24 ms·

Behind the Messy, Expensive Split Between Facebook and WhatsApp’s Founders

445 points by hkmurakami 8y ago

panarky 8y ago
http://archive.is/pPWAE http://archive.is/pPWAE
- nichochar 8y ago
  Thank you for this... how is something with a paywall so upvoted, it kind of goes against the spirit of this website.
  - specialp 8y ago
    Here we are on HN with many people complaining about free* Facebook, and then also complaining about pay services too. It takes money to run a world class news organization. Either that or they can get paid in non money equivalents like "likes" or page views which make everyone but them money. Where the value is to fool someone to come to your page so you can mine their data for ads, and serve ads. To get people to subscribe to you, you have to provide more value than that.
  - kyleblarson 8y ago
    I just recently signed up for a paid WSJ account and have not regretted it one bit. Their iPad app is particularly great.
  - alvar0 8y ago
    I'd rather be surprised at how many people comment without reading the article first.
  - pvg 8y ago
    You can search your way to the dozens of moderator posts about (softly) paywalled posts.
  - dang 8y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - erikb 8y ago
      ┌∩┐(-_-
  - SirYandi 8y ago
    Put the url of the article into https://outline.com/ https://outline.com/ to get around most paywalls (including wsj)
- Stryder 8y ago
  Da real MVP
- ernsheong 8y ago
  https://app.pagedash.com/p/f52beaaa-5890-4947-ac26-87c601165c3d/emhAGzWyDl2mxFqFEdU8 https://app.pagedash.com/p/f52beaaa-5890-4947-ac26-87c601165...
slowmotiony 8y ago
Right click on link --> open in private mode to avoid paywall
- cdelsolar 8y ago
  does this provide revenue to the journalists that wrote this article?
  - nottorp 8y ago
    From the WSJ subscription FAQ: When can I cancel? You may change or cancel your subscription at any time. To change or cancel your subscription, please contact Customer Service at 1-(800)-JOURNAL (568-7625) or 609-514-0870. We do not accept cancellations by mail, email, or by any other means. With those terms, they can all starve for all I care.
    - 1123581321 8y ago
      Have you ever called to cancel the WSJ? I have stopped the WSJ three times and the FT twice (same phone service.) It’s easy to do. They will make a retention offer but will not do things like hang up on you, require you to have moved out of your area, make you wait, etc. Of course I prefer self-service cancellation to be an option, but if the personal service route is handled well, it’s a small negative in my book, not a dealbreaker.
      - nottorp 8y ago
        You're nice to them, but I maintain this is lack of respect for the customer. This is 2018 and we have the internet for such processes that can be automated, not 1965. Perhaps they wouldn't need to make retention offers if they didn't have to pay the staff that makes the retention offers? Bonus, I'm not in the US so that number is an international call for me. Besides, subscriptions are only useful if you actually read WSJ regularly. I only click on some, not all, the articles that are linked here on HN. This bit of drama looked interesting, but most of the time I don't even circumvent the paywall, I close the page immediately.
bhaile 8y ago
Full article at https://outline.com/He5ktW https://outline.com/He5ktW
- smpetrey 8y ago
  Those pesky paywalls.
- jiveturkey 8y ago
  Is this a mirror, or some kind of summary. If this is a mirror, wow the article is very poorly edited. Seems like this isn't something so breaking they couldn't spend an extra couple of hours on it. It's a bit stilted as well, which doesn't seem like it would be fixed in editing. I didn't realize WSJ articles were of such low quality. I guess because I have never gotten through the paywall. ;)
- codazoda 8y ago
  a[href^="https://www.wsj.com" https://www.wsj.com"] { text-decoration: line-through; }
Djvacto 8y ago
So, I use WhatsApp as my primary source of communication. Knowing facebook owned it always made me a little nervous, but given that it was end-to-end encrypted, I figured Facebook wasn't getting any more from me then they would from all my facebook-using-friends who would send me SMS's before. But I'm worried about how long I can continue to use the service moving forward, which is sad as this is my main way to communicate with relatives who live in other countries. And I doubt I can convince an elderly relative to switch to Signal, as we're still working on teaching her how everything in WhatsApp works. I also recently purchased an Oculus. I like it way more than the current Vive revisions (although I want to have a non-HTC headset and Valve Knuckles as my next VR set), but the fact that it's owned by facebook unsettles me as well.
- pm90 8y ago
  Hmm once you teach someone to use WhatsApp, another messaging app shouldn't be that hard to learn. I believe FB have been very careful to prevent misusing WhatsApp platform (or have been very good at keeping the misuse secret lol); if word got out that they were it would certainly lead to a huge exodus.
  - Djvacto 8y ago
    The problem is what they've learned is mostly to do with what icons (which they have no context for, never having used a computer or smartphone prior to this) they press to get certain results. And we teach them this over an audio call, so trying to learn a new one would definitely be a challenge. But overall I would swap back to different apps were WhatsApp to be 'compromised' or misused. Discord text chat for my gaming group, Signal for some tech chats, etc. Overall it's a shame, since I was very appreciative of the approach the Whats-App founders took. But if we're lucky, WhatsApp will remain mostly the same for a while.
  - webignition 8y ago
    For many this is probably true. For my 84 year old neighbour, not so. He regularly pops round for help with sharing a picture on WhatsApp. It's beyond my neighbour's ability to learn how to use WhatsApp correctly. Learning another messaging app for him is not an option.
valeg 8y ago
The clash of cultures... I prefer WhatsApp's one though.
- mrlatinos 8y ago
  Yup, peace and quiet with privacy in mind. Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand.
  - hkmurakami 8y ago
    they're paid to not understand it.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    " Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand" It's the part where What's App doesn't actually make any money and as a standalone business isn't worth a whole lot. The issue boils down to business model. It's really easy for WhatsApp founders to take the moral high road when he doesn't have to bother with trying to make a dime. The WhatsApp founder is in somewhat of a hypocritical position given that his $17 Billion dollars comes from FB practices that he is ostensibly uncomfortable with.
    - mevile 8y ago
      Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp. He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars when he realized how fundamentally he disagreed with how facebook works. Prior to WhatsApp the founders had very little money.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp." If you've worked in the mobile app business you might get that this could mean almost 0 in revenues. People. Don't. Pay. For. Stuff. Moreover, WhatsApp is huge in places like S. America where people don't have credit cards, or for whom $1 is even too much. "He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars" He took $17 Billion and is now publicly complaining that what FB is doing is immoral. He doesn't seem to have a problem taking money from that immoral business model.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I kind of have to wonder what Jan Koum and Brian Acton were thinking (OK, I don't really wonder - they got paid billions of dollars, who wouldn't do it). But, of course, if you sell a company for billions of dollars, there is the obvious expectation that within some time frame your company will earn revenue and profit to support that valuation. You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't.
- panarky 8y ago
  > You can't complain "they're adding ads!" FTFA Facebook promised not to put ads on WhatsApp. The terms of the acquisition agreement require accelerated vesting of incentive comp to Koum and Acton if Facebook renege on their promise.
  - vxNsr 8y ago
    and yet: >>>Mr. Acton initiated the clause in his contract allowing for early vesting of his shares. But Facebook’s legal team threatened a fight, so Mr. Acton, already worth more than $3 billion, left it alone, according to people familiar with the matter. Turns out facebook sucks as a company.
