3 ms·

>it looks like they want to become like WeChat Even if they don't want it, they have to. You either become a superapp, or users will flee to other superapps.

>it looks like they want to become like WeChat Even if they don't want it, they have to. You either become a superapp, or users will flee to other superapps. >Instead of my transaction being between myself and a merchant it's me, the merchant, and Telegram. Don't forget about payment processor. That's where data aggregation takes place.

jabroni_salad 5y ago
It's kinda weird how this ecosystem goes, since the debundling of websites is also a common theme on HN. When does a superapp become a debundling target?
- mason55 5y ago
  There are only two ways to make money in software: bundling and unbundling
  - orbital-decay 5y ago
    Not just money. It's a natural cycle. Modern web stack evolved in the same way. It was just hypertext in the beginning, then it expanded to fill the available volume and now we have Electron.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Debundling comes when bundling fundamentally limits the feature, or the users desire to separate it from their chat identity. In case of chat apps, payments are IMHO one of the most natural chat app features and won't get debundled - the main point is to be able to send money as a chat message. There are unbundled payment solutions using phone numbers as user handles like Revolut (that's what I used up until now), but there's still friction in using it to pay back to my girlfriend or send lunch money to the colleague who paid.
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    I really don't see the friction in using an unbundled service like Revolut for the tasks you mentioned. Care to explain?
    - em-bee 5y ago
      the friction is the need to identify the recipient of the money. it's not so much that i want to send money as a chat message, but that i want to send money to that chat user that i am already talking to. with any third party service i have to verify that i actually send to the right person, whereas in the chat i already know that this is the right person.
    - emteycz 5y ago
      Immediately replying to a message with a money transfer is very frictionless for both parties. Yeah, using Revolut is not bad (probably best personal payments system otherwise), but I know I'll be using these payments a lot and won't be looking to switch back.
seppin 5y ago
> Even if they don't want it, they have to. You either become a superapp, or users will flee to other superapps. Really? From my perspective, people in the west don't want one company doing all things. Facebook clones of Tiktok and Snapchat did poorly because people don't want one company owning everything they do. You could even argue that's why a lot of people used Whatsapp before they were acquired.
HeckFeck 5y ago
I.e., Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment: “Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”
- romwell 5y ago
  Hard to apply the law to what already starts as an email/communication client (arguably, IM today augments/replaces mail for many people)
  - HeckFeck 5y ago
    Your literalism is correct. I suppose we can swap 'mail' for payments/cryptocurrency to bring it up to date.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
I don't really agree. The more crap they add the more I will want to leave. This payment stuff will lead to new types of (WhatsApp takeover scams are already rampant here). PayPal is good enough for this and fairly trusted, I don't want to give everyone all my details. Remember this will force them to ask for ID for everyone who uses this due to money laundering legislation. I don't want my chat apps to know who I really am. Consider ICQ that was really well loved until they bloated it with unnecessary crap. Same with MSN messenger. I think this will happen here too. WeChat just works because the whole government is pushing for it and because privacy is just not a thing in China.
- 3v1n0 5y ago
  I don't see the link with ICQ here... Telegram lives on big communities where in many of them trading is already a fact, making it easier to do in app is just another useful feature to then, not something pushing away (or that you are forced to use). Plus, nowadays there are so many ways to send money, that if you don't like one, you can just decide to go with another path
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Indeed, you're not forced to use it. The problem I see is that in order to promote such features, apps often want to ensure that all users are able to use it. So they would force ID requirements on users so they don't have to do this the first time they receive money. This is what I'm worried about. I don't want my chat apps to have my ID on file because I'm sure this will be used for tracking as well, could possibly be leaked etc. Here in Europe all money sending/receiving apps now require a photo of passport etc due to money laundering laws. Which is fine for a money sending app, but not if I just want to chat :)

jabroni_salad 5y ago

It's kinda weird how this ecosystem goes, since the debundling of websites is also a common theme on HN. When does a superapp become a debundling target?

mason55 5y ago
There are only two ways to make money in software: bundling and unbundling
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  Not just money. It's a natural cycle. Modern web stack evolved in the same way. It was just hypertext in the beginning, then it expanded to fill the available volume and now we have Electron.
emteycz 5y ago
Debundling comes when bundling fundamentally limits the feature, or the users desire to separate it from their chat identity. In case of chat apps, payments are IMHO one of the most natural chat app features and won't get debundled - the main point is to be able to send money as a chat message. There are unbundled payment solutions using phone numbers as user handles like Revolut (that's what I used up until now), but there's still friction in using it to pay back to my girlfriend or send lunch money to the colleague who paid.
- alexvoda 5y ago
  I really don't see the friction in using an unbundled service like Revolut for the tasks you mentioned. Care to explain?
  - em-bee 5y ago
    the friction is the need to identify the recipient of the money. it's not so much that i want to send money as a chat message, but that i want to send money to that chat user that i am already talking to. with any third party service i have to verify that i actually send to the right person, whereas in the chat i already know that this is the right person.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    Immediately replying to a message with a money transfer is very frictionless for both parties. Yeah, using Revolut is not bad (probably best personal payments system otherwise), but I know I'll be using these payments a lot and won't be looking to switch back.

seppin 5y ago

> Even if they don't want it, they have to. You either become a superapp, or users will flee to other superapps. Really? From my perspective, people in the west don't want one company doing all things. Facebook clones of Tiktok and Snapchat did poorly because people don't want one company owning everything they do. You could even argue that's why a lot of people used Whatsapp before they were acquired.

HeckFeck 5y ago

I.e., Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment: “Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”

romwell 5y ago
Hard to apply the law to what already starts as an email/communication client (arguably, IM today augments/replaces mail for many people)
- HeckFeck 5y ago
  Your literalism is correct. I suppose we can swap 'mail' for payments/cryptocurrency to bring it up to date.

GekkePrutser 5y ago

I don't really agree. The more crap they add the more I will want to leave. This payment stuff will lead to new types of (WhatsApp takeover scams are already rampant here). PayPal is good enough for this and fairly trusted, I don't want to give everyone all my details. Remember this will force them to ask for ID for everyone who uses this due to money laundering legislation. I don't want my chat apps to know who I really am. Consider ICQ that was really well loved until they bloated it with unnecessary crap. Same with MSN messenger. I think this will happen here too. WeChat just works because the whole government is pushing for it and because privacy is just not a thing in China.

3v1n0 5y ago
I don't see the link with ICQ here... Telegram lives on big communities where in many of them trading is already a fact, making it easier to do in app is just another useful feature to then, not something pushing away (or that you are forced to use). Plus, nowadays there are so many ways to send money, that if you don't like one, you can just decide to go with another path
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Indeed, you're not forced to use it. The problem I see is that in order to promote such features, apps often want to ensure that all users are able to use it. So they would force ID requirements on users so they don't have to do this the first time they receive money. This is what I'm worried about. I don't want my chat apps to have my ID on file because I'm sure this will be used for tracking as well, could possibly be leaked etc. Here in Europe all money sending/receiving apps now require a photo of passport etc due to money laundering laws. Which is fine for a money sending app, but not if I just want to chat :)