4 ms·

The niche that Whatsapp filled and which brought it to massive adoption was not the same as Skype's. In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly)

The niche that Whatsapp filled and which brought it to massive adoption was not the same as Skype's. In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- or videoconferencing from a computer, and so it wasn’t quite as much a part of the ordinary person's life as Whatsapp.

pmlnr 6y ago
> Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- or videoconferencing from a computer, and so it wasn’t quite as much a part of the ordinary person's life as Whatsapp. It was very much a part of everyday life in Hungary. "let's skype" as expression existed.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Whatsapp is what people use in some countries for contacting a restaurant to reserve a table, contacting a bike shop to ask if you can bring your bike down for servicing, etc. It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. Skype was never used that universally.
  - pmlnr 6y ago
    > It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. I know. And I think it's insane and horrible.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      The old style phone companies have no one to blame but themselves though, because their "services" were insane and horrible. Phone calls, SMS and data were a goldmine that they were all too happy to exploit for years until (in the EU) regulators stepped in. International calls or roaming outside the EU is still expensive, even in 2021! Not to mention that unlike Whatsapp, Facebook or Skype, on POTS/mobile phones you don't have any option to deal with spammers, call ID fraudsters and other bullshit.
    - lupire 6y ago
      Why? The "public" telephone network is still provided by a business. You can't host your own phone server for people to call.
      - selfhoster11 6y ago
        The public telephone network is incomparably more interoperable than something like WhatsApp. You cannot self-host it, but you can keep the exact same phone number while switching providers (which is even more flexible than email), phone manufacturers and OSes, and "client" (phone modem) implementations at will. No such thing is possible with WhatsApp. Various implementations come from the same company, do not have feature parity (e. g. phone calls are not supported on certain mobile OSes), and definitely don't allow anything in the way of integration with the outside world. A PSTN connection can be hooked up to a PBX to let you automate voice and all kinds of other things, while SMS can be synced to the computer using an app with the appropriate permissions. In short, PSTN is malleable, while WhatsApp is not.
phone8675309 6y ago
Skype's niche in my cohort (poor college student in North America the early 2000s) was calling home to relatives without having to use an expensive telephone calling card or burning cell phone minutes. It was an important part of my life for keeping in touch without feeding the extraordinarily expensive university telephone system. I moved all of my AT&T calling card spending to Skype once it had the ability to call telephone numbers because it was much less expensive to do so.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  I still have about $3 in legacy Skype spend available. Microsoft sends me nasty emails that they don’t let you make prepaid deposits anymore that never expire. At some point I’ll finally use these credits and I’ll probably never use Skype again.
ethbr0 6y ago
> In [country] (and [other country], too, if I understand correctly), [Skype] was a way to avoid [international call] charges ^ That's why GP was saying they're similar
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. It was the same in the US, especially for avoiding costly international SMS/MMS charges. It basically allowed me to communicate with international family and friends, since they might not have been as technically inclined to deal with logins and spam on apps like Skype. In addition, at that time, WhatsApp was the best way to share contacts. It’s still one of the best ways, I think, since you don’t have to worry if the other person is iOS or Android.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  Yes, that's true but the keyword is "international". Domestic, within the US, use of WhatsApp was largely driven by having a multinational social network. For people primarily communicating with others within the US, SMS still dominated (or iMessages) over WhatsApp. Whereas, outside the US, WhatsApp was used even with people communicating primarily with others within the same country.
acheron 6y ago
> Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. “Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  Not comparable. MySpace was never adopted by physical retail businesses and the hospitality industry. Those didn't join social media until the Facebook era and, indeed, many people are complaining that while fewer ordinary adults are using FB, for a lot of businesses their FB page remains their sole internet presence.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    Then those businesses are going to have to adapt or risk losing an increasing number of clients.
- lupire 6y ago
  You can find a bad take on almost any issue from the Guardian. That article only exists because The Guardian doesn't like Rupert Murdoch.
jariel 6y ago
WhatsApp was free SMS in South America where it was expensive. Skype was cheap long distance and low-cost mobile in Europe where it was expensive. Both of those things were/are stupidly expensive in those respective locations. Skype blew up pre-smartphone explosion.

