9 ms·

From my experience a lot of people will not hesitate to contact you via WhatsApp even in a professional setting if they can get hold of your phone number. After

From my experience a lot of people will not hesitate to contact you via WhatsApp even in a professional setting if they can get hold of your phone number. After this happened several times to me I made sure to have a separate phone for business where no messengers or any "social" apps are installed. The funny side of this behavior is your client messaging you via WhatsApp but forgetting their profile picture shows them drunk emptying a giant beer shoe :D

tasogare 6y ago
I’ve never understood the appeal of WhatsApp: it requires a phone number (so it’s useless or hard to setup abroad, and it’s tied to a very personal data), handle very poorly wifi connection (somehow it seems to only update when connected over 4G) and force me to download pictures and videos to see them, trashing my photo folder in the process. It also has no killer features in comparison to any existing messaging app, nor the defunct MSN. And finally it’s now owned by Facebook, so using it to avoid Messenger is moot. Yes, this app success is truly a mystery for me. I have it for speaking with two family members, otherwise I would not bother.
- riantogo 6y ago
  You can change the setting for photos not be saved to your camera roll. And in my experience whatsapp has the best connectivity.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Connectivity is what your phone has. It has nothing to do with Whatsapp. Whatsapp does not add anything to your connectivity. Perhaps you mean "server availability/reliability"? The only thing Whatsapp could do, without reaching deeply into the system, is to retry sending messages over and over, until they are sent. If other messengers give up early, then perhaps that could create a false impression of improved connectivity.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Is this not correct? Do you claim WA reaches that deeply into the system on phones? Not sure whom I poked the wrong way this time, but it would surely be good to have explanation.
    - WanderPanda 6y ago
      You can do a lot with UDP packages as Mateix is proving https://matrix.org/blog/2019/03/12/breaking-the-100-bps-barrier-with-matrix-meshsim-coap-proxy https://matrix.org/blog/2019/03/12/breaking-the-100-bps-barr...
  - muro 6y ago
    Same here. Other messaging apps don't receive messages, yet WhatsApp does. Don't know how but it works.
    - simias 6y ago
      Many operators "zero-rate" WhatsApp, meaning that you can access the service without having to pay for a higher tier full data connection. It's true for many mobile data plans and even sometimes wifi hotspots. It's shitty because it gives WhatsApp an advantage that's extremely hard to compete with but it does make it a lot more reliable and cheap to use than some alternatives.
- Aaronmacaron 6y ago
  The appeal of WhatsApp is simply that everyone already has it. It's the only messaging platform that can be used to message all your contacts. Network effect, that's it.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Not everyone already has it.
    - ClikeX 6y ago
      In the Netherlands it was the platform that was easy to install and didn't cost money per message. SMS was pretty expensive back then. Whatsapp quickly became the defacto messaging app. The word "whatsapping" even replaced "sms'ing". At this point in time you need Whatsapp (Or Messenger when you don't have their number yet) The only time I get an SMS now is for specific multi-factor authentications or automated updates from companies. A lot of businesses even do their live support through Whatsapp now.
      - overheadnoise 6y ago
        What about just “apping” is that a word? On a business trip earlier this year my colleague told me (in English) “I’ll meet you down at the bar after apping with my daughter.” Now that I think about it I’m not sure if “apping” implies texting, voice call, or video call. Lol
        ClikeX 6y ago
        They do use "apping" as a shorthand sometimes. Dutch people abbreviate a lot. Usually it's "I'll send you a Whatsappie", "I'll whatsapp you" or "I'll app you".
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        The fact that an SMS costs money is a feature. That way people will think twice before they SMS you. Free communications is only great if you have infinite time to communicate, as the cost of a bit approaches zero the quantity of bits goes up considerably. Things that before would have been fine to save up until you meet again now need to be sent instantly, and need to receive an instant response as well otherwise there will be a bunch of 'did you get my message' messages to follow up on the first one. I prefer a slight barrier before I'm interrupted and don't mind paying the cost of sending a message. On top of that I don't like non-regulated foreign companies looking over my shoulder. That this is a non-standard pattern I'm well aware of but it suits me just fine.
- maltelandwehr 6y ago
  The appeal of WhatsApp was free text messages, which is still not a thing in many countries. Plus free international text messages. That’s is how they grew to a billion users without being a success in either the USA or China.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > The appeal of WhatsApp was free text messages Except that this is a feature of every messaging app. It's not really a response to >> It also has no killer features in comparison to any existing messaging app, nor the defunct MSN.
