5 ms·

I remember this pretty clearly. I always liked the $0.99 per year model because it was pure and simple. However, it was a three way decision with Mark for it, J

I remember this pretty clearly. I always liked the $0.99 per year model because it was pure and simple. However, it was a three way decision with Mark for it, Jan somewhat on the fence, and me against. The primary argument being that payment was artificially hindering growth. Frankly, our growth was just fine at the time. History tells us how the decision landed.

jscheel 7y ago
Just for clarity, you liked the $0.99 model, but you were against it at the time because it would hinder growth, or you were against the idea of adding advertising once WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook?
skohan 7y ago
What was the margin on that $0.99 per year? I guess that was before you could send media?
inapis 7y ago
Was 0.99 per year even profitable?
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Economies of scale would make it profitable considering WhatsApp doesn’t even have to host anything, just relay messages, and since it’s a private platform there are no moderation expenses either.
  - arthurcolle 7y ago
    I don't think that's its not hosting anything... http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2012-whatsapp-scaling.pdf http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
  - 0b0001 7y ago
    You can share files with a maximum size of 100MB. And if I'm not mistaken, those are hosted and available without expiry date.
- lozenge 7y ago
  No, considering the development and testing costs (it works on the cheapest Indian phones), abuse prevention, etc. (Cue "I haven't used any new feature since e2e encryption")
ianopolous 7y ago
I think Brian means that he was against moving to advertising, and Mark was for it.
mindcrash 7y ago
You guys really should take what you learned building WhatsApp and start over. Make it subscription based, with a low bar of entry ($10 or so per month), don't do ads, don't do data harvesting (unless required by law enforcement) and/or "science" (for profit), guarantee freedom of speech (as long as said speech is protected by law, ofcourse) -- in other words: don't become Zuck -- and you will outcompete Facebook come 2025.
- option_greek 7y ago
  10$ month as low barrier of entry for a messaging app is unthinkable for most of the users. Especially for those regions that WhatsApp serves now.
- jawilson2 7y ago
  There is a small handful of things will pay more than $10/month for: my mortgage, car, and utilities. We cancelled Amazon prime when it hit that, and will cancel Netflix when it hits that. I will not pay for text messaging; I'll happily continue using Android messaging instead.
- burntoutcase 7y ago
  Ten bucks a month? For instant messaging? Did you think this through?
  - toper-centage 7y ago
    I mean, that's like.. The price of a pound of bananas right?. /s Some people are delusional.
- chillacy 7y ago
  $120 a year when all the competitors are free?

jscheel 7y ago

Just for clarity, you liked the $0.99 model, but you were against it at the time because it would hinder growth, or you were against the idea of adding advertising once WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook?

skohan 7y ago

What was the margin on that $0.99 per year? I guess that was before you could send media?

inapis 7y ago

Was 0.99 per year even profitable?

Nextgrid 7y ago
Economies of scale would make it profitable considering WhatsApp doesn’t even have to host anything, just relay messages, and since it’s a private platform there are no moderation expenses either.
- arthurcolle 7y ago
  I don't think that's its not hosting anything... http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2012-whatsapp-scaling.pdf http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
- 0b0001 7y ago
  You can share files with a maximum size of 100MB. And if I'm not mistaken, those are hosted and available without expiry date.
lozenge 7y ago
No, considering the development and testing costs (it works on the cheapest Indian phones), abuse prevention, etc. (Cue "I haven't used any new feature since e2e encryption")

ianopolous 7y ago

I think Brian means that he was against moving to advertising, and Mark was for it.

mindcrash 7y ago

You guys really should take what you learned building WhatsApp and start over. Make it subscription based, with a low bar of entry ($10 or so per month), don't do ads, don't do data harvesting (unless required by law enforcement) and/or "science" (for profit), guarantee freedom of speech (as long as said speech is protected by law, ofcourse) -- in other words: don't become Zuck -- and you will outcompete Facebook come 2025.

option_greek 7y ago
10$ month as low barrier of entry for a messaging app is unthinkable for most of the users. Especially for those regions that WhatsApp serves now.
jawilson2 7y ago
There is a small handful of things will pay more than $10/month for: my mortgage, car, and utilities. We cancelled Amazon prime when it hit that, and will cancel Netflix when it hits that. I will not pay for text messaging; I'll happily continue using Android messaging instead.
burntoutcase 7y ago
Ten bucks a month? For instant messaging? Did you think this through?
- toper-centage 7y ago
  I mean, that's like.. The price of a pound of bananas right?. /s Some people are delusional.
chillacy 7y ago
$120 a year when all the competitors are free?