- foolfoolz 8y ago
  hmm, i think no. once you sell th company you only have to fulfill your acquisition agreement. in some cases that may be revenue targets but not always. do we know exactly what they needed to do to keep their jobs post acquire? i don’t think it’s obvious
- rmsaksida 8y ago
  > You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't What about business features? Pretty much every business in my country advertises a Whatsapp number, from large companies to mom-and-pops. People contact them over Whatsapp to ask questions, make complaints, order stuff, everything. I can't believe Facebook is unable to monetize that. It seems to me that Facebook is severely biased towards ads because they already have a platform and it's a market they obviously know well. That doesn't mean ads are the only way to make money.
innagadadavida 8y ago
Apple should port Messages app to Android and other platforms, this is a great opportunity for them to capitalize on. It is unlikely though, as the strategy is to get people to buy iPhones to get Messages.
- skbly7 8y ago
  Blackberry and BBM went this route already, and we know what happened to them. I think it is high time for Apple to jump the ship and get messages into Android. :)
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Apple has a pretty good market share and in their home market (because it's viable there, many other countries have insane prices) iMessage is compatible with Android users by SMS. This may be good enough, plus iMessage is just one of the features they sell with their devices. I doubt these cases are very comparable.
  - atonse 8y ago
    Why? Having messages be iOS only, is working out perfectly for them. Most iOS users get annoyed at the android users when they get green bubbles, instead of getting annoyed at Apple. As long as that continues to be true, I don't see iMessage ever coming out for Android.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  That would just be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. The real solution to all these problems lies in the use of decentralised services, e.g. XMPP+OMEMO connecting to a private server. This could be the same server as the one hosting any other privacy-sensitive services, e.g. Diaspora or GNU Social or something along those lines. It could also host a private mail server, a private "cloud" server, a private (meta-)search engine and any other services which you'd rather not have data-mined. ...and all that would fit on something like a Raspberry Pi 3B+ nowadays...
- krrrh 8y ago
  There is already so much shame directed to the one family member that forces everyone else to use something other than iMessage. Sometimes they just get left out of conversations. Apple's taking this even further with improved photo sharing in iOS 12 (moving more families off Facebook/Instagram), and group FaceTime. As a user I wish that these apps were widely available because I prefer them to alternatives, but as a shareholder I'm not at all upset by this. At least Apple is charging for these privacy-protecting apps, which is the most important detail about WhatsApp: it was already profitable charging users $1/year before acquisition. If Apple ever does release FaceTime and iMessage for Android I hope they charge subscription fees for both.
dingo_bat 8y ago
> When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end. I cannot believe this. Seriously, I think this article is bs.
- VectorLock 8y ago
  Giving up $400 mil for 3 months? I mean I know they're loaded either way but come on...
  - nicpottier 8y ago
    At some point don't you think you just have enough? What's another $400 million in the bank at that point? I mean maybe you could put that towards causes you believe in, but that's kind of the only argument I see for staying. The definition of being rich in my mind is the very concept of being able to walk away from that kind of money for your own sanity.
    - jnwatson 8y ago
      $400 million could help a lot of sick and hungry people. I'd dig ditches by hand for 3 months to be able to give that money to Doctors Without Borders.
      - alvar0 8y ago
        Exactly. Even if you don't want it for yourself you could at least milk Facebook for some good purpose. But as I said in an earlier comment, there must have been some negotiation between them and FB
      - nicpottier 8y ago
        Dig ditches sure. Do work that you fundamentally disagree with though? I mean where do your principles come in to the work you are doing? You choose not to rob banks to support DWB, so you have a line you yourself aren't willing to cross. I don't begrudge him one bit for his decision.
hotswapster 8y ago
Why I have to sign in to an article posted on this news forum blows my mind. Please post stuff the entire world Can read, not just stuff local New Yorkans are subscribed to
hotswapster 8y ago
Why I have to have an account to log in to read an article blows my mind. Please post things that the entire world can see, not just local New Yorkans.
yawz 8y ago
"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." --Jeff Hammerbacher
moedersmooiste 8y ago
If you sell your soul to the devil don't be surprised he comes to collect it...
rm999 8y ago
I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising pony like half the other tech leaders out there. His speil about how he's "connecting the world" is undermined by his clear attempts to build a monopoly of social+communication, with an inefficient layer of distracting ads. Imagine a future where every time you want to electronically communicate with someone you have to spend mental energy filtering out ads. It's the equivalent of every road having a toll booth, directly paying into a rich person's bank account. This is the "connecting the world" Mark Zuckerberg has been trying to hide from those of us who aren't paying attention.
- cma 8y ago
  Imagine how useful it would be if when there is a notification about a friend on Facebook, you could peek it by swiping on the notification in the android drawer like you can with texts, without entering the Facebook app. Nope. Engineers are dedicated there to increasing other things than the utility of the app. Interests aren't aligned with the users. Same with removing chronological feeds. Turn things more and more into slot machines.
  - chinhodado 8y ago
    The most frustrating change for me was FB (or Messenger later) used to send me an email when I received a message, with the message content inside the email. A few years ago they removed the content from the email and forced me to log into FB or Messenger to see the message. It's extremely user hostile.
    - chime 8y ago
      Not to defend FB on this but I can see them doing this defensively. I've seen doctors offices using FB to keep patients updated with their activities (free 'Healthy Eating' seminar), which has unintentionally been used to sent messages like 'Hey Doc needs to reschedule your colonoscopy appointment'. I'm sure FB doesn't want to get involved with indirect HIPAA violations, even if the fault lies elsewhere.
juhq 8y ago
"WhatsApp also negotiated for nicer bathrooms, with doors that reach the floor." This is not a norm in silicon valley/states?
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  The times I have visited the US I have always been disturbed by how little privacy I feel like I have in a stall. I am sure I have made eye contact with dozens of people in US airports at a time that is not appropriate for either of us.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Europeans just need to stop being so terrified of the human body and being such prudes. /s It's funny how Americans get endlessly bashed for being prudes about the human body, and then somehow on this topic they get bashed for not being big enough prudes about the human body. Here's why that is: Americans simply get bashed no matter what direction they go on any subject. It's done solely to make the person doing the bashing or mocking feel good. If the stalls went all the way to the floor, it would be decided by elitist snobs in Europe that that is prudish behavior and ridiculous because there's nothing shameful about going to the bathroom and it's a natural function of the glorious human body. It would go like this: ah those stupid Americans with their fear of the human body, and their overly private bathroom stalls. Dumb Americans are afraid to even know that there's another human in the next stall, even a 12 inch floor gap is too much, because there might be a foot over there somewhere. It's silly how uncomfortable Americans are about normal functions of the human body, they can't even tolerate a small gap in the bottom of the stalls.
