3 ms·
Please understand some of the details about _HOW_ WhatsApp did what they did. Focusing on reach (ubiquity is an innovation). Focusing on operational efficienc
by ramses0 9y ago
Please understand some of the details about _HOW_ WhatsApp did what they did.
Focusing on reach (ubiquity is an innovation). Focusing on operational efficiency (a low-cost tech company is an innovation).
The apocryphal stories about WhatsApp in support of the two above points are:
1) Supporting J2ME clients (ie: dumb-phones) ... connecting "poor people" in dumb-phone countries w/ "rich people" in smart-phone countries (for $0.99 app).
$0.99 / user * 25% of your userbase isn't enough revenue for most companies to be successful.
2) Be operationally efficient, reliable, and lean. How? By running like 10 erlang servers (targeting peak message transmission RATES, not all-time storage of messages or number of users)
This allowed them to _SCALE_ revenue because they're basically dividing by zero (Income v. Expenses) if they're extremely lean on number of employees, maintenance, and operations costs.
Therefore: it compares extremely well to Juicero as a counter-example.
- inthewoods 9y ago>This allowed them to _SCALE_ revenue because they're basically dividing by zero (Income v. Expenses) Don't disagree with anything you said except scaling revenue. As far as I can tell they never really scaled revenue, but instead became such a threat to FB in terms of users that Zuck felt he had to give up a substantial portion of his company to own them. Or put another way, if FB (or anyone else) and not bought them, where would they be?
- ramses0 9y agoProbably 20-50 people, 100-200 servers, and comfortably sitting on 10-30% of global instant messaging traffic running through their servers. If that's not somewhat interesting to somebody then I've got a bridge to sell you.
- inthewoods 9y agoIt's not a question of "somewhat interesting" - it's a question of what would be their revenue source.