements in the Gini coefficient across the world.
But you must recognize that human society is simply the summation of many individual choices, and there is a big difference between saying something is unlikely to happen, and something cannot happen. Pragmatism and cowardly cynicism are two different positions with dramatically different possible outcomes. Instead of accepting Keynes over Polanyi as a foregone conclusion, try looking at the individual choices that were made to get us to this position. Repealing Glass-Steagall in the '90s was a choice. Deregulation in the '80s was a choice. 100 million Americans eligible to register choosing not to vote out politicians who make these decisions are 100 million choices. There may be systemic reasons for why those choices were made, but I am simply right now trying to get you to see that these outcomes are not foregone conclusions.
Your justifying logic for holding your beliefs is certainly not rigorous -- you can just as easily find examples of nature favoring equilibrium and balance in every conceivable force diagram or cell membrane as you can of the existence of inequality. If you are looking for a nature metaphor, why not try a chemical reaction? In an inert environment, oxygen molecules will not spontaneously transform into carbon dioxide, even though carbon dioxide is a more stable chemical state. But once the necessary conditions exist -- the presence of sufficient carbon and enough available activation energy to perform the reaction -- a single spark can cause a chain reaction to convert every single oxygen molecule present into carbon dioxide molecule. No matter if previously, every oxygen molecule was insisting, "But this is the way things have always been for us! Some things can be changed, and some things can't."
We have not yet reached the necessary conditions for our society to reach a more stable state, so you are not wrong in saying that it seems unlikely that the reduction in inequality can occur without certain tipping points being reached. But it is folly to conclude "...there's not much that might change that" without educating yourself on the missing conditions and realizing that it is possible to slowly work towards achieving those conditions or empower others who are taking steps to achieve those conditions. Conditions like political will, corporate regulations and safeguards against regulatory capture, fighting disinformation campaigns, and educating people on the harms of inequality, done very well by thinkers like Stiglitz, Varoufakis, McChesney, Chibber, Polanyi, Bernie Sanders, John Kay, Tim Wu, and many others who have considered the effects and are working on solutions. So that when that single spark comes along -- a great leader who can move the masses to rally behind a vision of a better world -- hopefully we will have done enough to move in the correct direction. We are closer than we think probably, if you look at how close the elections of Gore and Sanders were, for example.
But, I should say in the end I am encouraged by anyone who is willing to read and educate themselves on the matter and engage with differing viewpoints. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I am optimistic for the future, but I will do whatever is in my power to create a fighting chance for those who have not yet given up in the face of difficult odds.
interesting idea that wealth is primarily created by tech innovation. Got a good source of reading on this? How would they address a few people concentrating wealth onto themselves?
there was an anti-monetization clause in the contract. you don’t put that there out of an over abundance of caution. they knew exactly FB’s intentions. they maybe didn’t expect it to come home to roost so quickly, but they should have. again, these are smart guys. they just couldn’t get past the billions, plain and simple.
Negotiating that clause in there in the first place is extremely customer/user friendly and I can't believe they were able to do it. I have never heard of this before, especially for such a high profile acquisition...to a known ad company.
I think at some point you could honestly make the decision that you can do a lot more good with $3B than guarding the privacy of the relatively well off from Facebook's ad machine.
Facebook's entire business model is ads. Of course, it was going to a) include advertising or b) add more user info to better target ads in other apps.
Facebook has been lying to us since at least 2007. People were always okay with it because they perceived it as being okay and supportive of the right people and policies.
To be fair acquisition assurances are always temporary at best. They are buying the company for a reason, not to leave it alone forever. I've been a part of two acquisitions over the past decade and most of the devs I know have been in at least one. The assurances are never more than temporary.
This seems less Facebook specific and more "that's simply what happens with all acquisitions".
> To be fair acquisition assurances are always temporary at best. They are buying the company for a reason, not to leave it alone forever. I've been a part of two acquisitions over the past decade and most of the devs I know have been in at least one. The assurances are never more than temporary.