    - maccard 6y ago
      > Except that this is a feature of every messaging app. It's not really a response to It wasn't 11 years ago.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Yes, it was. For example, I ran AIM on a BlackBerry. MSN Messenger was around 11 years ago too.
        p49k 6y ago
        Those were not simple, seamless, cross-platform, drop-in replacements to SMS though, which is what OP was referring to by “text messaging.” Sure, clunky systems which had no chance of mass adoption existed before.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        They were if you're willing to overlook the requirement -- which WhatsApp shares -- for the other person to use the same app. (Well, protocol. Gaim handled AIM and MSN fine.) The only thing SMS offered was that the other person didn't need to be running anything. WhatsApp didn't offer that, and also didn't improve on the other messengers of the day.
- kxxsc 6y ago
  I think you are underestimating the degree to which requires only a phone number is a killer feature: -you download the app and can immediately get started after verifying your phone number (no ID or password required) -you don't need to share any ID or connection details other than just your phone number I spend a lot of time in India, and I think this lack of complexity has contributed significantly to its virality (I'd estimate that a pretty significant percentage of the user base does not have or regularly use an email account, which is usually a prerequisite to setting up many accounts).
  - mjevans 6y ago
    It's amazing to consider this killer feature for _normal_ people is one of the kill-worthy features in my will never touch it category.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      This is one of the very important things to remember about HN; we are not a representative audience.
    - oezi 6y ago
      Whatsapp has replaced SMS as the defacto standard mobile messenger for 98% of users in Europe (or many other places). It doesn't matter if they do things badly, there is no way around them at the moment.
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        It is even replacing SMS more in areas where Facebook pushed their internet.org / free basics program, where mobile network companies where supported by Facebook to grant free access to Facebook services while still charging for SMS (or other websites and services) There WhatsApp is/was free. (A few years since I looked into it last, not sure how the project changed)
      - 1bc29b36f623ba8 6y ago
        I just don't see the appeal. MMS works well for things like pictures, doesn't it?
- Markoff 6y ago
  I have no problem with wifi connection and whatsapp, neither does anyone in my circle There is option in Chats\media visibility to not trash your photo folder not sure what are you using what is safer and/or does not require phone number
- fruffy 6y ago
  It's a simple calling and messaging app without the baggage of Facebook integration. That is all people wanted. It is now redundant but that was not the case 10 years ago. People just stick with it since there is little incentive to adapt anything else. WhatsApp just works.
- vidarh 6y ago
  It's "killer feature" is that it's just another messaging app that only requires a phone number. I don't want to add people to yet another proprietary network.
- pydry 6y ago
  Whatsapp's killer feature was reliability, 10 years ago. It simply had better message delivery. Now most apps are pretty much equally good but the network effect already did its job.
- overheadnoise 6y ago
  I got my first smart phone around 2011. In 2011 I was a student in university and I had friends in my circle from Erasmus so they kept their phone number from their own country. In 2011 it wasn’t even free for me to send a sms to people from my own country so I couldn’t even imagine sending sms to people internationally even though they were physically in the same city as me. Well one day a friend told me to download WhatsApp. So I did. All it wanted me to do was verify my phone number and that’s it. Now suddenly all of my friends with smart phones could just sms me for free. And I could sms them back too. For free. That was the value of WhatsApp. The fact that all you needed was a phone number, which you already had saved in your phone. Now instead of opening your phones messages app, you just open whatsapp. There was no extra step of signing up for a new account or telling people “search for my name on Facebook my profile picture is blah blah.”
  - iso1631 6y ago
    It's interesting. Whatsapp didn't start out to be a messanger app for the world. It didn't start out to be a replacement for SMS, it started as a tool for frequent flyers to be able to set a status on their iphone in the same way you could on Yahoo messenger. Frequent flyers weren't particularly enthusiastic "It appears that this requires the other party to also have the app installed, right?" https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/952359-thoughts-about-my-free-iphone-app-whatsapp.html https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/952359-tho...
    - overheadnoise 6y ago
      That’s wild. I had no idea that the original feature of WhatsApp is a feature that I have literally never even looked at and forgot even exists lol
- tarsinge 6y ago
  iPhones are in minority outside the US, WhatsApp is simply the Universal Apple Messages replacement, because it’s a lightweight app.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  You can disable storing media to your photo folder. That was the first thing I did after installing it. I've never had issues with support on wifi, and that's a large amount of my usage of it. Its killer feature was what it did before it was acquired by FB, really not much difference since then. The killer feature was international messaging without SMS/MMS costs (and poor reliability) and only needing a phone number, so you could take it with you easily as you moved through devices so long as you controlled the same number. This got presence around the globe making it easy to message almost anyone, almost anywhere.

