6 ms·

Nah, 2014 makes no material difference. It's not the recent scandals that have somehow revealed Facebook to be the spiritual successor to Microsoft's "embrace

Nah, 2014 makes no material difference. It's not the recent scandals that have somehow revealed Facebook to be the spiritual successor to Microsoft's "embrace and extend" strategy; this has been obvious for at least a decade. Maybe the public didn't realize it yet, but anyone in tech, especially a successful founding team would have been well aware. That said, I'm not going to demonize these guys. Brian Acton clearly is repentant and putting his money where his mouth is in terms of supporting Signal, and that's worth a lot more than some principled nobody who never has enough clout to further his own principles in society.

mort96 8y ago
I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption, and then promptly sold those users to fucking Facebook. Whether they were just gullible and didn't do their due diligence, or if they were malignant, doesn't really make a big difference.
- throwaway937 8y ago
  WhatsApp didn’t even have encryption until well after Facebook bought them.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  It's not like they secretly sold it Facebook. People knew what Facebook was about by the time of the acquisition and either didn't care, did a wait-and-see or switched to an alternative. Perfectly reasonable behavior by everyone involved. Your standard for "demon" is rather low ! :-)
  - pluma 8y ago
    I guess they "trusted" WhatsApp. "Dumb f##ks", right?
- verganileonardo 8y ago
  How many Whatsapp users care about privacy and encryption? How many chose Whatsapp because of that? I believe most users simply use it because it is the most used messaging app in their country
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    And how many paid a single cent for it?
    - dceddia 8y ago
      Wasn't there a point where WhatsApp cost $1/year or something like that? Or am I thinking of something else? I don't know how long that lasted though.
      - VIPMaster 8y ago
        That was technically their business model, but they gave you one year free and also extended your 'subscription' indefinitely if you decided not to pay after that - basically the WinRAR of messaging apps.
      - com_kieffer 8y ago
        Until the facebook acquisition it cost about $1/year. IIRC it was even profitable.
      - praseodym 8y ago
        On iOS the app used to be $0.99 (one-off), which probably made them a couple millions. In 2013 they moved to a subscription model [1] but this was never implemented; I think nobody was ever charged. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-on-ios-now-free https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-on-ios-now-free
        nashashmi 8y ago
        I was an idiot who paid for it. twice (－‸ლ)
- itry2develop 8y ago
  Have someone wave over $3 billion in your face and see how long your values last... Besides his investors would likely arrange an accident for him if he held out on a deal like that.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption WhatsApp end-to-end encryption didn't actually begin until after the acquisition to Facebook had already gone through[0]. I am certain that, as of 2012-2013, WhatsApp wasn't even consistently using TLS to encrypt traffic. That's what made it so shocking when they suddenly leapt from some of the worst security practices of all messaging apps on the market to the best[1]. They built a massive userbase long before any efforts were made towards privacy and encryption. [0] https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472340,00.asp https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472340,00.asp [1] Signal didn't exist at the time, and yes, TextSecure existed, but almost nobody was using it compared to WhatsApp or any other chat app on the market today.
- krrrh 8y ago
