5 ms·
> The network effects would have not worked, because there are many people that can not afford $10 a year. These people would have used an alternative and at th
by Lionsion 8y ago
> The network effects would have not worked, because there are many people that can not afford $10 a year. These people would have used an alternative and at the end everyone would have used that alternative (because network effects).
There must be techniques to get around that. Maybe grant free or discounted accounts if you're connected with enough subscribers? Allow subscribers to gift free memberships to their friends? Maybe have a long "initial trial" (e.g. totally free for 1 year)?
- twblalock 8y agoWhatsApp and Facebook have many users in the developing world who could not afford a subscription unless the price was extremely low.
- kristianc 8y agoSalaries in the developing world are low, but they're not that low. Average salary in Brazil is $670/m. $10 per year does not seem overly onerous.
- detaro 8y agoIf there's cheaper/free alternatives?
- paxy 8y agoMedian salary in India (WhatsApp's largest market) is $600-$1500 per year.
- bryanrasmussen 8y agothat seems like a wide median to me.
- paxy 8y agoSimply because there's no one objective way to calculate that number. How do you define the total labor force? Do you count seasonal workers? Part-time workers? People who are unemployed but otherwise working age?
- bryanrasmussen 8y agothanks for the clarification.
- isostatic 8y ago$80 a year seems a lot for someone on $65k/y for an SMS replacement.
- Lionsion 8y ago> WhatsApp and Facebook have many users in the developing world who could not afford a subscription unless the price was extremely low. I would make sense to me to scale the price to the market. Make it $5 in the US and 5 rupees in India.
- ajaimk 8y agoThey did. Before it all went free
- hengheng 8y agoDon't ad earnings scale accordingly?