5 ms·

And an even bigger fuckup is how they spent 19 Billion USD on buying yet another messenger and never integrating it with their first messenger, so they now run

by ulfw 8y ago

And an even bigger fuckup is how they spent 19 Billion USD on buying yet another messenger and never integrating it with their first messenger, so they now run two. Why, nobody knows.

gengkev 8y ago
Can't forget about direct messages on Instagram, either...
- dx034 8y ago
  Is that being used for anything but spam?
  - shafyy 8y ago
    Yeah teens use Snap and Insta to communicate (and WhatsApp)
    - dx034 8y ago
      I meant instagram DM. Snap and Whatsapp are obvious but haven't seen anyone yet who's used Instagram for DM.
chrischen 8y ago
Yea totally not a monopoly-like move to buy out a competitor even though they can't fully integrate it because their competitor was built around privacy and they are not.
- chx 8y ago
  Also their codebases are beyond incompatible. Facebook uses Hack, a PHP derivative while Whatsapp is Erlang. You'd need to completely rewrite the latter to integrate it but you'd lose the incredible efficiency of Whatsapp doing so.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    Are you sure about that? Is Hack / PHP powerful enough to handle billions of messages an hour? If so, i'm impressed. But I doubt it and I'm sure you're wrong about what runs Messenger. No company, least of all the Facebook scale ones use just one language for everything.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Of course the backing service is not PHP. That would be a particularly poor choice for a high volume messaging statement. They originally wrote it in Erlang and later rewrote it in C++. https://www.quora.com/When-did-Facebook-switch-away-from-using-Erlang-for-Facebook-Chat-What-was-the-reason-for-it-What-did-they-replace-it-with https://www.quora.com/When-did-Facebook-switch-away-from-usi...
      - dpark 8y ago
        statement -> service sigh
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Why do the codebases need to share a similar set of languages and tools? Integrating two services doesn't necessarily mean merging them into a single product; Facebook could likely allow the two to communicate without a complete product merger.
- r3bl 8y ago
  If, by "built around privacy", you're referring to end-to-end encryption, that was introduced (fully) to WhatsApp in 2016. Facebook acquired WhatsApp in February 2014. Open Whisper Systems announced their partnership with WhatsApp in November 2014. Facebook could have easily slashed that end-to-end-by-default idea if they wished to. I think we need to give credit to Facebook where credit is due, and it sure seems like Facebook's management wanted WhatsApp to be private for some reason. I see no indication that WhatsApp was "private" in any way before Facebook acquired it.
  - dx034 8y ago
    Whatsapp was never about apps and never about anything but messaging. Integrating any of the features that make money for FB would've driven users away. The only thing they brought to Whatsapp is Stories (apparently all apps need this now) but I don't know anyone who uses it on Whatsapp. It's always empty on whatsapp while people happily use it on Instagram. I can't imagine how the Whatsapp acquisition will ever pay off. It doesn't need to because they make money with FB and Instagram but I don't see why they had to buy it..
    - Jaruzel 8y ago
      I think they bought it purely to prevent it evolving into a competitor. It's got too many users to kill off as a product, and at least they are 'Facebook' users in a roundabout way, and by not adding anything anything new to WhatsApp they can keep it subjugated. Keep your enemies closer and all that.
    - ashelmire 8y ago
      Others have touched on this... but I bet it's also to lock down that market space. Facebook's competition is communications platforms. By preventing anyone else from dominating the secure communications space, they don't face that threat.
fwn 8y ago
> Why, nobody knows. Wait what? I thought that's obvious. Facebook and WhatsApp don't even have the same type of social graph, multi-brand approaches are probably always strategically superior and changing the fundamental concept behind high-growth apps tends to be a high-risk endeavor. There are probably a million more reasons not to prematurely integrate. (I guess they would also need to quit their e2e encryption in the process.) Would there be any benefit beside convenience? Honest question.

by ulfw 8y ago

And an even bigger fuckup is how they spent 19 Billion USD on buying yet another messenger and never integrating it with their first messenger, so they now run two. Why, nobody knows.

gengkev 8y ago

Can't forget about direct messages on Instagram, either...

dx034 8y ago
Is that being used for anything but spam?
- shafyy 8y ago
  Yeah teens use Snap and Insta to communicate (and WhatsApp)
  - dx034 8y ago
    I meant instagram DM. Snap and Whatsapp are obvious but haven't seen anyone yet who's used Instagram for DM.

chrischen 8y ago

Yea totally not a monopoly-like move to buy out a competitor even though they can't fully integrate it because their competitor was built around privacy and they are not.

chx 8y ago
Also their codebases are beyond incompatible. Facebook uses Hack, a PHP derivative while Whatsapp is Erlang. You'd need to completely rewrite the latter to integrate it but you'd lose the incredible efficiency of Whatsapp doing so.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Are you sure about that? Is Hack / PHP powerful enough to handle billions of messages an hour? If so, i'm impressed. But I doubt it and I'm sure you're wrong about what runs Messenger. No company, least of all the Facebook scale ones use just one language for everything.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Of course the backing service is not PHP. That would be a particularly poor choice for a high volume messaging statement. They originally wrote it in Erlang and later rewrote it in C++. https://www.quora.com/When-did-Facebook-switch-away-from-using-Erlang-for-Facebook-Chat-What-was-the-reason-for-it-What-did-they-replace-it-with https://www.quora.com/When-did-Facebook-switch-away-from-usi...
    - dpark 8y ago
      statement -> service sigh
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Why do the codebases need to share a similar set of languages and tools? Integrating two services doesn't necessarily mean merging them into a single product; Facebook could likely allow the two to communicate without a complete product merger.
r3bl 8y ago
If, by "built around privacy", you're referring to end-to-end encryption, that was introduced (fully) to WhatsApp in 2016. Facebook acquired WhatsApp in February 2014. Open Whisper Systems announced their partnership with WhatsApp in November 2014. Facebook could have easily slashed that end-to-end-by-default idea if they wished to. I think we need to give credit to Facebook where credit is due, and it sure seems like Facebook's management wanted WhatsApp to be private for some reason. I see no indication that WhatsApp was "private" in any way before Facebook acquired it.
- dx034 8y ago
  Whatsapp was never about apps and never about anything but messaging. Integrating any of the features that make money for FB would've driven users away. The only thing they brought to Whatsapp is Stories (apparently all apps need this now) but I don't know anyone who uses it on Whatsapp. It's always empty on whatsapp while people happily use it on Instagram. I can't imagine how the Whatsapp acquisition will ever pay off. It doesn't need to because they make money with FB and Instagram but I don't see why they had to buy it..
  - Jaruzel 8y ago
    I think they bought it purely to prevent it evolving into a competitor. It's got too many users to kill off as a product, and at least they are 'Facebook' users in a roundabout way, and by not adding anything anything new to WhatsApp they can keep it subjugated. Keep your enemies closer and all that.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    Others have touched on this... but I bet it's also to lock down that market space. Facebook's competition is communications platforms. By preventing anyone else from dominating the secure communications space, they don't face that threat.

fwn 8y ago

> Why, nobody knows. Wait what? I thought that's obvious. Facebook and WhatsApp don't even have the same type of social graph, multi-brand approaches are probably always strategically superior and changing the fundamental concept behind high-growth apps tends to be a high-risk endeavor. There are probably a million more reasons not to prematurely integrate. (I guess they would also need to quit their e2e encryption in the process.) Would there be any benefit beside convenience? Honest question.