5 ms·

> iMessage, Slack, Teams These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscriptio

by jb1991 6y ago

> iMessage, Slack, Teams These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.

jdminhbg 6y ago
No, they do compete with WhatsApp, on the basis of those points of differentiation.
- jsinai 6y ago
  Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. Even in countries where iPhones are ubiquitous the cross-platform nature of Whatsapp and the fact that everyone from your friend to your grandmother is on it, makes it dominant. Yes you could use Slack to message your friends like you would on Whatsapp. The experience won’t be the same, and setup will be a hurdle. But would you use Whatsapp to replace Slack at work? I think the term “compete” is used very broadly here.
  - patothon 6y ago
    > Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. do you have data to back up that claim?
    - jsinai 6y ago
      Fair point, I should have provided some sort of link. See the graph showing Top Messaging Apps by Country. South America, Africa, Asia is mostly Whatsapp. If you combine FB Messenger and Whatsapp, then FB controls most of the messaging market share in most regions, with a few notable exceptions like WeChat in China. https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-map-january-2019/ https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-ma... And as an alternative source: https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-statistics/ https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
      - patothon 6y ago
        These numbers can't be correct as there is no mention of iMessage who's the biggest chat app in the usa.
        jsinai 6y ago
        From the second link it appears that iMessage is not counted because it is preinstalled on iPhones and is not cross platform: "4. iMessage Communication apps like WhatsApp are available on practically all devices, whereas native apps like Apple’s iMessage (and now Apple Business Chat) are limited to one provider. However, the user base for iPhone is constantly growing in the USA. A lot of adolescents prefer iMessage to apps like Snapchat in order to reach out to their friends. Since iMessage is a pre-installed service of Apple, there are no official messaging usage statistics as they keep those “in-house”. Looking at the ever-growing demand and distribution of iOS devices though, we can assume that the pool of iMessage users is growing. In the fiscal year of 2017, Apple reached a quantity of 216.76 million iPhones."
    - nottorp 6y ago
      I have anectada... basically everyone in my contact list has whatsapp... even all the iphone users. Mostly for the group chats. iMessage no worky for groups because you'd be excluding the Android users. Group SMS... I don't think anyone over here is even aware that's an option. I only know about it from Americans on HN saying they use it.
fishtacos 6y ago
Yet they can do so very easily at the flip of a button, so to speak. The capability exists, and simply because potential competitors choose to not compete in the same space is what makes WhatsApp a monopoly? See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primarily text medium. Not tied to an employer, doesn't require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, etc...
- jb1991 6y ago
  And had they been able to, what do you think would’ve happened to Skype had it been acquired by Facebook back when it was the main game in town? I think that’s the point.
  - fishtacos 6y ago
    They would've had competition. Whatsapp has other competitors currently. Telegram and Viber come readily to mind, and I am certain there are other services that I'm not aware of, the old fart that I am. Whatsapp was incredibly popular in most of the underdeveloped world, where it became the de facto messaging app because of the low data requirements and ubiquitousness (and probable subsidies via the ISP provider). This was prior to FB buying them. Out of my group of contacts, the Telegram app notified me over the past year that roughly 2 dozen have signed up for it, e.g. That's another (albeit anecdotal) sign. I understand the antagonism toward FB/Whatsapp/Instagram, given the consolidation of social networks within the purview of one entity, but not a single one of those services is a monopoly. Could very well be I don't understand the intricacies of the law, and such consolidation is perhaps illegal for the betterment of society, but I'm not convinced that's the case still. Microsoft, for example, was accused of monopolistic behavior because they had enough power to pressure manufacturers to bundle IE with the OS. No such thing is happening in this situation. IANAL, but that's my simplistic take on it. I stand to be corrected.
  - __al__ 6y ago
    Instagram was not the "main game in town" when Facebook acquired them. It was one of many photo sharing/editing apps and had far less market penetration than it does today. Why should Facebook be punished for acquiring a promising app and turning it into what it is today by integrating it into its ecosystem? Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of acquisition it was far from a sure thing and it's safe to say that without Facebook resources Instagram would not be what it is today.
bilal4hmed 6y ago
Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.
- mrlala 6y ago
  WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell? So yeah, there's really no "competition". Either you have whatsapp or you don't talk to people. And it's highly used for cross-business communication in Europe, I can tell you that.
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    It seems its no competition because people like it not because there are no other options, because there are plenty
    - mrlala 6y ago
      But my point is "it's the norm". Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient. (Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US) But there does get to a point where you cannot say "people use it because they like it". Most people use it solely because everyone else uses it. Just like Facebook. There is no "alternative" for real-life profile social media. If you want to use that type of social media, Facebook is the only thing whether you like it or not.
      - bilal4hmed 6y ago
        Isnt that the case of network effects though ? Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it. So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.

by jb1991 6y ago

jdminhbg 6y ago

No, they do compete with WhatsApp, on the basis of those points of differentiation.

