5 ms·

> But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also been frustrated that Facebook doesn’t get more credit for the growth of Instagram and WhatsApp. Associating those ap

> But Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also been frustrated that Facebook doesn’t get more credit for the growth of Instagram and WhatsApp. Associating those apps with Facebook could improve the overall companies’ brand with consumers. Something doesn't quite add up here in my mind. Facebook is the one brand of the three that stands to benefit from this. Are Instagram's and WhatsApp's brands strong enough to buoy Facebook's brand? > While studies show that Facebook’s brand has been tarnished by its many privacy scandals, and that users are increasingly becoming more aware of the firm’s data collection practices, Instagram and WhatsApp have largely remained unscathed. Two 2018 surveys conducted by the privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo found that more than half of Americans didn’t know Facebook owned Instagram or WhatsApp. Once the word's out, prepare for their reputation to be scathed.

annadane 7y ago
That's a fucking extraordinary statement. I'm almost willing to defend Zuckerberg where it counts - I do try - but "not given enough credit"? Facebook gets so many complaints about privacy and disrespect to the user, they buy up their competition, and Zuck has the gall to say "people don't give us enough credit!"? Insta and Whatsapp were ALREADY big before you fucking bought them up you snivelling idiot. Edit: Want to explain the downvotes?
- iaw 7y ago
  I think the issue is not in your sentiment but in your tone. I could argue your comment violates at least three guidelines[1] as it stands. No worries though, they're just internet points and there's always the next comment [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dnjdrbdhdbs 7y ago
I think Zuckerberg is still too idealistic and thinks that Facebook should get “credit.” He needs to start thinking of Facebook more of a holding company like Philip Morris which does all the unethical stuff and takes the fall for it, allowing the consumer brands like Instagram and WhatsApp to remain unscathed.
- ggg3 7y ago
  the fact this is legal everywhere is mindblowing. it's virtually impossible to buy food today that is not owned by 3 companies, who will eventually "take the fall" but be too big for it to matter
  - tylerhou 7y ago
    Safeway? Walmart? Target? Shop-Rite? Hannafords? I could go on...
    - matthewvincent 7y ago
      I think the poster was referring more to Bayer / Monsanto
    - jacobkania 7y ago
      I think this might be what they're referring to: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-food-industry-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
    - mintplant 7y ago
      The parent commenter referred to food items, not to the retail outlets where those items are purchased.
      - tylerhou 7y ago
        There are thousands and thousands of farmers in the US, and millions around the world. There are certainly more sources of food items than retail outlets.
        ggg3 7y ago
        was refering to nestle, kraft. even the most hipster eco hand made brands in wholefoods are most likely an off brand of nestle or uses their products as main ingredient and doesn't list it as such.
awad 7y ago
You're not wrong. It seems oddly petty as it is worded and, to your point, contradicts the stated goal.
addicted 7y ago
FB may deserve credit for growing Instagram. But WhatsApp growth was entirely on WhatsApp. It had become THE de facto chat app outside the US well before FB acquired it. And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a few dollars for lifetime access). I suspect WhatsApp would have penetrated the US market much like it has now anyways, because it’s not like FB Has advertised WhatsApp at all. It’s growth has been nearly entirely organic.
- ma2rten 7y ago
  Hard to say, my impression is that WhatsApp got a lot of publicity because of the high acquisition price. I think that contributed to its growth significantly.
  - gruturo 7y ago
    The people aware of the acquisition price (or that an acquisition even took place) are likely 3-4 orders of magnitude fewer than the amount of people by which it grew since. Also they were most likely either already users, or were already not using it consciously, and the news wouldn’t sway this. Actually I know of (quite) a few people who removed the app they day Facebook bought it, and now actively preach against it with their acquaintances. It’s actually mostly due to them that I now have Viber, Threema, Telegram and Signal too.
- hocuspocus 7y ago
  > And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a few dollars for lifetime access). In practice Android users would get their free trial period extended regularly. I'm not sure anyone but iPhone users (who are less price sensitive) actually paid for Whatsapp.
  - belezera 7y ago
    That's correct. Most people I knew really thought Whatsapp was free.

annadane 7y ago

That's a fucking extraordinary statement. I'm almost willing to defend Zuckerberg where it counts - I do try - but "not given enough credit"? Facebook gets so many complaints about privacy and disrespect to the user, they buy up their competition, and Zuck has the gall to say "people don't give us enough credit!"? Insta and Whatsapp were ALREADY big before you fucking bought them up you snivelling idiot. Edit: Want to explain the downvotes?

iaw 7y ago
I think the issue is not in your sentiment but in your tone. I could argue your comment violates at least three guidelines[1] as it stands. No worries though, they're just internet points and there's always the next comment [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dnjdrbdhdbs 7y ago

I think Zuckerberg is still too idealistic and thinks that Facebook should get “credit.” He needs to start thinking of Facebook more of a holding company like Philip Morris which does all the unethical stuff and takes the fall for it, allowing the consumer brands like Instagram and WhatsApp to remain unscathed.

ggg3 7y ago
the fact this is legal everywhere is mindblowing. it's virtually impossible to buy food today that is not owned by 3 companies, who will eventually "take the fall" but be too big for it to matter
- tylerhou 7y ago
  Safeway? Walmart? Target? Shop-Rite? Hannafords? I could go on...
  - matthewvincent 7y ago
    I think the poster was referring more to Bayer / Monsanto
  - jacobkania 7y ago
    I think this might be what they're referring to: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-food-industry-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
  - mintplant 7y ago
    The parent commenter referred to food items, not to the retail outlets where those items are purchased.
    - tylerhou 7y ago
      There are thousands and thousands of farmers in the US, and millions around the world. There are certainly more sources of food items than retail outlets.
      - ggg3 7y ago
        was refering to nestle, kraft. even the most hipster eco hand made brands in wholefoods are most likely an off brand of nestle or uses their products as main ingredient and doesn't list it as such.

awad 7y ago

You're not wrong. It seems oddly petty as it is worded and, to your point, contradicts the stated goal.

addicted 7y ago

FB may deserve credit for growing Instagram. But WhatsApp growth was entirely on WhatsApp. It had become THE de facto chat app outside the US well before FB acquired it. And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a few dollars for lifetime access). I suspect WhatsApp would have penetrated the US market much like it has now anyways, because it’s not like FB Has advertised WhatsApp at all. It’s growth has been nearly entirely organic.

ma2rten 7y ago
Hard to say, my impression is that WhatsApp got a lot of publicity because of the high acquisition price. I think that contributed to its growth significantly.
- gruturo 7y ago
  The people aware of the acquisition price (or that an acquisition even took place) are likely 3-4 orders of magnitude fewer than the amount of people by which it grew since. Also they were most likely either already users, or were already not using it consciously, and the news wouldn’t sway this. Actually I know of (quite) a few people who removed the app they day Facebook bought it, and now actively preach against it with their acquaintances. It’s actually mostly due to them that I now have Viber, Threema, Telegram and Signal too.
hocuspocus 7y ago
> And this was despite it being a paid app at the time (I remember paying a few dollars for lifetime access). In practice Android users would get their free trial period extended regularly. I'm not sure anyone but iPhone users (who are less price sensitive) actually paid for Whatsapp.
- belezera 7y ago
  That's correct. Most people I knew really thought Whatsapp was free.