5 ms·

He seems like an amazing guy and that we need more people like him in tech, esp in leadership positions. However, I'm not sure why he was so against monetizatio

He seems like an amazing guy and that we need more people like him in tech, esp in leadership positions. However, I'm not sure why he was so against monetization. If whatsapp was still an independent company, they would have to monetize somehow. Why cannot FB monetize? As a user of whatsapp I wouldn't even care if the showed ads in big group chats. As long as there would be zero tracking or leaking of data and ads would be solely based on location and maybe chat info.

eps 6y ago
WhatsApp had a $1 annual fee and 400M users prior to FB acquisition. Just FYI.
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  I know that but it's not that they had $400M in revenue. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25666270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25666270 FB never charged for whatsapp for a good reason.
  - themoose8 6y ago
    In the UK I remember it being both a small required annual fee and very popular - but that's just as anecdotal as the comments in your link.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    They did/do, just not in direct payment.
pmlnr 6y ago
> If whatsapp was still an independent company, they would have to monetize somehow. No, they wouldn't. This thinking is what has lead the world where it is. Say you have 2 billion (10^9) users paying $1 per year. You follow inflation. That's 2 billion a year. That covers a lot of workforce, and a lot of servers. This idea of infinite growth boggles me - how can people with math background insist on such impossible thought?
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  Good luck having 2 billion people paying you $1 when there are free alternatives.
  - konjin 6y ago
    There are free alternatives for food (soup kitchens), yet people still go to restaurants.
    - tinyhouse 6y ago
      I didn't say people are not willing to pay money to use an app that has free alternatives. I said good luck finding 2 billion such people. Whatsapp today is used by everyone. 8 year old kids and 85 year olds. The network effect. Its biggest asset is the number of users which makes it easy to communicate with everyone you know on it (not everywhere but in many countries). If they charged money it would've been different. It's not about the money. Everyone can afford $1/year. Even kids in poor countries. But not everyone has access to a credit card for example. Many wouldn't bother and use a free alternative like FB messenger or Telegram or whatever.
      - goldenManatee 6y ago
        When you have that many users, their yearly dues is no longer as valuable to the company and its partners, as user data.
  - denysvitali 6y ago
    Honestly, up until a couple of years ago, WhatsApp wasn't free for iPhone. Yet people still downloaded it and bought it
    - Jommi 6y ago
      They didn't pay it. It was mostly just testing on a subset of US users.
nitrogen 6y ago
Even if you downloaded all ads in advance and ran all the logic client side, basing ads on chat info would inevitably leak information if the ad was ever clicked.
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  True but I'm sure they can come up with something. Maybe unclickable ads like "buy dominos pizza, only today 5% off" or "watch NBA on Prime today 7pm"...
  - somedude895 6y ago
    Unclickable ads are a super interesting idea, I've never thought about that. It would change so much of the internet if ads were that simplistic.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Inevitably advertisers will want to measure the effectiveness of their advertising, so "use code XYZ at checkout" will, and "mention this ad" could, still leak targeting information.
the_gipsy 6y ago
> As a user of whatsapp I wouldn't even care if the showed ads in big group chats. As long as there would be zero tracking or leaking of data and ads would be solely based on location and maybe chat info. For Christ's sake NO!

eps 6y ago

WhatsApp had a $1 annual fee and 400M users prior to FB acquisition. Just FYI.

tinyhouse 6y ago
I know that but it's not that they had $400M in revenue. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25666270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25666270 FB never charged for whatsapp for a good reason.
- themoose8 6y ago
  In the UK I remember it being both a small required annual fee and very popular - but that's just as anecdotal as the comments in your link.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  They did/do, just not in direct payment.

pmlnr 6y ago

> If whatsapp was still an independent company, they would have to monetize somehow. No, they wouldn't. This thinking is what has lead the world where it is. Say you have 2 billion (10^9) users paying $1 per year. You follow inflation. That's 2 billion a year. That covers a lot of workforce, and a lot of servers. This idea of infinite growth boggles me - how can people with math background insist on such impossible thought?

tinyhouse 6y ago
Good luck having 2 billion people paying you $1 when there are free alternatives.
- konjin 6y ago
  There are free alternatives for food (soup kitchens), yet people still go to restaurants.
  - tinyhouse 6y ago
    I didn't say people are not willing to pay money to use an app that has free alternatives. I said good luck finding 2 billion such people. Whatsapp today is used by everyone. 8 year old kids and 85 year olds. The network effect. Its biggest asset is the number of users which makes it easy to communicate with everyone you know on it (not everywhere but in many countries). If they charged money it would've been different. It's not about the money. Everyone can afford $1/year. Even kids in poor countries. But not everyone has access to a credit card for example. Many wouldn't bother and use a free alternative like FB messenger or Telegram or whatever.
    - goldenManatee 6y ago
      When you have that many users, their yearly dues is no longer as valuable to the company and its partners, as user data.
- denysvitali 6y ago
  Honestly, up until a couple of years ago, WhatsApp wasn't free for iPhone. Yet people still downloaded it and bought it
  - Jommi 6y ago
    They didn't pay it. It was mostly just testing on a subset of US users.

nitrogen 6y ago

Even if you downloaded all ads in advance and ran all the logic client side, basing ads on chat info would inevitably leak information if the ad was ever clicked.

tinyhouse 6y ago
True but I'm sure they can come up with something. Maybe unclickable ads like "buy dominos pizza, only today 5% off" or "watch NBA on Prime today 7pm"...
- somedude895 6y ago
  Unclickable ads are a super interesting idea, I've never thought about that. It would change so much of the internet if ads were that simplistic.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Inevitably advertisers will want to measure the effectiveness of their advertising, so "use code XYZ at checkout" will, and "mention this ad" could, still leak targeting information.

the_gipsy 6y ago

> As a user of whatsapp I wouldn't even care if the showed ads in big group chats. As long as there would be zero tracking or leaking of data and ads would be solely based on location and maybe chat info. For Christ's sake NO!