3 ms·

I really didn't like the WhatsApp approach on this. Basically only partnering with few big vendors like twilio and then asking people to build apps via them (by

I really didn't like the WhatsApp approach on this. Basically only partnering with few big vendors like twilio and then asking people to build apps via them (by basically paying for it). Other apps like telegram allows anyone to directly interact with them

Jaruzel 7y ago
I registered for the WhatsApp Developers Programme a few months back and was told that 'It's not ready yet, but we'll contact you when it is'. Yesterday I got an email telling me that basically I have to partner with (and pay for) services from Twilio or couple of others if I want 'developer' type access. It seems that independent developers will never get legal access to integrate automation or build CRM type apps using WhatsApp, which sucks considering how prevalent WhatsApp usage is.
ma2rten 7y ago
Facebook (same company) also allows anyone to build a bot. Maybe they wanted to monetize Whatsapp this way, but thought it would be less controversial if it's through an intermediary.
pmlnr 7y ago
Paying isn't necessarily the issue. WhatsApp needs to make money, and this is a fairly clear way. The issue is the 3rd party. I don't understand why it needs to go through another service.
- m4tthumphrey 7y ago
  Twilio's bread and butter is telephony developer relations. Why would WhatsApp get into this market when they can outsource it for free to Twilio who has the product and documentation nailed. The support however is a different story. Once the demand is high enough, WhatsApp are free to revisit. It also keeps WhatsApp low (relatively speaking) cost to run.
  - mehhh 7y ago
    The type of messages that can be sent over WhatsApp via Twilio are so restricted and expensive that it was not worth integrating when we looked at this at my work. Even with Verizon's proposed A2P charge per SMS, it is half the cost to use SMS for conversing with customers compared to WhatsApp. Said surcharge has been postponed repeatedly, meaning SMS is an order of magnitude cheaper to use than WhatsApp
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  I use Twilio to automate SMS messaging with users. Some of Twilio's sales people told me about this a few weeks ago, saying I'd be able to seamlessly connect with people through SMS, Whatsapp, or however they like to communicate. I think the idea here is that if you're building a Whatsapp bot, you probably want the other types of bots that Twilio offers anyway and it's easier if the services are bundled together under a single vendor.
axrami5 7y ago
Whatsapp doesn't really expose an API. They require you to maintain docker containers that binds to phone numbers. It has issues. Generally I agree but their business model requires "good behavior" by the partners.
bikamonki 7y ago
FB paid something like 20bn for Whatsapp almost 6 years ago. Something like 4bn was paid in cash. How do you make that money back if: a) users do not pay a subscription and b) ads are not printed in the app? You leverage the app's immense user base asking businesses to pay for API services so they can implement chat-bots, notifications, in-app tools, etc. Why using res-sellers, like carriers use re-sellers to sell SMS integration? Distribution and fair-use control. First, companies like Twilio are the natural partners to sell one more channel to customers that already integrate to SMS. Second, partners will help enforce and control anti-spam efforts. If opening Whatsapp API turns it into a spam jungle like email or sms, it will certainly lose its appeal and users will start switching to the next new spam-free chat app.
- cloverich 7y ago
  They don't necessarily need to put ads in the app. They can simply transfer that personal information to their larger people profiles making their existing ad networks more valuable. It could additionally be simply a play to keep someone _else_ from getting said data. (I think your argument still makes sense, just another angle on that part).
  - jeroenhd 7y ago
    The privacy law implications (GDPR, the new California law, etc.) would probably crush Facebook as a company if they started doing that. They already paid over 100 million for just making false promises when they bought WhatsApp, now that the EU has sharpened their blades to take on big data farms like Google and Facebook, doing something like that would be suicide for FB. Any additional data farming would probably attract auditors and lawsuits that Facebook can't get out of so easily anymore. Facebook would need to put a lot of work into following the GDPR (because someone using an Asian VPN is still protected, so IP based geoblocking won't work) to prevent a fine. It would be a very risky move. I don't think Facebook is going to sell private WhatsApp information any time soon.
    - cloverich 7y ago
      I'm mostly speculating but, they wouldn't be selling the data, they would be selling access to their ad network that has models built off that data used to match ads to people. If they have a high(er) conversion rate, they can charge quite the premium for this information. Similarly, if they could merely keep people in their platform (WhatsApp), nobody else has that information -- same effect. (Also speculating) if that's more or less how it works, and an ads conglomerate like Google or Facebook is worth hundreds of billions, then even a fine of a billion dollars wouldn't be enough to deter them from this activity. None of this is meant to stir up controversy or be negative or anything, I just think its an interesting mental exercise to consider this scenario and these motivations.
mmsimanga 7y ago
WhatsApp founders always promised that there would be no advertising on WhatsApp. Yes I know they are gone. I confess I am not on Twitter and use Facebook once every 2 to three months. I am in about 6 WhatsApp groups and every evening I sit down to catch up on what's been happening by reading the group posts. I think the success of WhatsApp is that there literally no bots unless you sign up for one. Instead of selling adverts charging organisations to develop WhatsApp bots just might be the way to keep WhatsApp free of rubbish. Other advantage of WhatsApp over social media is you don't know is something is viral because you can't count the likes.
j--r 7y ago
With open protocols like XMPP you don't even need some restricted Bot-API to build bots.....
bouncing 7y ago
WhatsApp (and thus Facebook) has three ways to monetize the service: (1) Charge everyone a small amount; (2) Charge a few users -- businesses mostly -- a large amount; (3) Sell and monetize your data with ads. WhatsApp's founders were inclined to go with #1. Mark Zuckerberg appears to prefer #2 and #3.