jsinai 6y ago
Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. Even in countries where iPhones are ubiquitous the cross-platform nature of Whatsapp and the fact that everyone from your friend to your grandmother is on it, makes it dominant. Yes you could use Slack to message your friends like you would on Whatsapp. The experience won’t be the same, and setup will be a hurdle. But would you use Whatsapp to replace Slack at work? I think the term “compete” is used very broadly here.
- patothon 6y ago
  > Whatsapp has near universal market penetration globally, especially in countries where most people can’t afford iPhones and use iMessage. do you have data to back up that claim?
  - jsinai 6y ago
    Fair point, I should have provided some sort of link. See the graph showing Top Messaging Apps by Country. South America, Africa, Asia is mostly Whatsapp. If you combine FB Messenger and Whatsapp, then FB controls most of the messaging market share in most regions, with a few notable exceptions like WeChat in China. https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-map-january-2019/ https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/mobile-messaging-app-ma... And as an alternative source: https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-statistics/ https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-stati...
    - patothon 6y ago
      These numbers can't be correct as there is no mention of iMessage who's the biggest chat app in the usa.
      - jsinai 6y ago
        From the second link it appears that iMessage is not counted because it is preinstalled on iPhones and is not cross platform: "4. iMessage Communication apps like WhatsApp are available on practically all devices, whereas native apps like Apple’s iMessage (and now Apple Business Chat) are limited to one provider. However, the user base for iPhone is constantly growing in the USA. A lot of adolescents prefer iMessage to apps like Snapchat in order to reach out to their friends. Since iMessage is a pre-installed service of Apple, there are no official messaging usage statistics as they keep those “in-house”. Looking at the ever-growing demand and distribution of iOS devices though, we can assume that the pool of iMessage users is growing. In the fiscal year of 2017, Apple reached a quantity of 216.76 million iPhones."
  - nottorp 6y ago
    I have anectada... basically everyone in my contact list has whatsapp... even all the iphone users. Mostly for the group chats. iMessage no worky for groups because you'd be excluding the Android users. Group SMS... I don't think anyone over here is even aware that's an option. I only know about it from Americans on HN saying they use it.

fishtacos 6y ago

Yet they can do so very easily at the flip of a button, so to speak. The capability exists, and simply because potential competitors choose to not compete in the same space is what makes WhatsApp a monopoly? See Skype, for example - the largest market penetration for a period of time and practically no one uses them any more. They were video-centric, yet the user base is already there for an extension into a primarily text medium. Not tied to an employer, doesn't require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, etc...

jb1991 6y ago
And had they been able to, what do you think would’ve happened to Skype had it been acquired by Facebook back when it was the main game in town? I think that’s the point.
- fishtacos 6y ago
  They would've had competition. Whatsapp has other competitors currently. Telegram and Viber come readily to mind, and I am certain there are other services that I'm not aware of, the old fart that I am. Whatsapp was incredibly popular in most of the underdeveloped world, where it became the de facto messaging app because of the low data requirements and ubiquitousness (and probable subsidies via the ISP provider). This was prior to FB buying them. Out of my group of contacts, the Telegram app notified me over the past year that roughly 2 dozen have signed up for it, e.g. That's another (albeit anecdotal) sign. I understand the antagonism toward FB/Whatsapp/Instagram, given the consolidation of social networks within the purview of one entity, but not a single one of those services is a monopoly. Could very well be I don't understand the intricacies of the law, and such consolidation is perhaps illegal for the betterment of society, but I'm not convinced that's the case still. Microsoft, for example, was accused of monopolistic behavior because they had enough power to pressure manufacturers to bundle IE with the OS. No such thing is happening in this situation. IANAL, but that's my simplistic take on it. I stand to be corrected.
- __al__ 6y ago
  Instagram was not the "main game in town" when Facebook acquired them. It was one of many photo sharing/editing apps and had far less market penetration than it does today. Why should Facebook be punished for acquiring a promising app and turning it into what it is today by integrating it into its ecosystem? Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time of acquisition it was far from a sure thing and it's safe to say that without Facebook resources Instagram would not be what it is today.

bilal4hmed 6y ago

Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.

mrlala 6y ago
WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell? So yeah, there's really no "competition". Either you have whatsapp or you don't talk to people. And it's highly used for cross-business communication in Europe, I can tell you that.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  It seems its no competition because people like it not because there are no other options, because there are plenty
  - mrlala 6y ago
    But my point is "it's the norm". Either you use WhatsApp or you don't talk to people. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, really.. I think "monopolies" have their place in standardizing things that we do and it makes it convenient. (Side note: if fucking Apple would open up iMessage on android/windows they would OWN the chat market in a matter of minutes in the US) But there does get to a point where you cannot say "people use it because they like it". Most people use it solely because everyone else uses it. Just like Facebook. There is no "alternative" for real-life profile social media. If you want to use that type of social media, Facebook is the only thing whether you like it or not.
    - bilal4hmed 6y ago
      Isnt that the case of network effects though ? Facebook started off in a market with Orkut, Myspace, Friendster and along came Path, Twitter, Google+. Facebook had network effects and people gravitated towards it. So this is basically saying network effect is bad. You cant get too popular.