  This gets the timeline a bit wrong. WhatsApp’s user base was largely built up during a period of lax security, including unencrypted message databases on Android SD cards, and easily spoofable addresses. The introduction of end-to-end encryption in conjunction with Open Whisper Systems was not until well after the FB acquisition and plans for it were undoubtedly part of the acquisition terms. Contemporaneous to this was the rewrite of the privacy policy to allow sharing of metadata between FB and WhatsApp user accounts, which was a bit of a sell out.
  - 8ytecoder 8y ago
    Even prior to that, WhatsApp did not keep the messages in their servers. Yes, that's not the same as encrypting them. However, they were very clear from the beginning that they won't mine the messages for their ad-value.
    - krrrh 8y ago
      True, though this decision had the dual-benefit of also reducing the complexity and costs of delivering the service.
- mabbo 8y ago
  For a few billion dollars, it's pretty easy to see myself doing the same thing. We're entering a world of a widening disparity between rich and poor. A billion dollars puts you, your children, and their children in the very wealthy side of that line for their entire lives. That's hard to say no to.
  - josephjrobison 8y ago
    True on the divide but at the same time the world has never been as rich, prosperous, or secure. https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Goalkeepers?WT.mc_id=09_18_2017_13_GettingBetter_BG-TW_&WT.tsrc=BGTW&linkId=42398953 https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Goalkeepers?WT.mc_id=... Obviously a very ironic source but the others were more political.
    - breck 8y ago
      Also, the extreme divide between rich and poor has always existed. I’ve never seen a strong data-supported case that it’s any worse today than 100 or 1000 years ago.
      - intended 8y ago
        It’s slightly ironic to have to state this point on HN; it was once considered the status quo which had to be disrupted.
        ex3xu 8y ago
        I agree with this point, as I have a strong distaste for the premise the above poster used: "This is the way things have always been". Implying, why try to change them? Women regularly died in childbirth for thousands of years, but do we hear anyone complaining about knowledge of sterile fields and advances in modern medicine? If anyone is looking for data-driven cases on the scale and negative consequences of the increasing divide between rich and poor, I've found some good resources in Robert McChesney's The Digital Disconnect, Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, and probably most famously Thomas Piketty's 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First century which Gates himself even recommended, ironically enough. All these books come under criticism for supposed ideological undertones, but even skeptics generally respect the underlying economic data.
bambax 8y ago
I think what happened in their head is, they knew Facebook was kind of lying but they thought would be strong enough to prevent the worst from happening. They had built a very successful app in very little time with very little ressources; they just felt they were invincible.
wand3r 8y ago
They were really the second big acquisition and they got a huge valuation. Instagram was running pretty autonomously at the time (2 years prior) so between talking to them and seeing the arrangement and the belief they would be valued as employees like their company; I get it. Also it was huge money that can give you rose colored glasses.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  I think this is the right answer. They probably saw Facebook's "hands-off" approach with Instagram and assumed they would get the same treatment.
lrvick 8y ago
So he repents from creating a walled garden that abused its power and is now funding another walled garden that has the same ability to abuse its power instead of supporting any of the federated alternatives. I am not convinced Brian learned the right lessons here.