    - simonbarker87 8y ago
      Chill out, I also hate the squat stalls in remote train stations in Italy that are three times the size they need to be leaving you feeling super exposed while trying to balance but that wasn’t the question the original commenter asked.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
pvg 8y ago
This is one of the weirdly recurring founder stories of 'after you sold something for good money, you don't get to tell the buyer what to do with it'.
- myth_drannon 8y ago
  "who pays the piper calls the tune "
- mason55 8y ago
  Likewise, this is why acquisitions come with golden handcuffs and lockups. I think everyone handled it well. They fought for what they believed in, they lost, and they chose to give up money instead of sticking around and being a pain in the ass. Facebook rightly said "we bought this and control it and here's what we want to do."
  - pvg 8y ago
    I don't think the sources for coverage like this come from Facebook.
- pitt1980 8y ago
  Depends on the terms of the sale, maybe 'if you want to tell the buyer what to do with it, get that in writing, and expect the sale price to reflect term you've added, and to maybe kill the deal altogether'
  - pvg 8y ago
    There is no serious acquisition that involves you telling the buyer what to do, outside of very rare occurrences and even then under very narrow parameters.
newscracker 8y ago
I have a question that the article doesn’t answer. If the original founders left because of disagreements on advertising as the monetization model for WhatsApp, are they still holding on to Facebook stock for their $3 billion and $9 billion net worth (respectively)? Or have they sold those since those shares are valued because of the advertising that Facebook pushes? The answer to this would say a lot about their claimed commitment to privacy and their stance against ads. My next point is a prediction. WhatsApp will remove end to end encryption as the default very soon. With Facebook wanting to grow its revenues and profits (like most other companies), this is too attractive to let it stay as it has been for the last few years. At least some WhatsApp employees seem to have some kind of a moral compass on this topic, and I’d expect several of them to leave when this change is announced later this year or early next year.
- seandhi 8y ago
  > When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end. 4 billion dollars of the 22 billion was cash. The remaining 18 billion was in Facebook stock[1]. Most likely, they still have stock in Facebook. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
textmode 8y ago
"When Facebook bought WhatsApp, it never publicly addressed how the divergent philosophies would coexist. ... But Mr. Zuckerberg told stock analysts that he and Mr. Koum agreed that advertising wasn't the right way to make money from messaging apps. ... Some of the employees were turned off by Facebook's campus, a bustling collection of restaurants, ice cream shops and services built to mirror Disneyland. ... Mr. Zuckerberg wanted WhatsApp executives to add more "special features" to the app, whereas Messrs. Koum and Acton liked its original simplicity. ... Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg also wanted Messrs. Koum and Acton to loosen their stance on encryption to allow more "business flexibility," according to one person familiar with the matter." It sounds like Koum and Acton actually had some principles. Among other things, they wanted to keep the software relatively simple, instead of continuously increasing its complexity by adding "features". The article suggests others saw Acton as a "moral compass". It also suggests David Marcus president of messaging products at Facebook Inc. called his #deleteFacebook remark "low class" behaviour. How to resolve this apparent contrast? The article suggests Sandberg reacted to the Acton tweet by called Koum instead of calling Acton. It sounds like Facebook's legal department had no leverage (e.g. a non-disparagement clause) over Acton to prevent him from sharing his true thoughts regarding Facebook Inc. He chose his principles, including the freedom to express his opinion of Facebook Inc., over the stock options he forfeited. If these founders really did have principles, and there are ample indications that they did (not limited only to what this article discusses), then is this not admirable? Their stock, compensation and benefits packages were large enough to make most folks abandon any principles in exchange for a much higher standard of living. It also sounds like the WhatsApp staff actually like to engage in cerebral work, hence their desire for quiet and their dislike for the "Disneyland" environment at Facebook. Is there an alternative explanation? Perhaps the lesson here is that "culture clash" may not be so important in these types of acquisitions, where the primary asset is users. These users can be transitioned to whatever the acquiring company desires. For example, there could be a culture clash between a proprietary software company that acquires a company that offers free source code repository services for free/open source code authors. If the founders acquire significant, life-changing wealth from the transaction and the primary asset being acquired is end users, then any clash of principles or work culture is arguably insignificant. The analyst quoted in the article calls Koum and Acton "naive" for believing Zuckerberg would not renege on his promise not to use advertising to generate revenue. He offers the ever persuasive cliche that Facebook is "not a charity". Was WhatsApp a "charity"? It was covering its own expenses and turning a profit at the time of acquisition. It was saving millions of people money on SMS and voice calls. When it sold, it generated a lot of wealth for its investors. Was it not a success. By all accounts it never took money from advertisers. While Facebook, like a few other oversized ad-financed tech companies, has the purchasing power to acquire any emerging competitor for users' attention, one could argue that WhatsApp had something Facebook does not: principles. From the article it does not sound like acquring WhatsApp's principles was ever part of the deal.
ironjunkie 8y ago
That whole sentence where the WhatsApp guys have bigger desks and toilets than the Facebook guys. Really feels like it is coming straight from a dystopian future, where the workers are kept happy with little candies, and the promise to work for a better world, while also policing each others to see who got it better next door, while the big bosses are in their towers planning their next move. If you don't feel like a "sheep" or "token" after realizing that you are fighting over the size of a toilet or a desk, then you are deep deep into it.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  That’s one approach. Another is that, when you’re in an extremely fortunate position these are the sorts of things that start to be the only and biggest issues in your life.
- dunkelheit 8y ago
  That part of the article stood out for me too. These are all status issues and status is very important for human beings whether they like it or not. It seems that (despite being very well-compensated) engineers at facebook are pretty low-status - they are forced to sit all day at shitty desks in giant loud open spaces. So when whatsapp employees who were used to better working conditions arrived, it caused a good amount of culture conflict.
jimmies 8y ago