tasogare 6y ago

I’ve never understood the appeal of WhatsApp: it requires a phone number (so it’s useless or hard to setup abroad, and it’s tied to a very personal data), handle very poorly wifi connection (somehow it seems to only update when connected over 4G) and force me to download pictures and videos to see them, trashing my photo folder in the process. It also has no killer features in comparison to any existing messaging app, nor the defunct MSN. And finally it’s now owned by Facebook, so using it to avoid Messenger is moot. Yes, this app success is truly a mystery for me. I have it for speaking with two family members, otherwise I would not bother.

riantogo 6y ago
You can change the setting for photos not be saved to your camera roll. And in my experience whatsapp has the best connectivity.
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  Connectivity is what your phone has. It has nothing to do with Whatsapp. Whatsapp does not add anything to your connectivity. Perhaps you mean "server availability/reliability"? The only thing Whatsapp could do, without reaching deeply into the system, is to retry sending messages over and over, until they are sent. If other messengers give up early, then perhaps that could create a false impression of improved connectivity.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Is this not correct? Do you claim WA reaches that deeply into the system on phones? Not sure whom I poked the wrong way this time, but it would surely be good to have explanation.
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    You can do a lot with UDP packages as Mateix is proving https://matrix.org/blog/2019/03/12/breaking-the-100-bps-barrier-with-matrix-meshsim-coap-proxy https://matrix.org/blog/2019/03/12/breaking-the-100-bps-barr...
- muro 6y ago
  Same here. Other messaging apps don't receive messages, yet WhatsApp does. Don't know how but it works.
  - simias 6y ago
    Many operators "zero-rate" WhatsApp, meaning that you can access the service without having to pay for a higher tier full data connection. It's true for many mobile data plans and even sometimes wifi hotspots. It's shitty because it gives WhatsApp an advantage that's extremely hard to compete with but it does make it a lot more reliable and cheap to use than some alternatives.
Aaronmacaron 6y ago
The appeal of WhatsApp is simply that everyone already has it. It's the only messaging platform that can be used to message all your contacts. Network effect, that's it.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Not everyone already has it.
  - ClikeX 6y ago
    In the Netherlands it was the platform that was easy to install and didn't cost money per message. SMS was pretty expensive back then. Whatsapp quickly became the defacto messaging app. The word "whatsapping" even replaced "sms'ing". At this point in time you need Whatsapp (Or Messenger when you don't have their number yet) The only time I get an SMS now is for specific multi-factor authentications or automated updates from companies. A lot of businesses even do their live support through Whatsapp now.
    - overheadnoise 6y ago
      What about just “apping” is that a word? On a business trip earlier this year my colleague told me (in English) “I’ll meet you down at the bar after apping with my daughter.” Now that I think about it I’m not sure if “apping” implies texting, voice call, or video call. Lol
      - ClikeX 6y ago
        They do use "apping" as a shorthand sometimes. Dutch people abbreviate a lot. Usually it's "I'll send you a Whatsappie", "I'll whatsapp you" or "I'll app you".
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      The fact that an SMS costs money is a feature. That way people will think twice before they SMS you. Free communications is only great if you have infinite time to communicate, as the cost of a bit approaches zero the quantity of bits goes up considerably. Things that before would have been fine to save up until you meet again now need to be sent instantly, and need to receive an instant response as well otherwise there will be a bunch of 'did you get my message' messages to follow up on the first one. I prefer a slight barrier before I'm interrupted and don't mind paying the cost of sending a message. On top of that I don't like non-regulated foreign companies looking over my shoulder. That this is a non-standard pattern I'm well aware of but it suits me just fine.
maltelandwehr 6y ago
The appeal of WhatsApp was free text messages, which is still not a thing in many countries. Plus free international text messages. That’s is how they grew to a billion users without being a success in either the USA or China.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The appeal of WhatsApp was free text messages Except that this is a feature of every messaging app. It's not really a response to >> It also has no killer features in comparison to any existing messaging app, nor the defunct MSN.
  - maccard 6y ago
    > Except that this is a feature of every messaging app. It's not really a response to It wasn't 11 years ago.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Yes, it was. For example, I ran AIM on a BlackBerry. MSN Messenger was around 11 years ago too.