> This seems less Facebook specific and more "that's simply what happens with all acquisitions".
I don't know what was going through their heads but as an outsider with no insider knowledge, I justified this as Facebook making sure nobody else gets hold of Whatsapp's user base. It made sense in my head back then.
Wait a minute... FB had exactly the same business model in 2014 like today. Of course they understand the mechanics of that business model already back then. Shouldn’t they have known better?
Well, yes and no. Back the day, Facebook and Zuckerberg were the shining examples of successful Silicon Valley companies and founders with a good mission.
That Zuckerberg, at the young age, managed to retain control of facebook all the way up to, and beyond, the ICO should have given them pause so. That hints a certain personality (no judgement intended in that assessment). But that is 20/20 hindsight which is always easy.
In 2014? 'The Social Network' came out in 2010, and painted Zuckerberg in a pretty bad light. I don't think he was viewed as a shining example in 2014.
That's not the issue, the issue is whether assurances that were made to them, with or without some legal backing, could be trusted. Companies can be motivated by profit and still be honest.
In corporate America, you always get support as long as things are going well. As soon as things go badly, people look for scapegoats.
I’ve had a manager before who supported everything I was doing but when he was let go, I was left hanging in the wind. I’ve slso had a manager who wouldn’t listen to me (I was the Dev lead), everything failed in just the way I warned it would and I could see he was going to blame me.
Never trust a company - and by extension your manager who represents the company to his reports.
"Warren attributes those problems to a shift, which she says dates back to the 1980s, in the obligations of corporations — from balancing responsibilities to all their stakeholders — including both employees and stock owners — to prioritizing their financial return to shareholders only."
(That's not exactly responsive to your point on maximizing profit, but the body of work on this topic shows that when companies care about long-term return, and about employees and other stakeholders, they aren't solely focused on maximizing short-term profit over all else.)
It’s not about short term vs long term profit. Even when a company is far sighted enough to care about long term profit, every step they take in the short term is in furtherance of that goal.
or in other words, we can thank the stock market and pressure on public companies to focus on quarterly growth at all costs over long-term sustainability and a balanced approach.
The doctrine of what the purpose of business is changed in the 1980s. During the post-WW2 era the prevailing view was that the purpose of business was to "create a customer", and as a result, corporations existed primarily for consumer benefit. Read Drucker for elaboration on this, and it's also still assumed in many economics textbooks of that period.
Starting in 1970, Milton Friedman argued that the sole purpose of a corporation was to increase shareholder value, and all of its other activities - providing jobs, fighting pollution, enhancing social justice, even serving customers - were subservient to that, to be engaged in only if they also helped profits. It took a while for this view to catch on, but following Reagan's election, it gained a lot of popularity in political & legal circles, and was firmly entrenched among business leaders by the mid-80s.
The problem is that we've since discovered a number of ways that corporations can enhance shareholder value (as measured by stock price) without actually benefitting customers, and most of them involve strip-mining value built up over the long term at the expense of the future. And so a significant fraction of the population is just engaged in financial games while they get busy firing everyone who does actual work.
without actually benefitting customers, and most of them involve strip-mining value built up over the long term at the expense of the future
I think of this as the conversion of social capital into financial. The monetisation of things that used to be personal relationships, such as becoming intermediaries what used to be direct interaction.
I don't think anyone "came around" to that sort of thinking. And Milton Freedman was not prescribing a strategy as much as describing a winning strategy. A strategy that has slowly taken over and beat out those organizations that either don't espouse it or have failed to adopt it.
Company is only bound to its owners i.e. shareholders. Employees of the companies have only one way of pushing their agenda: "Either do what we want, or we quit". Companies either are OK with losing those employees and replacing them with others or they change their course to accommodate their employees. If those accommodations piss off the shareholders then the company gets to broker some sort of the compromise or its officers and directors get fired.
The mechanisms can differ as attention-driven businesses have to walk a fine line between revenue maximization and user discontent.
