3 ms·
the issue is that people would probably not want to pay for an app like WhatsApp, and so the 'free' alternative takes hold, and whoever controls that gets the c
by bigbizisverywyz 6y ago
the issue is that people would probably not want to pay for an app like WhatsApp, and so the 'free' alternative takes hold, and whoever controls that gets the cost of running the infrastructure in advertisement fees.
If some company could set themselves up as a utility, and the mobile network operators were to pay that company to run the messaging app + infra, then it could be made to operate like a utility and nobodies data would have to be sold.
- __lazybyte 6y agoI could remember initially paying for a Whatsapp subscription a couple of years ago, I was happy to do so as I believed they were providing an essential service. I think that model could've worked.
- flemhans 6y agoAnd wasn't it just $1 for a year?
- Cro_on 6y agoThis could work as a good argument to switch if executed well. 'your device owns you and is siphoning cash from you'