7 ms·

> The company is also set to charge businesses for messages they receive from potential customers via the WhatsApp platform — of between a half a penny and 9 ce

> The company is also set to charge businesses for messages they receive from potential customers via the WhatsApp platform — of between a half a penny and 9 cents, depending on the country. Didn't knew this and takes back to the outrageous SMS pricing of 10 cents per SMS. I as a consumer can change easily but it's sad to see that business will have to deal with this crap.

jelling 8y ago
The 10 cents isn't for the SMS. The 10 cents is for providing a lead channel, and either now or later, business level features around that lead channel. Intercom's pricing probably works out to something comparable for the average SMB. If the price is too high relative to the value then businesses won't use it and they'll have to drop the price. But there's nothing outrageous here.
- martinald 8y ago
  It's actually more expensive to send a WhatsApp message via Twilio than an SMS via Twilio, which is a pretty weird way to price it.
sschueller 8y ago
This won't last. Users and companies will jump ship to another platform. It is already a pain that I can't write bots on WhatsApp like I can on telegram.
- jhasse 8y ago
  Telegram's funds will run out, too.
- dasil003 8y ago
  That’s not the type of pain point that leads to a critical mass jumping messaging platforms
goshx 8y ago
While I understand the sentiment and generally agree with you, someone has to pay for the service, right? And businesses have been paying for all those Toll Free calls customers are making. It's only toll free for the caller.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  If Skype hadn’t been a thing I’d agree, but it was. The fact that we aren’t using peer-to-peer encryption in our message apps today is solely because companies want to charge you money for sending messages. Because Skype had the capability to operate as a decentralized encrypted messaging app, and now 10-15 years later, there isn’t an app like that. Not because it’s not possible but because giant tech companies have become the equivalent of fossil fuel companies, killing innovation by buying it and absorbing it, altering it or shutting it down.
  - goshx 8y ago
    Before the MS acquisition Skype was not completely free. It had subscriptions and you could buy credit to reach the PSTN, however it was not profitable. Money would eventually run out, as it happens to every company that keeps an unsustainable product alive. Of course we as consumers would love to have everything free, but someone is footing the bill.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Do you remember how skype worked in 2011? You could send messages anytime, but they would only be delivered if you and your conversation partner were both online at the same time. If you used two computers, the conversation history would sync up if both computers were online simultaneously -- or you would sometimes get it from your conversation partners if they were online. That's fine in the world of desktops with always on connectivity (often not even NATed), but it doesn't work on iPhones were when your app isn't on screen, it isn't running (they have a limited amount of background execution these days), and anyway connectivity is spotty.
    - buboard 8y ago
artemisyna 8y ago
Don't quote me on this since it's partially hearsay. However, this isn't a "trying to get $$ out of businesses" measure as much as an anti spam.
- kevindqc 8y ago
  I don't understand how it's anti-spam - they are getting charged for receiving messages, not sending them?

jelling 8y ago

The 10 cents isn't for the SMS. The 10 cents is for providing a lead channel, and either now or later, business level features around that lead channel. Intercom's pricing probably works out to something comparable for the average SMB. If the price is too high relative to the value then businesses won't use it and they'll have to drop the price. But there's nothing outrageous here.

martinald 8y ago
It's actually more expensive to send a WhatsApp message via Twilio than an SMS via Twilio, which is a pretty weird way to price it.

sschueller 8y ago

This won't last. Users and companies will jump ship to another platform. It is already a pain that I can't write bots on WhatsApp like I can on telegram.

jhasse 8y ago
Telegram's funds will run out, too.
dasil003 8y ago
That’s not the type of pain point that leads to a critical mass jumping messaging platforms

goshx 8y ago

While I understand the sentiment and generally agree with you, someone has to pay for the service, right? And businesses have been paying for all those Toll Free calls customers are making. It's only toll free for the caller.

eksemplar 8y ago
If Skype hadn’t been a thing I’d agree, but it was. The fact that we aren’t using peer-to-peer encryption in our message apps today is solely because companies want to charge you money for sending messages. Because Skype had the capability to operate as a decentralized encrypted messaging app, and now 10-15 years later, there isn’t an app like that. Not because it’s not possible but because giant tech companies have become the equivalent of fossil fuel companies, killing innovation by buying it and absorbing it, altering it or shutting it down.
- goshx 8y ago
  Before the MS acquisition Skype was not completely free. It had subscriptions and you could buy credit to reach the PSTN, however it was not profitable. Money would eventually run out, as it happens to every company that keeps an unsustainable product alive. Of course we as consumers would love to have everything free, but someone is footing the bill.
- toast0 8y ago
  Do you remember how skype worked in 2011? You could send messages anytime, but they would only be delivered if you and your conversation partner were both online at the same time. If you used two computers, the conversation history would sync up if both computers were online simultaneously -- or you would sometimes get it from your conversation partners if they were online. That's fine in the world of desktops with always on connectivity (often not even NATed), but it doesn't work on iPhones were when your app isn't on screen, it isn't running (they have a limited amount of background execution these days), and anyway connectivity is spotty.
  - buboard 8y ago

artemisyna 8y ago

Don't quote me on this since it's partially hearsay. However, this isn't a "trying to get $$ out of businesses" measure as much as an anti spam.

kevindqc 8y ago
I don't understand how it's anti-spam - they are getting charged for receiving messages, not sending them?