For example, Facebook could've over-induldged on overlay full-screen ads or "watch this video for 30 seconds before proceeding" ads, but they chose not to.
“Serving customers” just gives them an advantage in their ultimate aim - making money.
Any public company that is not majority owned by one person and is not maximizing their profit is a target of a Carl Icahn type of investor, who will buy up enough shares to force them to maximize profits.
>> What year would it be ok to be naive enough to think that any for profit company’s main motivation is not to make as much money possible?
> There is such a thing as business ethics.
> Facebook's complete disregard for them should not be the norm, even if it, sadly, might be more often than not.
It's alarming how businesses' lack of business ethics is getting normalized by comments like the grandparent's. We should require that companies be ethical and condemn them when they aren't. Yes, we'll often be disappointed, just like we're disappointed with the fraction of humanity that becomes criminal, but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards.
Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated.
IANAL, but my understanding is that this isn't true, and the whole subfield of tort law [1] is about the rights and obligations that firms have even in the absence of a contract. If you steal trade secrets from a competitor, even if you have no contract or business relationship with them, they can still sue you for a very large amount of money and possibly get an injunction against using that stolen information. Similarly for cases of patent/copyright infringement, libel, slander, price-fixing, antitrust, etc.
I suspect that a large class of these "business ethics" violations are actually torts, but the problem with enforcing them is that to do so you a.) need to know what your rights are b.) need to detect violations of them and c.) need to bring a lawsuit against the offender. I remember that on Google's invention disclosure form, one of the questions was "How easy would it be to detect if a competitor was using this invention in their product?", and if the answer was "We'd never know", we wouldn't patent the idea and would keep it as a trade secret instead, on the assumption that if a competitor could use the invention illegally without us knowing about it, they would, and so it was better to deny them knowledge of the invention entirely than to publish and try to enforce unenforceable rights.
When the aggrieved party is a consumer or worker, it's triply difficult, as most consumers a.) aren't aware of their rights b.) have no information about what's going on inside big corporations and c.) don't have money to sue even if they know. Many of the ethical problems in U.S. business today stem from the legal system not being able to scale up to 300M often poorly-informed citizens.
And how well will a handshake - he said/she said agreement hold up in court? How easy is it for one party to “misremember” what was said? There is a reason almost every contract has an “entire agreements clause”
Torts aren't handshake agreements. They're duties that the state decides that all organizations owe to citizens or other organizations, by virtue of existing, but which should be enforced by the party who is actually wronged. (This is what distinguishes them from "crimes", which are forbidden actions that the state actively pursues.)
In this case, Acton's not the aggrieved party. The consumer is - they could argue that Facebook's introduction of advertising and linking of user data harmed them in a way they had not agreed to when they signed up for Whatsapp, or that its purchase violated antitrust law and reduced consumer choice. But good luck enforcing that, at least in the US, where privacy protections are weak and antitrust regulators are asleep. It looks like the EU regulators actually did enforce it, and slapped FB with a $122M fine, but that's peanuts for them.
So while in theory you are correct, in practice, usually whatever punishment is given in a company doesn’t usually amount to enough to change the company and individuals are usually shielded from the consequences of any malfeasance....
> Yes and the only way you can “require” anything when doing business is through a written contract with clauses that specify what happens when the contract is breached and the jurisdiction where the breaches will be adjudicated.
I expect/require that people not steal from me even though I don't have a contract or prior agreement with them, and I also predict that some people won't respect my property.
> You mean, except for criminal law? I don't see how this is in any way equivalent to adding ads to Whatsapp.
It's not against the law to lie to me in most cases, but I still have the same expectation/requirement that people will be honest with me that I do that they won't steal.
How do we as individuals “require” companies to be ethical? At the end of the day, we don’t have the power to enforce ethics. We have to work within the framework of reality and get everything in writing.
Boycott them and don't purchase or use their products.
If you feel strongly about it go further and organize more people to do the same. Try to convince people who don't feel the company is unethical that it is.
But in the end you can't expect because you don't like a company that your feelings on what should happen to come to be.
