3 ms·

The ARPU that Facebook can make is higher than the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp. That's all, dont look further

by polote 6y ago

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
People aren’t going to pay for simple services like WhatsApp in 2021. It’s as simple as that. Tech people with a high degree of suspicion and high disposable income are the exception. Even within that group, most people won’t put their money where their mouth is when given the option.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  How much money is it? I remember WhatsApp being £1/year, or something like that.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Lol people didn't even want to pay that much, it wouldn't ask for that dollar/pound until you'd used it for a year, and most people would ignore the message when it came up Usually it'd just keep working anyways
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - hawk_ 6y ago
    yes but was that enough to cover the costs even then?
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      Probably. WhatsApp famously supported over a billion users with <100 engineers: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-users-50-engineers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-us... Prior to Facebook acquisition, WhatsApp was a fantastic engineering effort. I don't know if it's now sunk down to normal FB standards or if they're still good.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      It might be enough to cover costs, but it's not enough to outweigh the amount Facebook can make by using everyone's data.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Facebook can get much more than £1/year ARPU from Whatsapp being privacy-invasive, so charging a price like that isn't competitive. We don't have good numbers from Whatsapp alone, but Facebook earns more than 150 $/year for each US/Canada user on average; and users who are willing to pay for such services probably are worth more than average, so an adequate replacement for invasive ad targeting would be quite a large monthly fee.
- hawk_ 6y ago
  Exactly, free is akin to an addictive drug that we as a society have a hard time weaning off of. Strong regulation could dig us out, don't know what else could.
- laurex 6y ago
  Marco Polo, a video messaging app that has taken a stance against ad-based business models and addictive design patterns, charges $60/year for subscription features (with a free version that is fully functional) and most of its subscribers are middle American, non-tech elites. I think it's wrong to say people won't pay- just that most people won't pay, but that doesn't mean you can't create a great business from those who do value your product.
loceng 6y ago
"... the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp [because the value Facebook provides with its growing networks of sites still isn't adequate enough because Facebook isn't actually an innovative company; and people don't trust or like Facebook enough to pay for the value that privacy, trust, and genuine support would allow for]"

The ARPU that Facebook can make is higher than the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp. That's all, dont look further

by polote 6y ago

The ARPU that Facebook can make is higher than the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp. That's all, dont look further

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

People aren’t going to pay for simple services like WhatsApp in 2021. It’s as simple as that. Tech people with a high degree of suspicion and high disposable income are the exception. Even within that group, most people won’t put their money where their mouth is when given the option.

Symbiote 6y ago
How much money is it? I remember WhatsApp being £1/year, or something like that.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  Lol people didn't even want to pay that much, it wouldn't ask for that dollar/pound until you'd used it for a year, and most people would ignore the message when it came up Usually it'd just keep working anyways
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- hawk_ 6y ago
  yes but was that enough to cover the costs even then?
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Probably. WhatsApp famously supported over a billion users with <100 engineers: https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-users-50-engineers/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/whatsapp-serves-900-million-us... Prior to Facebook acquisition, WhatsApp was a fantastic engineering effort. I don't know if it's now sunk down to normal FB standards or if they're still good.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    It might be enough to cover costs, but it's not enough to outweigh the amount Facebook can make by using everyone's data.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Facebook can get much more than £1/year ARPU from Whatsapp being privacy-invasive, so charging a price like that isn't competitive. We don't have good numbers from Whatsapp alone, but Facebook earns more than 150 $/year for each US/Canada user on average; and users who are willing to pay for such services probably are worth more than average, so an adequate replacement for invasive ad targeting would be quite a large monthly fee.
hawk_ 6y ago
Exactly, free is akin to an addictive drug that we as a society have a hard time weaning off of. Strong regulation could dig us out, don't know what else could.
laurex 6y ago
Marco Polo, a video messaging app that has taken a stance against ad-based business models and addictive design patterns, charges $60/year for subscription features (with a free version that is fully functional) and most of its subscribers are middle American, non-tech elites. I think it's wrong to say people won't pay- just that most people won't pay, but that doesn't mean you can't create a great business from those who do value your product.

loceng 6y ago

"... the average price people are willing to pay to get access to whatsapp [because the value Facebook provides with its growing networks of sites still isn't adequate enough because Facebook isn't actually an innovative company; and people don't trust or like Facebook enough to pay for the value that privacy, trust, and genuine support would allow for]"