      - p49k 6y ago
        Those were not simple, seamless, cross-platform, drop-in replacements to SMS though, which is what OP was referring to by “text messaging.” Sure, clunky systems which had no chance of mass adoption existed before.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        They were if you're willing to overlook the requirement -- which WhatsApp shares -- for the other person to use the same app. (Well, protocol. Gaim handled AIM and MSN fine.) The only thing SMS offered was that the other person didn't need to be running anything. WhatsApp didn't offer that, and also didn't improve on the other messengers of the day.
kxxsc 6y ago
I think you are underestimating the degree to which requires only a phone number is a killer feature: -you download the app and can immediately get started after verifying your phone number (no ID or password required) -you don't need to share any ID or connection details other than just your phone number I spend a lot of time in India, and I think this lack of complexity has contributed significantly to its virality (I'd estimate that a pretty significant percentage of the user base does not have or regularly use an email account, which is usually a prerequisite to setting up many accounts).
- mjevans 6y ago
  It's amazing to consider this killer feature for _normal_ people is one of the kill-worthy features in my will never touch it category.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    This is one of the very important things to remember about HN; we are not a representative audience.
  - oezi 6y ago
    Whatsapp has replaced SMS as the defacto standard mobile messenger for 98% of users in Europe (or many other places). It doesn't matter if they do things badly, there is no way around them at the moment.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      It is even replacing SMS more in areas where Facebook pushed their internet.org / free basics program, where mobile network companies where supported by Facebook to grant free access to Facebook services while still charging for SMS (or other websites and services) There WhatsApp is/was free. (A few years since I looked into it last, not sure how the project changed)
    - 1bc29b36f623ba8 6y ago
      I just don't see the appeal. MMS works well for things like pictures, doesn't it?
Markoff 6y ago
I have no problem with wifi connection and whatsapp, neither does anyone in my circle There is option in Chats\media visibility to not trash your photo folder not sure what are you using what is safer and/or does not require phone number
fruffy 6y ago
It's a simple calling and messaging app without the baggage of Facebook integration. That is all people wanted. It is now redundant but that was not the case 10 years ago. People just stick with it since there is little incentive to adapt anything else. WhatsApp just works.
vidarh 6y ago
It's "killer feature" is that it's just another messaging app that only requires a phone number. I don't want to add people to yet another proprietary network.
pydry 6y ago
Whatsapp's killer feature was reliability, 10 years ago. It simply had better message delivery. Now most apps are pretty much equally good but the network effect already did its job.
overheadnoise 6y ago
I got my first smart phone around 2011. In 2011 I was a student in university and I had friends in my circle from Erasmus so they kept their phone number from their own country. In 2011 it wasn’t even free for me to send a sms to people from my own country so I couldn’t even imagine sending sms to people internationally even though they were physically in the same city as me. Well one day a friend told me to download WhatsApp. So I did. All it wanted me to do was verify my phone number and that’s it. Now suddenly all of my friends with smart phones could just sms me for free. And I could sms them back too. For free. That was the value of WhatsApp. The fact that all you needed was a phone number, which you already had saved in your phone. Now instead of opening your phones messages app, you just open whatsapp. There was no extra step of signing up for a new account or telling people “search for my name on Facebook my profile picture is blah blah.”
- iso1631 6y ago
  It's interesting. Whatsapp didn't start out to be a messanger app for the world. It didn't start out to be a replacement for SMS, it started as a tool for frequent flyers to be able to set a status on their iphone in the same way you could on Yahoo messenger. Frequent flyers weren't particularly enthusiastic "It appears that this requires the other party to also have the app installed, right?" https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/952359-thoughts-about-my-free-iphone-app-whatsapp.html https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-technology/952359-tho...
  - overheadnoise 6y ago
    That’s wild. I had no idea that the original feature of WhatsApp is a feature that I have literally never even looked at and forgot even exists lol
tarsinge 6y ago
iPhones are in minority outside the US, WhatsApp is simply the Universal Apple Messages replacement, because it’s a lightweight app.
Jtsummers 6y ago
You can disable storing media to your photo folder. That was the first thing I did after installing it. I've never had issues with support on wifi, and that's a large amount of my usage of it. Its killer feature was what it did before it was acquired by FB, really not much difference since then. The killer feature was international messaging without SMS/MMS costs (and poor reliability) and only needing a phone number, so you could take it with you easily as you moved through devices so long as you controlled the same number. This got presence around the globe making it easy to message almost anyone, almost anywhere.