8 ms·
WhatsApp will no longer charge subscription fees
- ENTP 11y agoI, for one, shudder at the thought of Facebook getting my banking messages. Telegram has been a great alternative although it's not perfect.
- mcpherrinm 11y agoI'd be much more nervous about Telegram getting that data.
- ultramancool 11y agoIt's a toss up: - WhatsApp uses reputable cryptography from reputable sources, but combines it with a UI so much designed for ease of use that it throws out the possibility of real security - Telegram uses extremely questionable cryptography to begin with from people who probably shouldn't be designing cryptosystems If you want real security, go use Signal or better, OTR where socialist millionaire's is still an option for key verification.
- sayhar 11y ago> OTR where socialist millionaire's is still an option for key verification. Can you explain the socialist millionaire comment? I don't get it.
- 0xdada 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires
- baghira 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires
- ultramancool 11y agoOther people already linked the wikipedia article, but basically the thing it allows for is verification of a key without trust of it and provides effective proof you're not being MITM'd. I can ask a question or a series of questions to my friend and we can use zero knowledge proofs to determine we're talking about the same answer to verify his key without disclosing anything about that answer.
- jhasse 11y agoAlso WhatsApp is closed-source, but Telegram's client is open-source.
- free2rhyme214 11y agoNot everything with Telegram is open source like Signal. I still use Telegram because it's designed better and updated much more frequently.
- jhasse 11y agoI'm using both, too. :) But unfortunately I don't use Chrome, so I can't use Signal on my PC yet.
- Johnny_Brahms 11y agoThere are some FF-related pull requests on GitHub, but it seems that guy hasn't signed the contributor agreement. Maybe we'll get an FF-version soon.
- jhasse 11y agoWhy is a contributor agreement needed? Can you post the link to the PR?
- ex3ndr 11y agoTelegram is actually not open, they just throw some sources to github or as zip files at their's langing page. That's why i quit Telegram and built open source "Telegram" - https://actor.im https://actor.im and replaced spagetti-encryption with enhanced version of Signal's one.
- Johnny_Brahms 11y agoConsidering it is pretty much the gold standard for crypto, how did you enhance it?
- janpieterz 11y agoI've read up a while ago on the questionable cryptography (not an expert in that at all myself) but couldn't find a lot of actual substance. Certainly with claims [0] [1] being that Telegram offers nice sums for breaking it, which gives me as a consumer the idea that someone who actually knows this stuff would love to hit that down, if it was something in my area of expertise offering that I'd love to try and hit it. I get that it might all be some kind of cheat, but an actual cryptography researcher publishing that it is would, obviously, get a lot of bad karma going in the HN circles (for example) about these contests. [0] https://telegram.org/blog/winter-contest-ends https://telegram.org/blog/winter-contest-ends [1] https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest-ends https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest-ends
- ultramancool 11y agohttps://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1177.pdf
- tptacek 11y agoWhat have you read about the questionable cryptography in Telegram that you found unpersuasive? That's a better starting point, because the formulation you use here is often used on message boards to bait people into doing research work that is then dismissed. Your comment includes an assertion that there aren't substantial complaints about Telegram's security (there very much are, BTW). I think the onus is on you to defend that argument.
- janpieterz 11y agoYou're absolutely right if my goal was to get people to post these papers, which reading back can easily be how it is interpreted. My point was more that, as a 'consumer' of this product without any background knowledge, their contests seem extremely convincing to the point of being slightly ridiculous. A 300,000 dollar bounty, while participants get quite some more access than they would normally get while attacking this system, gives me that feeling of it being actually quite secure, besides some possible attacks. If they're possible, if there are complaints, why can't they be made real and substantiated? My first post is indeed not delivering the message I intended, hope this one shows it better.
- maxerickson 11y agoDoesn't 'real security' quickly escalate to not having a cell phone at all? The best opsec advice for normal people seems to be not to op.
- ENTP 11y agoI wasn't advocating Telegram as an alternative transport for financial data. More that I'd rather use telegram for im than anything facebook owns.
- unsignedint 11y agoWhich reminds me of the announcement while ago about Whisper Systems is helping WhatsApp implementing E2E [0]. I don't think I've heard ever since about it, and not even sure if that functionality is built into WhatsApp now... [0]: https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/
- mintplant 11y ago> Starting this year, we will test tools that allow you to use WhatsApp to communicate with businesses and organizations that you want to hear from. That could mean communicating with your bank about whether a recent transaction was fraudulent, or with an airline about a delayed flight. Sounds a lot like what WeChat has been doing in China with their Official Accounts. Best explanation I could find quickly: http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2016/01/13/ecommerce/welcome-to-the-wechat-galaxy/ http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2016/01/13/ecommerce/welcome-t... Instead of, say, downloading the Uber app to get a ride, you'd open up WeChat and message its app account.