Jaruzel 7y ago

I registered for the WhatsApp Developers Programme a few months back and was told that 'It's not ready yet, but we'll contact you when it is'. Yesterday I got an email telling me that basically I have to partner with (and pay for) services from Twilio or couple of others if I want 'developer' type access. It seems that independent developers will never get legal access to integrate automation or build CRM type apps using WhatsApp, which sucks considering how prevalent WhatsApp usage is.

ma2rten 7y ago

Facebook (same company) also allows anyone to build a bot. Maybe they wanted to monetize Whatsapp this way, but thought it would be less controversial if it's through an intermediary.

pmlnr 7y ago

Paying isn't necessarily the issue. WhatsApp needs to make money, and this is a fairly clear way. The issue is the 3rd party. I don't understand why it needs to go through another service.

m4tthumphrey 7y ago
Twilio's bread and butter is telephony developer relations. Why would WhatsApp get into this market when they can outsource it for free to Twilio who has the product and documentation nailed. The support however is a different story. Once the demand is high enough, WhatsApp are free to revisit. It also keeps WhatsApp low (relatively speaking) cost to run.
- mehhh 7y ago
  The type of messages that can be sent over WhatsApp via Twilio are so restricted and expensive that it was not worth integrating when we looked at this at my work. Even with Verizon's proposed A2P charge per SMS, it is half the cost to use SMS for conversing with customers compared to WhatsApp. Said surcharge has been postponed repeatedly, meaning SMS is an order of magnitude cheaper to use than WhatsApp
daveFNbuck 7y ago
I use Twilio to automate SMS messaging with users. Some of Twilio's sales people told me about this a few weeks ago, saying I'd be able to seamlessly connect with people through SMS, Whatsapp, or however they like to communicate. I think the idea here is that if you're building a Whatsapp bot, you probably want the other types of bots that Twilio offers anyway and it's easier if the services are bundled together under a single vendor.

axrami5 7y ago

Whatsapp doesn't really expose an API. They require you to maintain docker containers that binds to phone numbers. It has issues. Generally I agree but their business model requires "good behavior" by the partners.

bikamonki 7y ago

FB paid something like 20bn for Whatsapp almost 6 years ago. Something like 4bn was paid in cash. How do you make that money back if: a) users do not pay a subscription and b) ads are not printed in the app? You leverage the app's immense user base asking businesses to pay for API services so they can implement chat-bots, notifications, in-app tools, etc. Why using res-sellers, like carriers use re-sellers to sell SMS integration? Distribution and fair-use control. First, companies like Twilio are the natural partners to sell one more channel to customers that already integrate to SMS. Second, partners will help enforce and control anti-spam efforts. If opening Whatsapp API turns it into a spam jungle like email or sms, it will certainly lose its appeal and users will start switching to the next new spam-free chat app.

cloverich 7y ago
They don't necessarily need to put ads in the app. They can simply transfer that personal information to their larger people profiles making their existing ad networks more valuable. It could additionally be simply a play to keep someone _else_ from getting said data. (I think your argument still makes sense, just another angle on that part).
- jeroenhd 7y ago
  The privacy law implications (GDPR, the new California law, etc.) would probably crush Facebook as a company if they started doing that. They already paid over 100 million for just making false promises when they bought WhatsApp, now that the EU has sharpened their blades to take on big data farms like Google and Facebook, doing something like that would be suicide for FB. Any additional data farming would probably attract auditors and lawsuits that Facebook can't get out of so easily anymore. Facebook would need to put a lot of work into following the GDPR (because someone using an Asian VPN is still protected, so IP based geoblocking won't work) to prevent a fine. It would be a very risky move. I don't think Facebook is going to sell private WhatsApp information any time soon.
  - cloverich 7y ago
    I'm mostly speculating but, they wouldn't be selling the data, they would be selling access to their ad network that has models built off that data used to match ads to people. If they have a high(er) conversion rate, they can charge quite the premium for this information. Similarly, if they could merely keep people in their platform (WhatsApp), nobody else has that information -- same effect. (Also speculating) if that's more or less how it works, and an ads conglomerate like Google or Facebook is worth hundreds of billions, then even a fine of a billion dollars wouldn't be enough to deter them from this activity. None of this is meant to stir up controversy or be negative or anything, I just think its an interesting mental exercise to consider this scenario and these motivations.

mmsimanga 7y ago

WhatsApp founders always promised that there would be no advertising on WhatsApp. Yes I know they are gone. I confess I am not on Twitter and use Facebook once every 2 to three months. I am in about 6 WhatsApp groups and every evening I sit down to catch up on what's been happening by reading the group posts. I think the success of WhatsApp is that there literally no bots unless you sign up for one. Instead of selling adverts charging organisations to develop WhatsApp bots just might be the way to keep WhatsApp free of rubbish. Other advantage of WhatsApp over social media is you don't know is something is viral because you can't count the likes.

j--r 7y ago

With open protocols like XMPP you don't even need some restricted Bot-API to build bots.....

bouncing 7y ago

WhatsApp (and thus Facebook) has three ways to monetize the service: (1) Charge everyone a small amount; (2) Charge a few users -- businesses mostly -- a large amount; (3) Sell and monetize your data with ads. WhatsApp's founders were inclined to go with #1. Mark Zuckerberg appears to prefer #2 and #3.