It's like so many people complaining on Twitter about Twitter not banning voices they don't like. If you don't like Twitter's policies then stop using their product. If enough people agree with you and do this they will change. If you feel it's worth spending your life organizing people to boycott Twitter then spend your life doing that. But the culture of demanding that platforms must adhere to someones arbitrary expectations as if using their platform is a right is ridiculous.
This is exactly what I do with Uber. I don't use it. I use Lyft. This is because I don't consider Uber an ethical company, nor do I particularly like their HR and other management practices.
I don't know very much about Lyft but I have yet to hear anything bad about them which is pretty encouraging.
I started opting for Lyft after the Susan Fowler thing. But I was doing some travel this year and it was shocking to me that Lyft hasn't expanded outside the US as Uber has.
One of the Uber criticisms is that they don't respect local laws when they do such expansions, so maybe that is part of why Lyft might be more cautious. Still, non-US markets and global user bases are much more of a thing as time goes on, so it feels like they're very severely missing out.
Peter Thiel is a major investor and board seat holder in Lyft. If your politics lead you to believe Uber is not an ethical company, that might also give you pause.
It has been the norm in Silicone Valley for many years, unfortunately. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be appalled by it anyway, but perhaps just more cynical.
Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being.
Even if your manager is ethical and “cares” about the well being of his employees, his manager may not. Even if his manager does the board, the investors/shareholders, etc. probably don’t. The whole purpose of a corporation is that a corporation survives without regards of any one person getting hit by a bus.
I worked for a struggling company a few years ago and management was very honest about the dire straights we were in, I was part of the team who sat in on interviews and did presentations for potential acquirers so I knew what was going on.
I trusted management not to purposefully screw me over. But at the end of the day, if they “guaranteed me” that my check would clear for every hour I worked I wouldn’t have believed them. The only reason I stayed until the bitter end was because our VC backers promised us in writing that we would be payed until we got an official layoff notice.
> Ascribing ethics or lack of ethics to a business is like ascribing the same traits to a non sentient being
This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for.
Protecting users' privacy was never prioritized in the acquisition process. If it had been, the anti-monetization clause would have been stronger.
That's okay. We're talking about billions of dollars. But turning around and playing the good guy will take these men more than simply claiming ignorance.
This is defeatist. Corporations can be sued in courts, just like people. Their obligations are binding, just like peoples'. There is a little more complexity to signing a deal with a corporation than a natural person because there are multiple sapient interests involved, but that's what lawyers are for.
I never said that companies go around breaking legally binding contracts or there is no recourse if they do. I said you shouldn’t trust a handshake deal when doing any business that amounts to real money. Get it in writing.
TL;DR version of which is "Make as much money as possible or become irrelevant note in history"
Edit: Oh, please. Downvotes keep demonstrating a total disconnect between HN responses that require pushing a downvote button and say mass resignation from Google or Facebook or Whatsapp or Well Fargo or Equifax that might trigger a response.
So yes, the only business ethics that is relevant in the real world is "Make as much money as possible".
There's a huge middle ground between being completely irrelevant that you're missing. Plenty of small and medium businesses abide by ethics and make ethical decisions every day. You just don't hear about them because it's not newsworthy that their management tries to do right by the employees or that they pay their bills on time.
They're not noteworthy because they're the norm, not the exception.
I may not like that if I go out in a rain I will get wet, but not acknowledging that as the fact won't keep me dry should I go out in a rain.
They sold the company. By selling the company they have become employees, not founders with control. If they did not like it, they should not have sold. If they are remorseful, they can donate 100% of all the money that they made from a sale of the company as well as all the interest that they have accumulated to some me-so-sorry non-profit. Not 10%. Not 50%. 100%. Otherwise those are just empty words, just like protests of HN crowd working for Google, Facebook, Equifax, etc.: empty words that make them feel better.
sorry, but that is very naive of you 2018 / 2010 / 1990, no business can be trusted to tell the truth if it is not written down in a legally binding way.