>Mr. Koum, a San Jose State University dropout, grew up in Soviet-era Ukraine, where the government could track communication, and talked frequently about his commitment to privacy. Someone said that the people who love America the most are the immigrants who has to endure the crap back in their home country. I can totally relate to this. I have lived in a country where my privacy and personal judgment didn't mean anything. The government could do whatever with your life, and people can ruin your life and kill your whole family by accusing you of a story they hear from the vines [1, 2]. Maybe [3] - not from the same country, but it is the same story. I make a point to not have Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp (now) - basically anything that Zuckerberg and co. laid their hands on. I fucking hate the whole idea of any entity blatantly time and again disrespecting my privacy and judgments to advance their agenda and make money. The truth is I really have no control over what it collects from me, what it shows me, what it tells me, what it advertises to me, what it hides from me. I know if I go with it, the decision of foregoing my privacy will go back and bite me when I need it the most. It doesn't matter what they say they stand for; it doesn't matter how many of my peers are using; it doesn't matter what I miss out; it doesn't matter how weird people think I am; it doesn't matter what opportunities I will lose. I have made a decision two years ago to never consider using Facebook, and I will do my damnest to stay away from Facebook and their products and I will try my damnest to convince people to do the same. That's how much distaste I have for Facebook and their platform as a person who had a taste of injustice. Zuck might be on top of the laws and the world and has a lot of allies, but it's not like I have not seen that and I have to fear that. And that's probably the most beautiful thing about America. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n%E2%80%93Giai_Ph%E1%BA%A9m_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n%E2%80%93Gia... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_North_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_North_Vietnam 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others
- r00fus 8y ago
  Are any of your family or close friends on Facebook? It's highly likely Facebook still has data on you by cross-correlating your data with theirs and along with other data streams they purchase and de-anonymize (purchased credit history) and creating shadow profiles. I've gotten my wife to quit FB and download her data and request deletion (GDPR), and I've quit a while back and we run facebook blockers. I still don't expect to evade FB's ongoing trawl.
rsoto 8y ago
If you're getting a paywall as I am, try accessing via Google—just search for the title. Or if you like it on image format: https://i.imgur.com/BzSEEHkg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/BzSEEHkg.jpg (it was originally a higher resolution png). It seems that the mirror posted here in the comments is somehow incomplete.
YorakHunt 8y ago
I want to side with the Whatsapp founders but really what did you expect?
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
> "Small cultural disagreements between the two staffs also popped up, involving issues such as noise around the office and the size of WhatsApp’s desks and bathrooms, that took on greater significance as the split between the parent company and its acquisition persisted." ^^ coupled with a photo of outrageously poor open-plan office space. This is just insane. Like, executives should be ashamed of themselves if they think developing a company culture means micromanagement of desk space and bathroom size. I have to agree with Joel Spolsky that, when you think of things like this, it makes you start to realize that Facebook has to offer outsized salaries and RSU grants to its employees, because the culture and workspace is so poor and surveillance / micro-management oriented that in order to let yourself be embedded into a hellish workplace like that, you would require greater-than-market salary. And frankly, the salaries aren't high enough to offset this, compared with other companies that don't turn your work life into a micromanagement panopticon, yet still pay well.
- emtel 8y ago
  I'm a former fb employee, and to say that they "turn your work life into a micromanagement panopticon" is way off. Overall it's a great place to work as a software engineer, although it depends a lot on your team. Many employees have minor frustrations with various things like open plan offices, oversubscribed bathrooms, lack of parking, etc. I suppose there must be some employees who quit because of these sorts of issues, but I've never met any. For most people who work there it's a fantastic opportunity. From what I saw, people quit for the same reasons people quit any company: Burnout, bad relationship with direct manager, or desire to move on to something new.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    This seems at odds with the photo in the OP linked article (referenced by the quote in my comment), as well as any other similar photos of what the physical work spaces are like. I mean, it seems like indisputable evidence based on the physical structure of the work space. I don't see how there's a way to interpret photographic depictions of the actual Facebook offices in some other way. It's like saying, "See this picture of a work space that indisputably shows it to be a grotesque panopticon? ... well, trust me, it's not a panopticon." Is the picture a forgery or something?
ponderatul 8y ago
I see why he wouldn't agree even with the least intrusive advertising place. Because it's just a slippery slope from there. That starting point can be used in conversations to leverage the 'advertising model' further, and we can end up with another facebook, easily.
- currysausage 8y ago
  So did he honestly believe FB would just continue to provide WhatsApp to the world for free, even ad-free, after spending $22bn? Doesn’t sound like it: > Messrs. Koum and Acton also negotiated an unusual clause in their contracts that said if Facebook insisted on making any “additional monetization initiatives” such as advertising in the app, it could give the executives “good reason” to leave and cause an acceleration of stock awards that hadn’t vested…
vira28 8y ago
Irrespective of all these, still FB stocks doing well (or surpassing the past performance). Anyone noticed that?!!
- trendia 8y ago
  The source of Facebook's revenue is its ad network, not the use of its social networking capabilities at facebook.com If you visit a news site and click on an ad that was shown through Facebook's ad network, then they receive money. Importantly, you don't need to use facebook.com that much, only enough for Facebook to start tracking you. If a Facebook user logs into their account just once, then the Facebook tracking cookie will log their visits to other sites in the ad network, which is the second largest network next to Google's. If they click on an ad, then Facebook receives revenue -- it isn't necessary for the user to be using Facebook in order for Facebook to receive money.
m3kw9 8y ago
When you go public that’s what happens, fb isn’t amazon where it finds new ways to grow, they saturated their user base due to geo and political factors, so investors need him to justify the stock price multiple.
chews 8y ago
Smoked meat... brought to you by “Sweet Baby Rays”
stygiansonic 8y ago
This blog post from Whatsapp is almost 6 years old: https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads (it was linked to from the WSJ article) Almost prescient is the final line: When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say "Have you considered the alternative?"
- icc97 8y ago
  Also they use a quote from that blog post as the title comment: > we wanted to make something that wasn't just another ad clearinghouse
- gregpilling 8y ago
  from the link "These days companies know literally everything about you, your friends, your interests, and they use it all to sell ads." I am not surprised there was a culture clash. I am more surprised that they sold to FB, and that it lasted so long with the difference in vision.
kerng 8y ago
Facebook should really be split up. WhatsApp would have been such a great alternative to Facebook now - but with that acquisition the consumers are really the ones on the loosing end.
inthaiguy 8y ago
Whatsapp is kind of a competitive failure. Successful social media platforms launched after Facebook: - Successful video platforms after YouTube: - Successful Mobile chat platforms after Whatsapp: - Viber - Line - Wechat - Telegram - Snapchat
- sysstemlord 8y ago
  Whatsapp's key to sucess was its most simple, and most multi platform design among all competitors. It worked on all phones ranging from S40 to the most modern OS, and it was the one who invented the concept of no username/account/manually adding contacts/password login..., but just a phone number and you're ready to go. Whatsapp has a very clean interface, ad free, also very efficient messaging delivery. You don't only compete on who's first, but who does it better. Apple hasn't been first in anything since the invention of the iPhone, but they are still successful in this domain.

