7 ms·

Serious question..... but also more me fleshing out my thoughts on messaging apps.... What is the point in buying a messaging app? - instant messenger - ICQ

Serious question..... but also more me fleshing out my thoughts on messaging apps.... What is the point in buying a messaging app? - instant messenger - ICQ - Skype - Yammer - WhatsApp They all seem to be popular for a short time and then fad away. What does owing one of these get a company? The case against owning them is that they all go out of favour and you only have a small window, say up to 5 years, where your platform is dominate before everyone moves onto another solution. At one point the theory was it got people to use a companies proprietary login, when companies thought there was value in having people use their login. At this point, if I said Slack would be a shell of its former self in 5 - 10 years would anyone put up an argument , if so what's the argument that this time its different. I'm a happy slack user, but i"ll move to a new platform tomorrow if a better one comes along, there is almost no network effect or lock with these apps so switching has almost zero cost. Plugins might provide a slight lockin but time has shown again and again the same plugins will move to the next popular messaging app, which seems to negate any benefit.

sp332 9y ago
WhatsApp didn't fade at all. They have 1.2 billion monthly active users and climbing. Their "stories" feature got 177 million daily active users in just 10 weeks. For comparison, Snapchat is only at 166 million DAU as of Q1 this year.
- ForHackernews 9y ago
  WhatsApp is (AFAIK) the only major chat service that offers a J2ME app. There are a _lot_ of feature phones in the Global South, and a lot of telecoms that charge gouging rates for SMS and MMS.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > WhatsApp is (AFAIK) the only major chat service that offers a J2ME app WhatsApp's support for J2ME ended in 2016[1] - it is now smartphone only, because it requires "advanced features" (or bloat) to compete with Snapchat and complete Facebook's flanking manoeuvre (along with Instagram). 1. https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/s60/21099118 https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/s60/21099118
    - ForHackernews 9y ago
      Ah, I guess my information is out of date. It's sad that Facebook owns WhatsApp now.
adamnemecek 9y ago
To be honest most of those faded because they let the product fade.
- AlexandrB 9y ago
  I think they let the product fade because they weren't making very much money. It hard to have a vibrant product when you can't pay the rent.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    MSN messenger and Yahoo both had significant funds.
    - AlexandrB 9y ago
      They had funds from their parent companies which made money by other means. I'm not certain, but I suspect neither product made any money for Microsoft or Yahoo. What CEO in that position is going to double down on R&D funding to keep the chat program relevant?
- astrodust 9y ago
  ICQ was a classic first mover that had explosive growth and continued to succeed in a relative way, but not relative to the overall market. AIM, Yahoo! and MSN messenger platforms knocked it off that pedestal, and the company seemed more interested in sabotaging its platform to squeeze ad revenue than making it more relevant or meaningful to their userbase.
rrdharan 9y ago
I think of all of those WhatsApp has been the most successful both in terms of moat defense purposes and it still has the potential of turning into something like WeChat or LINE (or what they're doing with FB Messenger itself) with its own monetization. For Skype I think it was mostly about rounding out the office suite, MS doesn't want anyone else getting a toehold in workplace collaboration and expanding from there - if you get real classical about it MS Office is the true DNA of the company even more so than Windows/infrastructure. Same reason they bought Yammer and why they were so early on in trying to move on Slack (with the $8B offer that Bill Gates intervened in and shot down). [Edited slightly for clarity]
- ethbro 9y ago
  Agreed. These purchases seem to work the best when they're used for defensive purposes and to round out a product offering that already has a substantial userbase. Whatever gadgets they might hang off the app, they're fundamentally a way for people to talk to each other. If you don't have the people, why would you need a slick implementation? As you mentioned, the app would go out of vogue and users would move on. Amazon making a bid here sounds like a play for a decent social seed, likely steming from users of its core properties (shopping and dev). Of all the mega-corps, Amazon is one of the few that has all the pieces and user-engagement, but no social component. Which is ironic, because their properties would play a lot better with one than, say, Google or MS. And starting with something like Slack (bottom up vs top down) is an interesting move.
  - stingraycharles 9y ago
    > Of all the mega-corps, Amazon is one of the few that has all the pieces and user-engagement, but no social component. Honest question, since I might be out of the loop here in Europe, but what user engagement pieces does Amazon have then ? I use Amazon for shopping and AWS, and would have no idea what other products they have that are dominating a market. Is this about Kindle ?
    - hkmurakami 9y ago
Retric 9y ago
Slack has a rather large number of paying customers for a messaging platform, so even over just 10 years you could extract quite a bit of cash directly on top of that owning platforms allows for a lot of indirect profits. That said, if they make ~15M per month directly then up to 1 to 4 billion is probably completely reasonable purchase price. And depending on how things are evolving and internal costs etc 9B while probably high is not crazy ridiculous.
sinatra 9y ago
We all asked the same question about Facebook. All social networks before Facebook had faded away. But, Facebook didn't. Potential Slack buyers think that Slack is also here to stay in a similar manner. EDIT: I'm not saying Slack is Facebook. One reason why I think Slack may survive longer than ICQ, Skype etc is how well integrated it is with all other services. For a tool to replace Slack, it should also provide the same level of seamless integration with GitHub, Google Docs, and a hundred other services. That's much harder to do than just building a messaging app.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  A consumer to consumer N-N network is much harder to coordinate a migration than a corporate N-N network, for one. Also messengers aren't as N-N since you end up only talking to a small number of people after a while and don't actually want to move all your contacts. I don't want to move all my FB contacts either but the number of connections I sort of care about is still likely more than 100.
- zanny 9y ago
  Facebook isn't just about the people on it at this instant, it is about the accumulated history people build up on it. Exporting your Facebook profile is a labyrinthian effort few would consider. Switching chat providers is as simple as getting everyone to use the new thing and going from there, there is little to no baggage to bring with you.
  - sinatra 9y ago
    I don't think that's true. Switching to another messaging service means you lose all past messages. It also means you need to integrate all other services (like Github, Google Doc, Travis, and many others) to this new messaging service. That is a lot of friction!
    - rkda 9y ago
      Chat services usually have an import service. At least for their more famous competitors. Doesn't Slack allow you to export your message history?
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Large corporations will buy messaging / social networks over time because of the fact that there is a long tail for people who will use the service. The perception that app X is "uncool" or has no growth is the fact that being a part of HN makes you think that the bleeding edge is whatever everyone uses. Of those other frameworks there are a multitude of users on those platforms. The perpetual buying of these companies is a part of the Red Queen hypothesis that large megacorporations have to adapt to survive. One way to do this is the purchase of companies and messaging and social have so much cool platform churn that it becomes endless.
benmowa 9y ago
I'd say Slack has better penetration into enterprise than all those except sykpe. if you look at Amazon's prior communication attempt, its aimed as a business communication solution. Slack has done well to penetrate that segment. Your list is consumer grade, whereas Slack, Webex, Gotomeeting, Zoom, bluejeans, google meetings etc are focused on improving business communications.
andreasklinger 9y ago
Slack is an enterprise platform. Given how deep it is in a company's workflow you could think of it almost like an operating system where apps can attach to. It would perfectly fit to eg salesforce, google etc Unsure what Amazon's goal would be - maybe "enterprise as customers" are the interlinking part between ecommerce and webservices
- hueving 9y ago
  How is slack deep in a company's workflow? In other words, what stops them from switching to an alternative chat? Internet access is deep in company workflows as well, but that doesn't mean they can't change ISPs. Are companies building their ordering systems to depend on slack API's or something?
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >Given how deep it is in a company's workflow you could think of it almost like an operating system where apps can attach to Off the top of my head, both mattermost and rocketchat provide compatible webhook apis that make them drop-in replacements for slack. So not that deep into peoples workflow...
giarc 9y ago
It's best to compare Slack to MS Lync (which is now branded as Skype, was built out of MSN Messenger). In Windows environments, it's a pretty important piece of communication software. I use it constantly everyday to communicate and meet with those across my province (Alberta).