- masklinn 11y ago> Sounds a lot like what WeChat has been doing in China with their Official Accounts. Or Line, not sure which one was the first.
- lindig 11y agoThis. A messaging app like WhatsApp could become a platform. I'm not sure how the "apps" in this world would look like but I would find it great if text interactions (like on IRC, in the shell, or a text adventure) would have a comeback. Forget most of HTML/CSS and get back to basics ;-) In reality, some graphical UI will probably be necessary.
- mintplant 11y agoI just wish we had a good way to do this without locking it all into a single proprietary platform.
- paublyrne 11y agoText messages?
- joncampbelldev 11y agoYeah I visited china recently and I was very jealous seeing my girlfriend (grew up there) order taxis, pay for food and loads of other small tasks all through WeChat. This should definitely be developed for WhatsApp (or something similar).
- gberger 11y agoTelegram has its Bot API which, among many other things, makes it possible for any organization or individual to create applications that "allow you to use [Telegram] to communicate with businesses and organizations that you want to hear from". Telegram offers this for free.
- sz4kerto 11y agoNot that I have met anyone who paid for Whatsapp, ever. :)
- fwn 11y agoThis is what I thought as well. WhatsApp asked me for money a few times but wasn't overly bullish about it after I ignored it for a few days. Not using WhatsApp isn't any obstacle as everyone seems to have a few messengers. I just pressed a different button, others answered on the platform I swiched to.
- JTon 11y agoI paid 99c for Whatsapp on iOS years back. This was before IAP and I believe it was the only way to get it on the platform.
- fgandiya 11y agoGood to so I'm not alone. Heck, I've even moved countries like 3 times and I haven't paid a cent.
- ronnier 11y agoI don't like that WhatsApp is tied to my phone number.
- pkd 11y agoFWIW, this was my biggest gripe with it too. I did not start using WhatsApp till 2014 while all of my friends had already switched a couple of years back. I was happy with Facebook messenger, but i was forced to switch to be in the loop. Although since Facebook messenger also needs your number to verify the phone, if I remember correctly, it hardly matters. I have recently made the switch to Signal[1], and made my partner switch too. It's been a blessing. [1] https://whispersystems.org/ https://whispersystems.org/
- mynewtb 11y agoSadly signal uses your number too.
- mahouse 11y agoI like that WhatsApp is tied to my phone number. It just works. That's the one of the biggest reasons of its success.
- gst 11y agoSame here. I have two phone numbers (one in the US and one in Austria) and also spend a considerable amount of time in both countries each year. I'm usually reachable on both numbers (and usually only give the local number to people in each country), with one number forwarding to the other number. With WhatsApp I can't link both numbers at the same time. Even worse, according to the FAQ there's a limit on how often you can change the phone number linked to the account, so it's not even an option to just always change it to the "local" number.
- diezge 11y agoI remember being prompted for a small payment once or twice but still ended up being able to use the app regardless? strange
- Animats 11y agoThat's too bad. If you're paying, you're the customer. If you're not paying, you're the product.
- refrigerator 11y agoPeople seem to say this all the time, but assuming it's true, what's inherently wrong with "being the product"?
- fwn 11y agoIt's just a catchy phrase designed to sound shocking as it suggests some opaque objectification. Obviously you don't need to "be the product". Selling a shortcut to a bit of your attention makes a lot of money, too. Edit: And you are always in the position to choose how much attention you grant the apps you use.
- pkd 11y agoThere's not much wrong with being the product as long as you are aware of that distinction. The problem arises when people aren't aware because this in essence takes away their right(option, if you will) to refuse to use the service.
- riquito 11y ago> what's inherently wrong with "being the product"? Products are sold
- psykovsky 11y agoHumans love being slaves...
- tptacek 11y agoSo long as revenue sources other than subscription fees are more lucrative than the subscription fees, it remains the case that users are "the product", even if fees are charged. For fees to change the balance, they have to have enough economic weight to swamp advertising and tracking revenue, so that losing users makes tracking unprofitable. But very few services like WhatsApp can charge so much that the balance is shifted.
- secfirstmd 11y agoSignal is also free and based on a business model that doesn't require eventually being able to interfere with your privacy and mine your data. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/signal-private-messenger/id874139669?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/signal-private-messenger/id8... https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri...
- hendzen 11y agoWhat business model is Signal based on?
- snorrah 11y agoDonations, it seems http://support.whispersystems.org/hc/en-us/articles/212940158-How-can-I-donate- http://support.whispersystems.org/hc/en-us/articles/21294015...
- defenestration 11y agoThey have an interesting way of donating: 'BitHub = Bitcoin + GitHub. An experiment in funding privacy OSS.' You donate bitcoins to a pool. Everyone can commit to their repository. Every merged pull request gets 2% of the pool. Currently you get 26.98 USD per merged pull request. Source: https://www.whispersystems.org/blog/bithub/ https://www.whispersystems.org/blog/bithub/
- defenestration 11y agoFrom their description in the iTunes store: 'Pay Nothing - Signal is supported by a team of dedicated developers, community donations, and grants. There are no advertisements, and it doesn't cost anything to use.'