445 points by hkmurakami 8y ago

panarky 8y ago

http://archive.is/pPWAE http://archive.is/pPWAE

nichochar 8y ago
Thank you for this... how is something with a paywall so upvoted, it kind of goes against the spirit of this website.
- specialp 8y ago
  Here we are on HN with many people complaining about free* Facebook, and then also complaining about pay services too. It takes money to run a world class news organization. Either that or they can get paid in non money equivalents like "likes" or page views which make everyone but them money. Where the value is to fool someone to come to your page so you can mine their data for ads, and serve ads. To get people to subscribe to you, you have to provide more value than that.
- kyleblarson 8y ago
  I just recently signed up for a paid WSJ account and have not regretted it one bit. Their iPad app is particularly great.
- alvar0 8y ago
  I'd rather be surprised at how many people comment without reading the article first.
- pvg 8y ago
  You can search your way to the dozens of moderator posts about (softly) paywalled posts.
- dang 8y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikb 8y ago
    ┌∩┐(-_-
- SirYandi 8y ago
  Put the url of the article into https://outline.com/ https://outline.com/ to get around most paywalls (including wsj)
Stryder 8y ago
Da real MVP
ernsheong 8y ago
https://app.pagedash.com/p/f52beaaa-5890-4947-ac26-87c601165c3d/emhAGzWyDl2mxFqFEdU8 https://app.pagedash.com/p/f52beaaa-5890-4947-ac26-87c601165...

slowmotiony 8y ago

Right click on link --> open in private mode to avoid paywall

cdelsolar 8y ago
does this provide revenue to the journalists that wrote this article?
- nottorp 8y ago
  From the WSJ subscription FAQ: When can I cancel? You may change or cancel your subscription at any time. To change or cancel your subscription, please contact Customer Service at 1-(800)-JOURNAL (568-7625) or 609-514-0870. We do not accept cancellations by mail, email, or by any other means. With those terms, they can all starve for all I care.
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    Have you ever called to cancel the WSJ? I have stopped the WSJ three times and the FT twice (same phone service.) It’s easy to do. They will make a retention offer but will not do things like hang up on you, require you to have moved out of your area, make you wait, etc. Of course I prefer self-service cancellation to be an option, but if the personal service route is handled well, it’s a small negative in my book, not a dealbreaker.
    - nottorp 8y ago
      You're nice to them, but I maintain this is lack of respect for the customer. This is 2018 and we have the internet for such processes that can be automated, not 1965. Perhaps they wouldn't need to make retention offers if they didn't have to pay the staff that makes the retention offers? Bonus, I'm not in the US so that number is an international call for me. Besides, subscriptions are only useful if you actually read WSJ regularly. I only click on some, not all, the articles that are linked here on HN. This bit of drama looked interesting, but most of the time I don't even circumvent the paywall, I close the page immediately.

bhaile 8y ago

Full article at https://outline.com/He5ktW https://outline.com/He5ktW

smpetrey 8y ago
Those pesky paywalls.
jiveturkey 8y ago
Is this a mirror, or some kind of summary. If this is a mirror, wow the article is very poorly edited. Seems like this isn't something so breaking they couldn't spend an extra couple of hours on it. It's a bit stilted as well, which doesn't seem like it would be fixed in editing. I didn't realize WSJ articles were of such low quality. I guess because I have never gotten through the paywall. ;)
codazoda 8y ago
a[href^="https://www.wsj.com" https://www.wsj.com"] { text-decoration: line-through; }

Djvacto 8y ago

So, I use WhatsApp as my primary source of communication. Knowing facebook owned it always made me a little nervous, but given that it was end-to-end encrypted, I figured Facebook wasn't getting any more from me then they would from all my facebook-using-friends who would send me SMS's before. But I'm worried about how long I can continue to use the service moving forward, which is sad as this is my main way to communicate with relatives who live in other countries. And I doubt I can convince an elderly relative to switch to Signal, as we're still working on teaching her how everything in WhatsApp works. I also recently purchased an Oculus. I like it way more than the current Vive revisions (although I want to have a non-HTC headset and Valve Knuckles as my next VR set), but the fact that it's owned by facebook unsettles me as well.

pm90 8y ago
Hmm once you teach someone to use WhatsApp, another messaging app shouldn't be that hard to learn. I believe FB have been very careful to prevent misusing WhatsApp platform (or have been very good at keeping the misuse secret lol); if word got out that they were it would certainly lead to a huge exodus.
- Djvacto 8y ago
  The problem is what they've learned is mostly to do with what icons (which they have no context for, never having used a computer or smartphone prior to this) they press to get certain results. And we teach them this over an audio call, so trying to learn a new one would definitely be a challenge. But overall I would swap back to different apps were WhatsApp to be 'compromised' or misused. Discord text chat for my gaming group, Signal for some tech chats, etc. Overall it's a shame, since I was very appreciative of the approach the Whats-App founders took. But if we're lucky, WhatsApp will remain mostly the same for a while.
- webignition 8y ago
  For many this is probably true. For my 84 year old neighbour, not so. He regularly pops round for help with sharing a picture on WhatsApp. It's beyond my neighbour's ability to learn how to use WhatsApp correctly. Learning another messaging app for him is not an option.

valeg 8y ago

The clash of cultures... I prefer WhatsApp's one though.

mrlatinos 8y ago
Yup, peace and quiet with privacy in mind. Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand.
- hkmurakami 8y ago
  they're paid to not understand it.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  " Not sure what Facebook employees don't understand" It's the part where What's App doesn't actually make any money and as a standalone business isn't worth a whole lot. The issue boils down to business model. It's really easy for WhatsApp founders to take the moral high road when he doesn't have to bother with trying to make a dime. The WhatsApp founder is in somewhat of a hypocritical position given that his $17 Billion dollars comes from FB practices that he is ostensibly uncomfortable with.
  - mevile 8y ago
    Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp. He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars when he realized how fundamentally he disagreed with how facebook works. Prior to WhatsApp the founders had very little money.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      "Business model wise think with 1bn users an annual $1 fee would have been fine for WhatsApp." If you've worked in the mobile app business you might get that this could mean almost 0 in revenues. People. Don't. Pay. For. Stuff. Moreover, WhatsApp is huge in places like S. America where people don't have credit cards, or for whom $1 is even too much. "He also turned down hundreds of millions of dollars" He took $17 Billion and is now publicly complaining that what FB is doing is immoral. He doesn't seem to have a problem taking money from that immoral business model.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

I kind of have to wonder what Jan Koum and Brian Acton were thinking (OK, I don't really wonder - they got paid billions of dollars, who wouldn't do it). But, of course, if you sell a company for billions of dollars, there is the obvious expectation that within some time frame your company will earn revenue and profit to support that valuation. You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't.

