5 ms·
I hate to be that guy but there are ton of reasons this is doomed from the start. First, getting people to pay any money is such a massive barrier to entry tha
by jmyeet 5y ago
I hate to be that guy but there are ton of reasons this is doomed from the start.
First, getting people to pay any money is such a massive barrier to entry that it limits your audience by orders of magnitude. WhatsApp (pre-FB) is a rare outlier. Likely the only reason this worked is there simply weren't any other messaging apps for many of their platforms at the time and SMS prices were still outrageously high. none of that is true anymore.
Second, just the name ("HalloApp"). I mean the fact that it's "Hallo" not "Hello" tells you a lot. This is developed on a budget. It's also too close to "WhatsApp" so (combined with the subscription) it just smacks of former WA engineers trying to create WA 2.0. 2.0s almost never succeed (MariaDB being a rare exception).
Third, it's not really clear to me what the messaging model here is from just reading this. How is this going to be different from the user's perspective compared to WA, Messenger or whatever?
Fourth, any new platform that is similar to another is simply going to be a haven for those that are banned on the original platform or who otherwise feel they proselytize whatever whacko positions they hold. This is not the basis for a healthy platform.
Lastly, people. The dirty secret of social media is that the core problem is people. On anonymous online spaces people are hateful and vindictive. They believe crazy shit and want everyone to know about it.
- throwaway0x7E6 5y ago>Fourth, any new platform that is similar to another is simply going to be a haven for those that are banned on the original platform or who otherwise feel they proselytize whatever whacko positions they hold. This is not the basis for a healthy platform. wait, you think people get banned for wrongthink on whatsapp? lmao
- MuffinFlavored 5y ago> 2.0s almost never succeed Video games? DotA?
- na85 5y agoNetwork effects work differently in video games. Often you'll have a relatively niche game like PUBG that validates a concept (battle royales) which is then done in a more polished way by a second-mover (Fortnite, WOW, TF2, CSGO, StarCraft 1, Unreal Tournament, etc) with commensurately greater success.
- ldthorne 5y ago"almost" was written intentionally.
- bertman 5y ago>I mean the fact that it's "Hallo" not "Hello" tells you a lot. This is developed on a budget. Wait, what? Could you elaborate? How do you go from "Hallo" to low budget?
- baisq 5y agowhatsapp pre-fb only costed money for iphone owners. And many iphone owners had a credit or debit card linked to their apple ids.
- Clampower 5y agoThis is not true. I remember paying 99c on Android.
- baisq 5y agoThey asked me for 0.99€ forever, but they never suspended my account. This is true of everybody I know, but I am aware that some people had to pay. I am not sure of the criteria that they used to choose those who had to pay.
- yakak 5y agoI knew early adopters who had to pay end the end of their trial period. Ultimately they were not successful at charging people for social network participation because they needed everyone they could get.
- tinus_hn 5y agoOr they didn’t demand payment because 100 non paying users are worth more than 1 user paying $0.99 once.
- mayankkaizen 5y agoIn my case, WA would show me a message to the effect after some specific period, I had to pay but when that period passed, nothing happened. So in effect, I never paid anything as a android user.
- qiskit 5y ago> Lastly, people. The dirty secret of social media is that the core problem is people. On anonymous online spaces people are hateful and vindictive. They believe crazy shit and want everyone to know about it. This is simply not true. "According to the researchers, results from a major social media platform over a period of three years “show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals." https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/why-ending-anonymity-would-not-make-social-media-better.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/why-ending-anonymity-wou... All you have to do is look at twitter. The toxicity of blue-check mark people and the hideous cancel culture and attacks by non-anonymous individuals against non-anonymous individuals. When your identity is open to everyone, you have more stake in an argument/belief/cause/etc and it incentivizes you to be more extreme and toxic because your identity/social standing/group/etc is at stake.