They will always do what is in their best interest when it is in their interest to do so
That, and I'm sure they thought they could still stay in control of their product. When it's your first buy-out, there's a lot of delusions about autonomy and power post-acquisition.
Come. On. You don’t get to that kind of valuation with a basically free product without ad targeting. An accelerated vesting clause is not an assurance. If they wanted assurances they could have made it a condition of the deal, ok? They didn’t. Accelerated vesting just means they were telegraphing that they wanted to leave before the shit hit the fan.
Pre-Facebook, WhatsApp's monetization strategy has been to charge users a nominal fee for usage ($1/year). And $1/yr with 1B users doesn't justify the price tag for Facebook. So Facebook wanted to introduce advertising.
PS: I'd be happy to pay them $1/month because a significant part of my communication happens over WhatsApp. The challenge is $1/month is probably too pricey for most of their user base.
FWIW this is from the perspective of and American consumer (I assume, from your comment below where you mention AT&T).
Most WhatsApp users aren't American, and in a lot of places $1 is a more significant price tag. That aside though, some places don't have the infrastructure or trust to even allow any sort of online payment to happen: a lot of people in India don't have credit cards, and being from Mexico myself, I know a lot of people who do don't trust online transactions enough to pay with it online.
Charge me two dollars as a first world American, and give someone else the service for free. Infrastructure can be expensive, but not that expensive. Let's Encrypt, OpenStreetMap [1], and Wikipedia run on donations, and these are core internet properties.
If you think you need tens of millions of dollars annually to run a chat client at scale, no.
Let's encrypt and wikipedia are not-for-profit. If they charge americans $2/month and eastasians $0, then people will be outraged, and they'll find a way to get it for free anyway.
I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism those actions represent.
They have never offered the same service to an identical identity type (e.g. person/government/corporation/school are all different), but charging for one and not the other.
This is really a reply to "toomuchtodo," but I don't have a reply link under their post. They wrote:
> I would ask for proof people would be outraged. Google and Facebook have used their overwhelming first world profits to fund internet ventures in the third world, and no one is outraged over the actions except for the blatant colonialism the actions represent.
Well, obviously you can't prove a hypothetical, but the "outrage" suggested here isn't about for-profit companies funding charities. It's about being charged even minimal amounts for services. Google and Facebook do not charge users for their core services, so they are not good comparison points.
Odd that you couldn't reply to me, but HN is a strange beast.
Users were paying for Whatsapp [1]. I believe that data point illustrates that users would pay $1/year for a chat service, but this is just an opinion until someone decides to stand up a new service and charges for it.
[1] The evolution of WhatsApp - in rumours and revenues
WhatsApp had dabbled with the subscription revenue model in 2014, which amounted to charging an annual $0.99 membership fee, and earned above $1 billion in the first nine months of instating this fee. But following their $19-billion acquisition by Facebook, they came to revoke these charges, and WhatsApp was a free ride for its one-billion-strong and counting user base again."
> The challenge is $1/month is probably too pricey for most of their user base.
The only reason WhatsApp exists is that international carriers were charging higher fees for text messaging while offering lower data rates, creating an arbitrage opportunity. WhatsApp never took off in the U.S. because U.S. carriers were ahead of the curve in shifting to free texting (thanks to the iPhone popularizing unlimited consumer data plans). So yes, this puts a hard ceiling on what WhatsApp could charge.
And that makes them feigning they thought they could justify a $19B valuation without increasing monetization all the more ridiculous. Of course they knew what would happen. That's why the deal was "if you monetize we vest all our stock and leave and cry out loud all the way to the bank," not "you can't monetize."
Facebook didn't want to die. Large and growing networks are a threat to FB. Buying up Instagram and WhatsApp was probably less expensive than building competitors and out-competing the upstarts.
The challenge is $1/month is probably too pricey for most of their user base.