panarky 8y ago
> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" FTFA Facebook promised not to put ads on WhatsApp. The terms of the acquisition agreement require accelerated vesting of incentive comp to Koum and Acton if Facebook renege on their promise.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  and yet: >>>Mr. Acton initiated the clause in his contract allowing for early vesting of his shares. But Facebook’s legal team threatened a fight, so Mr. Acton, already worth more than $3 billion, left it alone, according to people familiar with the matter. Turns out facebook sucks as a company.
foolfoolz 8y ago
hmm, i think no. once you sell th company you only have to fulfill your acquisition agreement. in some cases that may be revenue targets but not always. do we know exactly what they needed to do to keep their jobs post acquire? i don’t think it’s obvious
rmsaksida 8y ago
> You can't complain "they're adding ads!" unless you have a credible solution for somehow bringing in billions of dollars otherwise, and the WhatsApp founders didn't What about business features? Pretty much every business in my country advertises a Whatsapp number, from large companies to mom-and-pops. People contact them over Whatsapp to ask questions, make complaints, order stuff, everything. I can't believe Facebook is unable to monetize that. It seems to me that Facebook is severely biased towards ads because they already have a platform and it's a market they obviously know well. That doesn't mean ads are the only way to make money.

innagadadavida 8y ago

Apple should port Messages app to Android and other platforms, this is a great opportunity for them to capitalize on. It is unlikely though, as the strategy is to get people to buy iPhones to get Messages.

skbly7 8y ago
Blackberry and BBM went this route already, and we know what happened to them. I think it is high time for Apple to jump the ship and get messages into Android. :)
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Apple has a pretty good market share and in their home market (because it's viable there, many other countries have insane prices) iMessage is compatible with Android users by SMS. This may be good enough, plus iMessage is just one of the features they sell with their devices. I doubt these cases are very comparable.
- atonse 8y ago
  Why? Having messages be iOS only, is working out perfectly for them. Most iOS users get annoyed at the android users when they get green bubbles, instead of getting annoyed at Apple. As long as that continues to be true, I don't see iMessage ever coming out for Android.
Yetanfou 8y ago
That would just be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. The real solution to all these problems lies in the use of decentralised services, e.g. XMPP+OMEMO connecting to a private server. This could be the same server as the one hosting any other privacy-sensitive services, e.g. Diaspora or GNU Social or something along those lines. It could also host a private mail server, a private "cloud" server, a private (meta-)search engine and any other services which you'd rather not have data-mined. ...and all that would fit on something like a Raspberry Pi 3B+ nowadays...
krrrh 8y ago
There is already so much shame directed to the one family member that forces everyone else to use something other than iMessage. Sometimes they just get left out of conversations. Apple's taking this even further with improved photo sharing in iOS 12 (moving more families off Facebook/Instagram), and group FaceTime. As a user I wish that these apps were widely available because I prefer them to alternatives, but as a shareholder I'm not at all upset by this. At least Apple is charging for these privacy-protecting apps, which is the most important detail about WhatsApp: it was already profitable charging users $1/year before acquisition. If Apple ever does release FaceTime and iMessage for Android I hope they charge subscription fees for both.

dingo_bat 8y ago

> When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end. I cannot believe this. Seriously, I think this article is bs.

VectorLock 8y ago
Giving up $400 mil for 3 months? I mean I know they're loaded either way but come on...
- nicpottier 8y ago
  At some point don't you think you just have enough? What's another $400 million in the bank at that point? I mean maybe you could put that towards causes you believe in, but that's kind of the only argument I see for staying. The definition of being rich in my mind is the very concept of being able to walk away from that kind of money for your own sanity.
  - jnwatson 8y ago
    $400 million could help a lot of sick and hungry people. I'd dig ditches by hand for 3 months to be able to give that money to Doctors Without Borders.
    - alvar0 8y ago
      Exactly. Even if you don't want it for yourself you could at least milk Facebook for some good purpose. But as I said in an earlier comment, there must have been some negotiation between them and FB
    - nicpottier 8y ago
      Dig ditches sure. Do work that you fundamentally disagree with though? I mean where do your principles come in to the work you are doing? You choose not to rob banks to support DWB, so you have a line you yourself aren't willing to cross. I don't begrudge him one bit for his decision.

hotswapster 8y ago

Why I have to sign in to an article posted on this news forum blows my mind. Please post stuff the entire world Can read, not just stuff local New Yorkans are subscribed to

hotswapster 8y ago

Why I have to have an account to log in to read an article blows my mind. Please post things that the entire world can see, not just local New Yorkans.

yawz 8y ago

"The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." --Jeff Hammerbacher

moedersmooiste 8y ago

If you sell your soul to the devil don't be surprised he comes to collect it...

rm999 8y ago

I've had a tremendous amount of respect for Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, and have gone out of my way to defend him in the past (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17128369). I always envisioned whatsapp as a defensive purchase that would stay true to its initial vision (perhaps being used to prop up their other products in an unintrusive manner). But this article makes me realize Mark is s a one-trick advertising pony like half the other tech leaders out there. His speil about how he's "connecting the world" is undermined by his clear attempts to build a monopoly of social+communication, with an inefficient layer of distracting ads. Imagine a future where every time you want to electronically communicate with someone you have to spend mental energy filtering out ads. It's the equivalent of every road having a toll booth, directly paying into a rich person's bank account. This is the "connecting the world" Mark Zuckerberg has been trying to hide from those of us who aren't paying attention.

cma 8y ago
Imagine how useful it would be if when there is a notification about a friend on Facebook, you could peek it by swiping on the notification in the android drawer like you can with texts, without entering the Facebook app. Nope. Engineers are dedicated there to increasing other things than the utility of the app. Interests aren't aligned with the users. Same with removing chronological feeds. Turn things more and more into slot machines.
- chinhodado 8y ago
  The most frustrating change for me was FB (or Messenger later) used to send me an email when I received a message, with the message content inside the email. A few years ago they removed the content from the email and forced me to log into FB or Messenger to see the message. It's extremely user hostile.
  - chime 8y ago
    Not to defend FB on this but I can see them doing this defensively. I've seen doctors offices using FB to keep patients updated with their activities (free 'Healthy Eating' seminar), which has unintentionally been used to sent messages like 'Hey Doc needs to reschedule your colonoscopy appointment'. I'm sure FB doesn't want to get involved with indirect HIPAA violations, even if the fault lies elsewhere.

juhq 8y ago

"WhatsApp also negotiated for nicer bathrooms, with doors that reach the floor." This is not a norm in silicon valley/states?

