5 ms·

This seems like a smart move. Facebook is getting ahead of potential criticism by regulators that it’s unclear that Facebook owns these properties. Of course we

This seems like a smart move. Facebook is getting ahead of potential criticism by regulators that it’s unclear that Facebook owns these properties. Of course we all know that but your average joe probably doesn’t. It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to “break up” a company that is deeply intertwined. And its more clear to users that when they are using Instagram, they are really using Facebook. All in all, I don’t get the negativity around this announcement. Makes perfect sense.

eganist 7y ago
> I don’t get the negativity around this announcement. Makes perfect sense. The negativity is largely out of fear that the existing communities etc. around Instagram and WhatsApp might take a hit when people who might not have been conscious of Facebook's ownership of either of them might now be more aware of it -- and thus see Facebook's influence on both. Public perception right now is more in agreement with the belief that Facebook largely left Instagram and WhatsApp alone, and with the founders of both having left Facebook in the last year or two, Facebook's now free to exert more influence around the direction both of these properties take.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  > people who might not have been conscious of Facebook's ownership of either of them might now be more aware of it -- and thus see Facebook's influence on both This sounds like a great outcome to me. Who wouldn't want more transparency in what products are owned by which companies? I would expect this to drive users away from Instagram and WhatsApp.
  - eganist 7y ago
    > Who wouldn't want more transparency in what products are owned by which companies? The people who "fear that the existing communities etc. around Instagram and WhatsApp might take a hit" > I would expect this to drive users away from Instagram and WhatsApp. Right, and this particular population probably doesn't care about transparency in this specific regard all that much. It may sound like a great outcome to you. It does sound like a great outcome to me. But there are many, many millions of people who don't share our perspective who feel like they'd be losing a community rather than gaining freedom by leaving.
brown9-2 7y ago
> It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to “break up” a company that is deeply intertwined We’re talking about the name of a mobile app.
- anpama 7y ago
  A mobile app that at least 1 billion people use to communicate with one another.
- clay_the_ripper 7y ago
  It may be just a name, but Facebook is clearly moving to consolidate/make interoperable Facebook messenger, Instagram direct and WhatsApp. And also bring WhatsApp and Instagram direct into the advertising products it currently has available on Facebook messages like ads, and also the ability to opt into advertiser conversations via those platforms. This is the first step towards those coming changes. They are also merging (or have already maybe partially merged) the infrastructure powering their 3 messaging platforms. So yeah, it’s a name, but these properties are worth many billions of dollars and are only partially monetized right now. So this is a big step toward unlocking the value in instagram and WhatsApp. So yeah, it’s kind of a big deal.
jonathankoren 7y ago
> It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to “break up” a company that is deeply intertwined I don't get this logic. I'm old enough to remember when both Instagram and WhatsApp were independent companies.
- notzuck 7y ago
  "I'm old enough to remember something that happened in very recent history"... lol
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Yeah. Neither of the purchases are that old. The chances of you knowing of WhatsApp’s history and not remembering it being an independent company is exceedingly low.
bobsil1 7y ago
It was also reported that Zuck was insecure about IG founder Systrom getting press.
blueboo 7y ago
The opposite narratives are just as plausible: it weakens its hold because it -has- to add its name to signal the connection; that it is so poorly intertwined with the core product that they slapped the Facebook name on it; that it’s so unclear that the product is “from Facebook” they have to literally change the name of the product for that express purpose! It makes sense as a typically clumsy move as it’s embarrassingly obvious pre-scrutiny posing.

eganist 7y ago

> I don’t get the negativity around this announcement. Makes perfect sense. The negativity is largely out of fear that the existing communities etc. around Instagram and WhatsApp might take a hit when people who might not have been conscious of Facebook's ownership of either of them might now be more aware of it -- and thus see Facebook's influence on both. Public perception right now is more in agreement with the belief that Facebook largely left Instagram and WhatsApp alone, and with the founders of both having left Facebook in the last year or two, Facebook's now free to exert more influence around the direction both of these properties take.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
> people who might not have been conscious of Facebook's ownership of either of them might now be more aware of it -- and thus see Facebook's influence on both This sounds like a great outcome to me. Who wouldn't want more transparency in what products are owned by which companies? I would expect this to drive users away from Instagram and WhatsApp.
- eganist 7y ago
  > Who wouldn't want more transparency in what products are owned by which companies? The people who "fear that the existing communities etc. around Instagram and WhatsApp might take a hit" > I would expect this to drive users away from Instagram and WhatsApp. Right, and this particular population probably doesn't care about transparency in this specific regard all that much. It may sound like a great outcome to you. It does sound like a great outcome to me. But there are many, many millions of people who don't share our perspective who feel like they'd be losing a community rather than gaining freedom by leaving.

brown9-2 7y ago

> It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to “break up” a company that is deeply intertwined We’re talking about the name of a mobile app.

anpama 7y ago
A mobile app that at least 1 billion people use to communicate with one another.
clay_the_ripper 7y ago
It may be just a name, but Facebook is clearly moving to consolidate/make interoperable Facebook messenger, Instagram direct and WhatsApp. And also bring WhatsApp and Instagram direct into the advertising products it currently has available on Facebook messages like ads, and also the ability to opt into advertiser conversations via those platforms. This is the first step towards those coming changes. They are also merging (or have already maybe partially merged) the infrastructure powering their 3 messaging platforms. So yeah, it’s a name, but these properties are worth many billions of dollars and are only partially monetized right now. So this is a big step toward unlocking the value in instagram and WhatsApp. So yeah, it’s kind of a big deal.

jonathankoren 7y ago

> It also strengthens its hold on those properties and makes it more part of one company. Harder to “break up” a company that is deeply intertwined I don't get this logic. I'm old enough to remember when both Instagram and WhatsApp were independent companies.

notzuck 7y ago
"I'm old enough to remember something that happened in very recent history"... lol
skinnymuch 7y ago
Yeah. Neither of the purchases are that old. The chances of you knowing of WhatsApp’s history and not remembering it being an independent company is exceedingly low.

bobsil1 7y ago

It was also reported that Zuck was insecure about IG founder Systrom getting press.

blueboo 7y ago

The opposite narratives are just as plausible: it weakens its hold because it -has- to add its name to signal the connection; that it is so poorly intertwined with the core product that they slapped the Facebook name on it; that it’s so unclear that the product is “from Facebook” they have to literally change the name of the product for that express purpose! It makes sense as a typically clumsy move as it’s embarrassingly obvious pre-scrutiny posing.