I was born and raised in a third world country and 99% of my family and friends still live there. Our GDP per capita is around $1,000 (yearly figure). I know people with children who make no more than $150 per month and cannot afford their own apartment. I know people who make even less. I know people who live in villages and probably have a monthly budget of no more than $80-$100.
Yet I have very rarely met people who somehow aren't spending at least $5 per month on their phone bill (buying minutes).
In fact I was very surprised to find that not only nearly everyone has a mobile phone, BUT phone service was more expensive than they are in the US. For example one hour at an internet cafe will set you back 50 cents. Yet everyone has a mobile phone, about half have a smartphone (granted a cheaper version of Android) and people buy internet connection left and right. In America, you walk into any coffee shop, get a free water, a free internet connection and a Thank You.
I say this to say, that WhatsApp could charge $2 per month and most people will happily pay it.
An important point to add to these observations is that WhatsApp made massive inroads with carriers in developing countries to zero-rate their services (unlimited WhatsApp messages as part of a data plan). This is the underreported aspect of the FB acquisition as these arrangements were immediately parlayed into zero-rating for WhatsApp and Facebook. WhatsApp was so far ahead of Facebook in becoming established in these markets that it posed a real threat. And as you said, $1-24 per year paid to WhatsApp would be only a fraction of what even the poorest mobile phone users pay for their plans.
This is an invalid comparison. WhatsApp is an OTT messaging service. You're comparing it to carrier internet and voice service.
It would be more valid to compare it to carrier text messaging fees, which was the arbitrage opportunity they exploited. But that opportunity is mostly gone now that everyone has smartphones. If WhatsApp charged $2/month they would face the same challenge from upstart apps that carriers faced from WhatsApp.
The $1/yr thing was BS. The app never actually took you to a payment screen; I think it was "free for 1 year, $1/yr afterwards". The only time I have ever paid for Whatsapp was in the Blackberry App Store back in 2009, when it cost $3.
If you think that even the friction alone of charging $1/yr isn't enough to shove the vast majority of users off the app, you haven't been paying attention to consumer expectations.
I agree that $1/yr would shove off majority of users off the app. That said, I think WhatsApp could get to revenues of $1-3B per year because of the following:
* I pay $60/mo for my AT&T line. I do the majority of my communication over WhatsApp. In that sense, WhatsApp adds more value to my life than AT&T. There are a group of users who'd be willing to pay more for that value.
* For most users, WhatsApp is an integral part of how they communicate with friends, family, doctors, coworkers, etc. As a consumer, it isn't just an "app" but an integral part of their communication flow.
* WhatsApp is respected by international telcos. I know at least for the telcos in my home country that they'd be happy to charge for WhatsApp subscription as part of their packages.
I think the primary problem was that even if WhatsApp could monetize $1-3/yr per user on average, it still wouldn't have met FB's revenue expectations.
WhatsApp relies on network effects to be successful. If you get less than 100% of users continuing to pay and use the product then the utility goes down; the paid product is actually worse than the free version.
I honestly believe the friction of paying any non-zero amount at all for a messenger app is more than what 80%+ of users would be willing to bear psychologically. They would almost certainly just migrate to a different app. That's also where WhatsApp's group emphasis becomes a huge drawback - groups would tend to migrate together, making it easier and quicker for the whole network to unravel.
No they were not. This is a complete falsehood. They sold the company well before they could roll out their monetization plan widely enough for it to impact user retention. They were also much smaller at the time.
agree. This is just such complete bullshit. If you don't agree with someone's ethics or business practices, don't take 22 billion dollars from them. If you do take 22 billion, say thank you and stop acting like a 10 year old.
that’s a bit of silly wordsmithing. you are technically right in the general case, but in this case we can indeed infer bad intentions. one doesn’t need to imagine good or bad intentions, one can simply look at the facts in the ground (even at the time, not later in hindsight).
he was preying on people’s naivete and admitted as much.
The movie "The Social Network" came out in 2010 for goodness sake. It was already mainstream knowledge among non-tech people in 2010, let alone successful tech billionaires in 2014, that Facebook was an organization run by sociopaths.