sp332 9y ago

WhatsApp didn't fade at all. They have 1.2 billion monthly active users and climbing. Their "stories" feature got 177 million daily active users in just 10 weeks. For comparison, Snapchat is only at 166 million DAU as of Q1 this year.

ForHackernews 9y ago
WhatsApp is (AFAIK) the only major chat service that offers a J2ME app. There are a _lot_ of feature phones in the Global South, and a lot of telecoms that charge gouging rates for SMS and MMS.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > WhatsApp is (AFAIK) the only major chat service that offers a J2ME app WhatsApp's support for J2ME ended in 2016[1] - it is now smartphone only, because it requires "advanced features" (or bloat) to compete with Snapchat and complete Facebook's flanking manoeuvre (along with Instagram). 1. https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/s60/21099118 https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/s60/21099118
  - ForHackernews 9y ago
    Ah, I guess my information is out of date. It's sad that Facebook owns WhatsApp now.

adamnemecek 9y ago

To be honest most of those faded because they let the product fade.

AlexandrB 9y ago
I think they let the product fade because they weren't making very much money. It hard to have a vibrant product when you can't pay the rent.
- user5994461 9y ago
  MSN messenger and Yahoo both had significant funds.
  - AlexandrB 9y ago
    They had funds from their parent companies which made money by other means. I'm not certain, but I suspect neither product made any money for Microsoft or Yahoo. What CEO in that position is going to double down on R&D funding to keep the chat program relevant?
astrodust 9y ago
ICQ was a classic first mover that had explosive growth and continued to succeed in a relative way, but not relative to the overall market. AIM, Yahoo! and MSN messenger platforms knocked it off that pedestal, and the company seemed more interested in sabotaging its platform to squeeze ad revenue than making it more relevant or meaningful to their userbase.