simonbarker87 8y ago
The times I have visited the US I have always been disturbed by how little privacy I feel like I have in a stall. I am sure I have made eye contact with dozens of people in US airports at a time that is not appropriate for either of us.
- adventured 8y ago
  Europeans just need to stop being so terrified of the human body and being such prudes. /s It's funny how Americans get endlessly bashed for being prudes about the human body, and then somehow on this topic they get bashed for not being big enough prudes about the human body. Here's why that is: Americans simply get bashed no matter what direction they go on any subject. It's done solely to make the person doing the bashing or mocking feel good. If the stalls went all the way to the floor, it would be decided by elitist snobs in Europe that that is prudish behavior and ridiculous because there's nothing shameful about going to the bathroom and it's a natural function of the glorious human body. It would go like this: ah those stupid Americans with their fear of the human body, and their overly private bathroom stalls. Dumb Americans are afraid to even know that there's another human in the next stall, even a 12 inch floor gap is too much, because there might be a foot over there somewhere. It's silly how uncomfortable Americans are about normal functions of the human body, they can't even tolerate a small gap in the bottom of the stalls.
  - simonbarker87 8y ago
    Chill out, I also hate the squat stalls in remote train stations in Italy that are three times the size they need to be leaving you feeling super exposed while trying to balance but that wasn’t the question the original commenter asked.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

pvg 8y ago

This is one of the weirdly recurring founder stories of 'after you sold something for good money, you don't get to tell the buyer what to do with it'.

myth_drannon 8y ago
"who pays the piper calls the tune "
mason55 8y ago
Likewise, this is why acquisitions come with golden handcuffs and lockups. I think everyone handled it well. They fought for what they believed in, they lost, and they chose to give up money instead of sticking around and being a pain in the ass. Facebook rightly said "we bought this and control it and here's what we want to do."
- pvg 8y ago
  I don't think the sources for coverage like this come from Facebook.
pitt1980 8y ago
Depends on the terms of the sale, maybe 'if you want to tell the buyer what to do with it, get that in writing, and expect the sale price to reflect term you've added, and to maybe kill the deal altogether'
- pvg 8y ago
  There is no serious acquisition that involves you telling the buyer what to do, outside of very rare occurrences and even then under very narrow parameters.

newscracker 8y ago

I have a question that the article doesn’t answer. If the original founders left because of disagreements on advertising as the monetization model for WhatsApp, are they still holding on to Facebook stock for their $3 billion and $9 billion net worth (respectively)? Or have they sold those since those shares are valued because of the advertising that Facebook pushes? The answer to this would say a lot about their claimed commitment to privacy and their stance against ads. My next point is a prediction. WhatsApp will remove end to end encryption as the default very soon. With Facebook wanting to grow its revenues and profits (like most other companies), this is too attractive to let it stay as it has been for the last few years. At least some WhatsApp employees seem to have some kind of a moral compass on this topic, and I’d expect several of them to leave when this change is announced later this year or early next year.

seandhi 8y ago
> When Mr. Acton departed Facebook, he forfeited about $900 million in potential stock awards, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Koum is expected to officially depart in mid-August, in which case he would leave behind more than two million unvested shares worth about $400 million at Facebook’s current stock price. Both men would have received all their remaining shares had they stayed until this November, when their contracts end. 4 billion dollars of the 22 billion was cash. The remaining 18 billion was in Facebook stock[1]. Most likely, they still have stock in Facebook. [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...

textmode 8y ago

"When Facebook bought WhatsApp, it never publicly addressed how the divergent philosophies would coexist. ... But Mr. Zuckerberg told stock analysts that he and Mr. Koum agreed that advertising wasn't the right way to make money from messaging apps. ... Some of the employees were turned off by Facebook's campus, a bustling collection of restaurants, ice cream shops and services built to mirror Disneyland. ... Mr. Zuckerberg wanted WhatsApp executives to add more "special features" to the app, whereas Messrs. Koum and Acton liked its original simplicity. ... Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg also wanted Messrs. Koum and Acton to loosen their stance on encryption to allow more "business flexibility," according to one person familiar with the matter." It sounds like Koum and Acton actually had some principles. Among other things, they wanted to keep the software relatively simple, instead of continuously increasing its complexity by adding "features". The article suggests others saw Acton as a "moral compass". It also suggests David Marcus president of messaging products at Facebook Inc. called his #deleteFacebook remark "low class" behaviour. How to resolve this apparent contrast? The article suggests Sandberg reacted to the Acton tweet by called Koum instead of calling Acton. It sounds like Facebook's legal department had no leverage (e.g. a non-disparagement clause) over Acton to prevent him from sharing his true thoughts regarding Facebook Inc. He chose his principles, including the freedom to express his opinion of Facebook Inc., over the stock options he forfeited. If these founders really did have principles, and there are ample indications that they did (not limited only to what this article discusses), then is this not admirable? Their stock, compensation and benefits packages were large enough to make most folks abandon any principles in exchange for a much higher standard of living. It also sounds like the WhatsApp staff actually like to engage in cerebral work, hence their desire for quiet and their dislike for the "Disneyland" environment at Facebook. Is there an alternative explanation? Perhaps the lesson here is that "culture clash" may not be so important in these types of acquisitions, where the primary asset is users. These users can be transitioned to whatever the acquiring company desires. For example, there could be a culture clash between a proprietary software company that acquires a company that offers free source code repository services for free/open source code authors. If the founders acquire significant, life-changing wealth from the transaction and the primary asset being acquired is end users, then any clash of principles or work culture is arguably insignificant. The analyst quoted in the article calls Koum and Acton "naive" for believing Zuckerberg would not renege on his promise not to use advertising to generate revenue. He offers the ever persuasive cliche that Facebook is "not a charity". Was WhatsApp a "charity"? It was covering its own expenses and turning a profit at the time of acquisition. It was saving millions of people money on SMS and voice calls. When it sold, it generated a lot of wealth for its investors. Was it not a success. By all accounts it never took money from advertisers. While Facebook, like a few other oversized ad-financed tech companies, has the purchasing power to acquire any emerging competitor for users' attention, one could argue that WhatsApp had something Facebook does not: principles. From the article it does not sound like acquring WhatsApp's principles was ever part of the deal.

ironjunkie 8y ago

That whole sentence where the WhatsApp guys have bigger desks and toilets than the Facebook guys. Really feels like it is coming straight from a dystopian future, where the workers are kept happy with little candies, and the promise to work for a better world, while also policing each others to see who got it better next door, while the big bosses are in their towers planning their next move. If you don't feel like a "sheep" or "token" after realizing that you are fighting over the size of a toilet or a desk, then you are deep deep into it.

madeofpalk 8y ago
That’s one approach. Another is that, when you’re in an extremely fortunate position these are the sorts of things that start to be the only and biggest issues in your life.
dunkelheit 8y ago
That part of the article stood out for me too. These are all status issues and status is very important for human beings whether they like it or not. It seems that (despite being very well-compensated) engineers at facebook are pretty low-status - they are forced to sit all day at shitty desks in giant loud open spaces. So when whatsapp employees who were used to better working conditions arrived, it caused a good amount of culture conflict.