mort96 8y ago

I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption, and then promptly sold those users to fucking Facebook. Whether they were just gullible and didn't do their due diligence, or if they were malignant, doesn't really make a big difference.

throwaway937 8y ago
WhatsApp didn’t even have encryption until well after Facebook bought them.
crispyambulance 8y ago
It's not like they secretly sold it Facebook. People knew what Facebook was about by the time of the acquisition and either didn't care, did a wait-and-see or switched to an alternative. Perfectly reasonable behavior by everyone involved. Your standard for "demon" is rather low ! :-)
- pluma 8y ago
  I guess they "trusted" WhatsApp. "Dumb f##ks", right?
verganileonardo 8y ago
How many Whatsapp users care about privacy and encryption? How many chose Whatsapp because of that? I believe most users simply use it because it is the most used messaging app in their country
- jjeaff 8y ago
  And how many paid a single cent for it?
  - dceddia 8y ago
    Wasn't there a point where WhatsApp cost $1/year or something like that? Or am I thinking of something else? I don't know how long that lasted though.
    - VIPMaster 8y ago
      That was technically their business model, but they gave you one year free and also extended your 'subscription' indefinitely if you decided not to pay after that - basically the WinRAR of messaging apps.
    - com_kieffer 8y ago
      Until the facebook acquisition it cost about $1/year. IIRC it was even profitable.
    - praseodym 8y ago
      On iOS the app used to be $0.99 (one-off), which probably made them a couple millions. In 2013 they moved to a subscription model [1] but this was never implemented; I think nobody was ever charged. [1] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-on-ios-now-free https://www.wired.co.uk/article/whatsapp-on-ios-now-free
      - nashashmi 8y ago
        I was an idiot who paid for it. twice (－‸ლ)
itry2develop 8y ago
Have someone wave over $3 billion in your face and see how long your values last... Besides his investors would likely arrange an accident for him if he held out on a deal like that.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> I think demonizing the guys behind WhatsApp is entirely warranted. They built up a large userbase around promises of privacy and encryption WhatsApp end-to-end encryption didn't actually begin until after the acquisition to Facebook had already gone through[0]. I am certain that, as of 2012-2013, WhatsApp wasn't even consistently using TLS to encrypt traffic. That's what made it so shocking when they suddenly leapt from some of the worst security practices of all messaging apps on the market to the best[1]. They built a massive userbase long before any efforts were made towards privacy and encryption. [0] https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472340,00.asp https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472340,00.asp [1] Signal didn't exist at the time, and yes, TextSecure existed, but almost nobody was using it compared to WhatsApp or any other chat app on the market today.
krrrh 8y ago
This gets the timeline a bit wrong. WhatsApp’s user base was largely built up during a period of lax security, including unencrypted message databases on Android SD cards, and easily spoofable addresses. The introduction of end-to-end encryption in conjunction with Open Whisper Systems was not until well after the FB acquisition and plans for it were undoubtedly part of the acquisition terms. Contemporaneous to this was the rewrite of the privacy policy to allow sharing of metadata between FB and WhatsApp user accounts, which was a bit of a sell out.
- 8ytecoder 8y ago
  Even prior to that, WhatsApp did not keep the messages in their servers. Yes, that's not the same as encrypting them. However, they were very clear from the beginning that they won't mine the messages for their ad-value.
  - krrrh 8y ago
    True, though this decision had the dual-benefit of also reducing the complexity and costs of delivering the service.
mabbo 8y ago
For a few billion dollars, it's pretty easy to see myself doing the same thing. We're entering a world of a widening disparity between rich and poor. A billion dollars puts you, your children, and their children in the very wealthy side of that line for their entire lives. That's hard to say no to.
- josephjrobison 8y ago
  True on the divide but at the same time the world has never been as rich, prosperous, or secure. https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Goalkeepers?WT.mc_id=09_18_2017_13_GettingBetter_BG-TW_&WT.tsrc=BGTW&linkId=42398953 https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Goalkeepers?WT.mc_id=... Obviously a very ironic source but the others were more political.
  - breck 8y ago
    Also, the extreme divide between rich and poor has always existed. I’ve never seen a strong data-supported case that it’s any worse today than 100 or 1000 years ago.
    - intended 8y ago
      It’s slightly ironic to have to state this point on HN; it was once considered the status quo which had to be disrupted.
      - ex3xu 8y ago
        I agree with this point, as I have a strong distaste for the premise the above poster used: "This is the way things have always been". Implying, why try to change them? Women regularly died in childbirth for thousands of years, but do we hear anyone complaining about knowledge of sterile fields and advances in modern medicine? If anyone is looking for data-driven cases on the scale and negative consequences of the increasing divide between rich and poor, I've found some good resources in Robert McChesney's The Digital Disconnect, Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality, and probably most famously Thomas Piketty's 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First century which Gates himself even recommended, ironically enough. All these books come under criticism for supposed ideological undertones, but even skeptics generally respect the underlying economic data.

bambax 8y ago

I think what happened in their head is, they knew Facebook was kind of lying but they thought would be strong enough to prevent the worst from happening. They had built a very successful app in very little time with very little ressources; they just felt they were invincible.

wand3r 8y ago

They were really the second big acquisition and they got a huge valuation. Instagram was running pretty autonomously at the time (2 years prior) so between talking to them and seeing the arrangement and the belief they would be valued as employees like their company; I get it. Also it was huge money that can give you rose colored glasses.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I think this is the right answer. They probably saw Facebook's "hands-off" approach with Instagram and assumed they would get the same treatment.

lrvick 8y ago

So he repents from creating a walled garden that abused its power and is now funding another walled garden that has the same ability to abuse its power instead of supporting any of the federated alternatives. I am not convinced Brian learned the right lessons here.