rrdharan 9y ago

I think of all of those WhatsApp has been the most successful both in terms of moat defense purposes and it still has the potential of turning into something like WeChat or LINE (or what they're doing with FB Messenger itself) with its own monetization. For Skype I think it was mostly about rounding out the office suite, MS doesn't want anyone else getting a toehold in workplace collaboration and expanding from there - if you get real classical about it MS Office is the true DNA of the company even more so than Windows/infrastructure. Same reason they bought Yammer and why they were so early on in trying to move on Slack (with the $8B offer that Bill Gates intervened in and shot down). [Edited slightly for clarity]

ethbro 9y ago
Agreed. These purchases seem to work the best when they're used for defensive purposes and to round out a product offering that already has a substantial userbase. Whatever gadgets they might hang off the app, they're fundamentally a way for people to talk to each other. If you don't have the people, why would you need a slick implementation? As you mentioned, the app would go out of vogue and users would move on. Amazon making a bid here sounds like a play for a decent social seed, likely steming from users of its core properties (shopping and dev). Of all the mega-corps, Amazon is one of the few that has all the pieces and user-engagement, but no social component. Which is ironic, because their properties would play a lot better with one than, say, Google or MS. And starting with something like Slack (bottom up vs top down) is an interesting move.
- stingraycharles 9y ago
  > Of all the mega-corps, Amazon is one of the few that has all the pieces and user-engagement, but no social component. Honest question, since I might be out of the loop here in Europe, but what user engagement pieces does Amazon have then ? I use Amazon for shopping and AWS, and would have no idea what other products they have that are dominating a market. Is this about Kindle ?
  - hkmurakami 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

Slack has a rather large number of paying customers for a messaging platform, so even over just 10 years you could extract quite a bit of cash directly on top of that owning platforms allows for a lot of indirect profits. That said, if they make ~15M per month directly then up to 1 to 4 billion is probably completely reasonable purchase price. And depending on how things are evolving and internal costs etc 9B while probably high is not crazy ridiculous.

sinatra 9y ago

We all asked the same question about Facebook. All social networks before Facebook had faded away. But, Facebook didn't. Potential Slack buyers think that Slack is also here to stay in a similar manner. EDIT: I'm not saying Slack is Facebook. One reason why I think Slack may survive longer than ICQ, Skype etc is how well integrated it is with all other services. For a tool to replace Slack, it should also provide the same level of seamless integration with GitHub, Google Docs, and a hundred other services. That's much harder to do than just building a messaging app.

hkmurakami 9y ago
A consumer to consumer N-N network is much harder to coordinate a migration than a corporate N-N network, for one. Also messengers aren't as N-N since you end up only talking to a small number of people after a while and don't actually want to move all your contacts. I don't want to move all my FB contacts either but the number of connections I sort of care about is still likely more than 100.
zanny 9y ago
Facebook isn't just about the people on it at this instant, it is about the accumulated history people build up on it. Exporting your Facebook profile is a labyrinthian effort few would consider. Switching chat providers is as simple as getting everyone to use the new thing and going from there, there is little to no baggage to bring with you.
- sinatra 9y ago
  I don't think that's true. Switching to another messaging service means you lose all past messages. It also means you need to integrate all other services (like Github, Google Doc, Travis, and many others) to this new messaging service. That is a lot of friction!
  - rkda 9y ago
    Chat services usually have an import service. At least for their more famous competitors. Doesn't Slack allow you to export your message history?

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Large corporations will buy messaging / social networks over time because of the fact that there is a long tail for people who will use the service. The perception that app X is "uncool" or has no growth is the fact that being a part of HN makes you think that the bleeding edge is whatever everyone uses. Of those other frameworks there are a multitude of users on those platforms. The perpetual buying of these companies is a part of the Red Queen hypothesis that large megacorporations have to adapt to survive. One way to do this is the purchase of companies and messaging and social have so much cool platform churn that it becomes endless.

benmowa 9y ago

I'd say Slack has better penetration into enterprise than all those except sykpe. if you look at Amazon's prior communication attempt, its aimed as a business communication solution. Slack has done well to penetrate that segment. Your list is consumer grade, whereas Slack, Webex, Gotomeeting, Zoom, bluejeans, google meetings etc are focused on improving business communications.

andreasklinger 9y ago

Slack is an enterprise platform. Given how deep it is in a company's workflow you could think of it almost like an operating system where apps can attach to. It would perfectly fit to eg salesforce, google etc Unsure what Amazon's goal would be - maybe "enterprise as customers" are the interlinking part between ecommerce and webservices

hueving 9y ago
How is slack deep in a company's workflow? In other words, what stops them from switching to an alternative chat? Internet access is deep in company workflows as well, but that doesn't mean they can't change ISPs. Are companies building their ordering systems to depend on slack API's or something?
Sir_Substance 9y ago
>Given how deep it is in a company's workflow you could think of it almost like an operating system where apps can attach to Off the top of my head, both mattermost and rocketchat provide compatible webhook apis that make them drop-in replacements for slack. So not that deep into peoples workflow...

giarc 9y ago

It's best to compare Slack to MS Lync (which is now branded as Skype, was built out of MSN Messenger). In Windows environments, it's a pretty important piece of communication software. I use it constantly everyday to communicate and meet with those across my province (Alberta).