jimmies 8y ago

>Mr. Koum, a San Jose State University dropout, grew up in Soviet-era Ukraine, where the government could track communication, and talked frequently about his commitment to privacy. Someone said that the people who love America the most are the immigrants who has to endure the crap back in their home country. I can totally relate to this. I have lived in a country where my privacy and personal judgment didn't mean anything. The government could do whatever with your life, and people can ruin your life and kill your whole family by accusing you of a story they hear from the vines [1, 2]. Maybe [3] - not from the same country, but it is the same story. I make a point to not have Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, Whatsapp (now) - basically anything that Zuckerberg and co. laid their hands on. I fucking hate the whole idea of any entity blatantly time and again disrespecting my privacy and judgments to advance their agenda and make money. The truth is I really have no control over what it collects from me, what it shows me, what it tells me, what it advertises to me, what it hides from me. I know if I go with it, the decision of foregoing my privacy will go back and bite me when I need it the most. It doesn't matter what they say they stand for; it doesn't matter how many of my peers are using; it doesn't matter what I miss out; it doesn't matter how weird people think I am; it doesn't matter what opportunities I will lose. I have made a decision two years ago to never consider using Facebook, and I will do my damnest to stay away from Facebook and their products and I will try my damnest to convince people to do the same. That's how much distaste I have for Facebook and their platform as a person who had a taste of injustice. Zuck might be on top of the laws and the world and has a lot of allies, but it's not like I have not seen that and I have to fear that. And that's probably the most beautiful thing about America. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n%E2%80%93Giai_Ph%E1%BA%A9m_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nh%C3%A2n_V%C4%83n%E2%80%93Gia... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_North_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_North_Vietnam 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

r00fus 8y ago
Are any of your family or close friends on Facebook? It's highly likely Facebook still has data on you by cross-correlating your data with theirs and along with other data streams they purchase and de-anonymize (purchased credit history) and creating shadow profiles. I've gotten my wife to quit FB and download her data and request deletion (GDPR), and I've quit a while back and we run facebook blockers. I still don't expect to evade FB's ongoing trawl.

rsoto 8y ago

If you're getting a paywall as I am, try accessing via Google—just search for the title. Or if you like it on image format: https://i.imgur.com/BzSEEHkg.jpg https://i.imgur.com/BzSEEHkg.jpg (it was originally a higher resolution png). It seems that the mirror posted here in the comments is somehow incomplete.

YorakHunt 8y ago

I want to side with the Whatsapp founders but really what did you expect?

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

> "Small cultural disagreements between the two staffs also popped up, involving issues such as noise around the office and the size of WhatsApp’s desks and bathrooms, that took on greater significance as the split between the parent company and its acquisition persisted." ^^ coupled with a photo of outrageously poor open-plan office space. This is just insane. Like, executives should be ashamed of themselves if they think developing a company culture means micromanagement of desk space and bathroom size. I have to agree with Joel Spolsky that, when you think of things like this, it makes you start to realize that Facebook has to offer outsized salaries and RSU grants to its employees, because the culture and workspace is so poor and surveillance / micro-management oriented that in order to let yourself be embedded into a hellish workplace like that, you would require greater-than-market salary. And frankly, the salaries aren't high enough to offset this, compared with other companies that don't turn your work life into a micromanagement panopticon, yet still pay well.

emtel 8y ago
I'm a former fb employee, and to say that they "turn your work life into a micromanagement panopticon" is way off. Overall it's a great place to work as a software engineer, although it depends a lot on your team. Many employees have minor frustrations with various things like open plan offices, oversubscribed bathrooms, lack of parking, etc. I suppose there must be some employees who quit because of these sorts of issues, but I've never met any. For most people who work there it's a fantastic opportunity. From what I saw, people quit for the same reasons people quit any company: Burnout, bad relationship with direct manager, or desire to move on to something new.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  This seems at odds with the photo in the OP linked article (referenced by the quote in my comment), as well as any other similar photos of what the physical work spaces are like. I mean, it seems like indisputable evidence based on the physical structure of the work space. I don't see how there's a way to interpret photographic depictions of the actual Facebook offices in some other way. It's like saying, "See this picture of a work space that indisputably shows it to be a grotesque panopticon? ... well, trust me, it's not a panopticon." Is the picture a forgery or something?

ponderatul 8y ago

I see why he wouldn't agree even with the least intrusive advertising place. Because it's just a slippery slope from there. That starting point can be used in conversations to leverage the 'advertising model' further, and we can end up with another facebook, easily.

currysausage 8y ago
So did he honestly believe FB would just continue to provide WhatsApp to the world for free, even ad-free, after spending $22bn? Doesn’t sound like it: > Messrs. Koum and Acton also negotiated an unusual clause in their contracts that said if Facebook insisted on making any “additional monetization initiatives” such as advertising in the app, it could give the executives “good reason” to leave and cause an acceleration of stock awards that hadn’t vested…

vira28 8y ago

Irrespective of all these, still FB stocks doing well (or surpassing the past performance). Anyone noticed that?!!

trendia 8y ago
The source of Facebook's revenue is its ad network, not the use of its social networking capabilities at facebook.com If you visit a news site and click on an ad that was shown through Facebook's ad network, then they receive money. Importantly, you don't need to use facebook.com that much, only enough for Facebook to start tracking you. If a Facebook user logs into their account just once, then the Facebook tracking cookie will log their visits to other sites in the ad network, which is the second largest network next to Google's. If they click on an ad, then Facebook receives revenue -- it isn't necessary for the user to be using Facebook in order for Facebook to receive money.

m3kw9 8y ago

When you go public that’s what happens, fb isn’t amazon where it finds new ways to grow, they saturated their user base due to geo and political factors, so investors need him to justify the stock price multiple.

chews 8y ago

Smoked meat... brought to you by “Sweet Baby Rays”

stygiansonic 8y ago

This blog post from Whatsapp is almost 6 years old: https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads (it was linked to from the WSJ article) Almost prescient is the final line: When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say "Have you considered the alternative?"

icc97 8y ago
Also they use a quote from that blog post as the title comment: > we wanted to make something that wasn't just another ad clearinghouse
gregpilling 8y ago
from the link "These days companies know literally everything about you, your friends, your interests, and they use it all to sell ads." I am not surprised there was a culture clash. I am more surprised that they sold to FB, and that it lasted so long with the difference in vision.

kerng 8y ago

Facebook should really be split up. WhatsApp would have been such a great alternative to Facebook now - but with that acquisition the consumers are really the ones on the loosing end.

inthaiguy 8y ago

Whatsapp is kind of a competitive failure. Successful social media platforms launched after Facebook: - Successful video platforms after YouTube: - Successful Mobile chat platforms after Whatsapp: - Viber - Line - Wechat - Telegram - Snapchat

sysstemlord 8y ago
Whatsapp's key to sucess was its most simple, and most multi platform design among all competitors. It worked on all phones ranging from S40 to the most modern OS, and it was the one who invented the concept of no username/account/manually adding contacts/password login..., but just a phone number and you're ready to go. Whatsapp has a very clean interface, ad free, also very efficient messaging delivery. You don't only compete on who's first, but who does it better. Apple hasn't been first in anything since the invention of the iPhone, but they are still successful in this domain.