pmlnr 6y ago

> Skype, on the other hand, was about audio- or videoconferencing from a computer, and so it wasn’t quite as much a part of the ordinary person's life as Whatsapp. It was very much a part of everyday life in Hungary. "let's skype" as expression existed.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Whatsapp is what people use in some countries for contacting a restaurant to reserve a table, contacting a bike shop to ask if you can bring your bike down for servicing, etc. It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. Skype was never used that universally.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  > It has essentially replaced the public telephone network. I know. And I think it's insane and horrible.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    The old style phone companies have no one to blame but themselves though, because their "services" were insane and horrible. Phone calls, SMS and data were a goldmine that they were all too happy to exploit for years until (in the EU) regulators stepped in. International calls or roaming outside the EU is still expensive, even in 2021! Not to mention that unlike Whatsapp, Facebook or Skype, on POTS/mobile phones you don't have any option to deal with spammers, call ID fraudsters and other bullshit.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Why? The "public" telephone network is still provided by a business. You can't host your own phone server for people to call.
    - selfhoster11 6y ago
      The public telephone network is incomparably more interoperable than something like WhatsApp. You cannot self-host it, but you can keep the exact same phone number while switching providers (which is even more flexible than email), phone manufacturers and OSes, and "client" (phone modem) implementations at will. No such thing is possible with WhatsApp. Various implementations come from the same company, do not have feature parity (e. g. phone calls are not supported on certain mobile OSes), and definitely don't allow anything in the way of integration with the outside world. A PSTN connection can be hooked up to a PBX to let you automate voice and all kinds of other things, while SMS can be synced to the computer using an app with the appropriate permissions. In short, PSTN is malleable, while WhatsApp is not.

phone8675309 6y ago

Skype's niche in my cohort (poor college student in North America the early 2000s) was calling home to relatives without having to use an expensive telephone calling card or burning cell phone minutes. It was an important part of my life for keeping in touch without feeding the extraordinarily expensive university telephone system. I moved all of my AT&T calling card spending to Skype once it had the ability to call telephone numbers because it was much less expensive to do so.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
I still have about $3 in legacy Skype spend available. Microsoft sends me nasty emails that they don’t let you make prepaid deposits anymore that never expire. At some point I’ll finally use these credits and I’ll probably never use Skype again.

ethbr0 6y ago

> In [country] (and [other country], too, if I understand correctly), [Skype] was a way to avoid [international call] charges ^ That's why GP was saying they're similar

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> In South America (and Asia, too, if I understand correctly), Whatsapp was a way to avoid SMS charges on your mobile phone. It was the same in the US, especially for avoiding costly international SMS/MMS charges. It basically allowed me to communicate with international family and friends, since they might not have been as technically inclined to deal with logins and spam on apps like Skype. In addition, at that time, WhatsApp was the best way to share contacts. It’s still one of the best ways, I think, since you don’t have to worry if the other person is iOS or Android.

Jtsummers 6y ago
Yes, that's true but the keyword is "international". Domestic, within the US, use of WhatsApp was largely driven by having a multinational social network. For people primarily communicating with others within the US, SMS still dominated (or iMessages) over WhatsApp. Whereas, outside the US, WhatsApp was used even with people communicating primarily with others within the same country.

acheron 6y ago

> Because now it is the only way many acquaintances and businesses can be contacted, it will remain entrenched even with this hostile new privacy policy. “Will we ever end the MySpace monopoly?” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business....

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Not comparable. MySpace was never adopted by physical retail businesses and the hospitality industry. Those didn't join social media until the Facebook era and, indeed, many people are complaining that while fewer ordinary adults are using FB, for a lot of businesses their FB page remains their sole internet presence.
- feanaro 6y ago
  Then those businesses are going to have to adapt or risk losing an increasing number of clients.
lupire 6y ago
You can find a bad take on almost any issue from the Guardian. That article only exists because The Guardian doesn't like Rupert Murdoch.

jariel 6y ago

WhatsApp was free SMS in South America where it was expensive. Skype was cheap long distance and low-cost mobile in Europe where it was expensive. Both of those things were/are stupidly expensive in those respective locations. Skype blew up pre-smartphone explosion.