- staunch 11y agoSo it's a project, not a business.
- defenestration 11y agoPaid business services for customer interaction, sound like a plausible business model for WhatsApp. However, I get the feeling this is only part of the story. I assume that data mined by WhatsApp are probably more valuable to Facebook.
- 51Cards 11y agoI would agree. I think their user base has hit some tipping point which ensures other revenue streams. That's the only reason I can think they would throw the fees... out the window. (nice user name)
- Pharaoh2 11y agoSo I know internal figures from facebook regarding whatsapp. A large majority of our users are never actually charged a subscription fee. The app is facing stiff competition in some markets against apps that don't have any subscription model. Even though whatsapp won't actually charge those users the presence of a subscription feature seems to be causing a growth hinderance. Not sure how it will compete in these markets now given the entrenched nature of social platforms and how hard it is to convince people to switch but that remains to be seen. Also, until recently whatsapp/facebook couldn't actually read any message sent by users to other users/groups because of the end to end encryption in place. Not sure why they would change that just to get a data mined revenue source, metadata is quite sufficient for that. Even with NSLs on fb in place, the impossibility of of us to read the messages in whatsapp is sufficient reason to deny a NSL request. Zuck doesn't really interfere with whatsapp, but like with some other things this seems like a bid to increase DAUs and retention instead of any new source of revenue.
- StavrosK 11y ago> until recently whatsapp/facebook couldn't actually read any message sent by users to other users/groups because of the end to end encryption in place Does that mean they can now?
- 11y ago
- trekking101 11y agoI was in the audience and he gave a pretty clear hint that commerce (a la tencent) would be the path forward for monetization
- XorNot 11y agoI don't think I ever paid fees for Whatsapp, and I'm not sure how or why. But this also seems too late. Facebook own them, my family started using Facebook, and with Messenger as a separate app I more or less lost any incentive to use it.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y agoI think only new sign ups after the fee introduction paid the fee.
- currysausage 11y agoWhen I signed up for WhatsApp in 2012, the iOS app cost 0.79 € (I believe it was a promotion, usually 1.79 €) and gave me a free lifetime license. I think the Android app already asked for a yearly fee after one year at that time, at least in theory.
- lwf 11y agoFacebook's already doing similar things in their Messenger app with some narrowly-defined usecases, such as ordering an Uber: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/introducing-transportation-on-messenger/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/introducing-transportat...
- firloop 11y agoWorth reading of course is the post (pre FB acquisition) on why they don't sell ads: https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads
- cvwright 11y agoAnd for those who didn't read the link, the punchline at the end of that post is: "When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say 'Have you considered the alternative?'" The (implied) alternative here is advertising; the author just spent the previous 8 paragraphs discussing all the unpleasantness and creepiness that that entails.
- ptx 11y agoWhen I very recently started using WhatsApp, the client displayed a link to a blog post[0] they wrote about why charging subscription fees was important and a good thing: "At every company that sells ads, a significant portion of their engineering team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making sure it's all being logged and collated and sliced and packaged and shipped out... And at the end of the day the result of it all is a slightly different advertising banner in your browser or on your mobile screen. "Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product. ... "When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say 'Have you considered the alternative?'" Given that this new blog post carefully talks about not introducing "third-party ads", presumably first-party ads are still on the table? Which would make this new model the alternative that they warned us about earlier. [0] https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mcintyre1994 11y agoHeh, I guess it's not particularly surprising that making the founders billionaires changed their minds - although it really did read as if they had principles at the time! "These days companies know literally everything about you, your friends, your interests, and they use it all to sell ads." There really is only one company this could be describing isn't there? Facebook.
- StavrosK 11y agoI'm not sure how true that ever was. I've been using WhatsApp for years and never paid anything. They'd always just extend the subscription. None of my friends ever paid anything either (most of the people who use WhatsApp here don't even have a CC on file at Google Play).
- CodeGlitch 11y agoI'm just going to stick to Email :) I'm old enough to see all these messaging applications come and go (ICQ, MSN Messanger anyone?). I'd rather see a company try and improve email's flaws then try and force new protocols and undefined encryption down our throats. Yes I sound grumpy, but that's because all my family are on WhatsApp and I don't want to be :)
- LeoNatan25 11y agoWhen a business becomes "free" with no clear indication what the monetization model is, my "spider" senses are tingling. Time to abandon ship.
- fgandiya 11y agoFor the 5 years I've been using WhatsApp, I've never been charged anything. I always get a "trial extension", even after changing numbers many times and changing countries 3 times. I don't know if this happens frequently, or I'm just lucky