5 ms·

But did you read the OP's comment? His wife uses it not because she wants to necessarily, but because her relatives in OTHER COUNTRIES are on it already. You'

But did you read the OP's comment? His wife uses it not because she wants to necessarily, but because her relatives in OTHER COUNTRIES are on it already. You'd be surprised how popular WhatsApp is in other areas of the world, especially since it offers peer-to-peer fund transfer. The problem is not his wife finding an alternative, the problem is finding such an alternative AND convincing all her relatives to install/start using it also. The only thing that would make that worthwhile for a sizable group of people would be if they could also be able to convince other existing users on their previous platform of choice to ALSO ditch that platform for the new one. Sort of a catch-22.

rglullis 4y ago
> the problem is finding such an alternative AND convincing all her relatives to install/start using it also. Once upon a time, WhatsApp was also a system with a microscopic user base. And AIM, and MSN, and ICQ, Skype... You have to start somewhere. For me, I told those closer to me that I wanted to get out of WhatsApp and offered to help my immediate family and some friends who wanted to try Element as well. Others said that they were on Telegram, which I am still keeping around, so it was not-ideal-but-acceptable. The interesting thing happened when there was an outage of Facebook Messenger, and some of my wife's friends got interested in trying out Element too... slow and steady can win this race.
- GWBullshit 4y ago
  I see your point. I think the main selling point of WhatsApp in other countries is the peer-to-peer funds transfer feature; family sending each other a bit of money to help get through temporary rough spots is deeply embedded in the cultures of areas of the world where WhatsApp is popular. What I can't believe (this being run by Y Combinator) is how nobody seems to have come up with a meta-service top-layer; technical objections could be bypassed with a simple "You agree to temporarily waive the encryption capabilities of your core platform while using our platform" disclaimer, and then the meta-service could offer it's own encryption as an alternative. I'm not saying such a service would be able to duplicate all features of the ones that integrate with it, but ... I mean it would just make things so much simpler if you could link in your "whatever account" to such a meta service and then just add contact info of others on other services and just be able to speak/chat with them instead of signing up for a multitude of services just to keep in touch with extended family. I'm sure it's not as technically easy as I made it sound, but I'm also sure there would be a market for that; I can't imagine people who regularly keep in contact with family members dispersed across the world scoffing at a modest monthly fee for such a service, especially since the definition of "modest" would be aimed at U.S./European users who need to keep in contact with family members in other parts of the world.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Remittance services existed forever, and it moves $500 billion every year. With Transferwise, it is almost instant. Why does this depend on whatsapp?
    - GWBullshit 4y ago
      1. Simplicity 2. Intuitiveness 3. Phone-based 4. "Already there" factor for something people use on their phones already for other things, for example, chatting with each other. I've tried sending money overseas with other approaches and was shocked at how fragmented and inconvenient it was compared to things like WhatsApp, etc. Different services only seem to offer abilities in different countries/markets, some require complicated sign-up processes, others require a ton of information about the receiver, etc.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        You are listing reasons to explain why it is easier, but not why they depend on WhatsApp. If sending money is actually important, it doesn't matter if you can do it in the most convenient way possible. It just matters that it is possible.
        GWBullshit 4y ago
        So ... you're saying ... that it "doesn't matter" if you can send money in the most convenient way possible ... it just matters that it's possible? Ok ... so then ... why do people seem to consistently en masse choose to do it "the most convenient way possible" with things like WhatsApp? I don't know, it just seems like given the choice between sending money conveniently and sending money inconveniently, they seem to prefer to do so conveniently. I could be wrong though, maybe WhatsApp flashes subliminal messages directing them to choose WhatsApp to send money.
        rglullis 4y ago
        No, I am saying that, when the convenient way is not available (for example when your account is blocked) you can still use alternatives.

rglullis 4y ago

> the problem is finding such an alternative AND convincing all her relatives to install/start using it also. Once upon a time, WhatsApp was also a system with a microscopic user base. And AIM, and MSN, and ICQ, Skype... You have to start somewhere. For me, I told those closer to me that I wanted to get out of WhatsApp and offered to help my immediate family and some friends who wanted to try Element as well. Others said that they were on Telegram, which I am still keeping around, so it was not-ideal-but-acceptable. The interesting thing happened when there was an outage of Facebook Messenger, and some of my wife's friends got interested in trying out Element too... slow and steady can win this race.

GWBullshit 4y ago
I see your point. I think the main selling point of WhatsApp in other countries is the peer-to-peer funds transfer feature; family sending each other a bit of money to help get through temporary rough spots is deeply embedded in the cultures of areas of the world where WhatsApp is popular. What I can't believe (this being run by Y Combinator) is how nobody seems to have come up with a meta-service top-layer; technical objections could be bypassed with a simple "You agree to temporarily waive the encryption capabilities of your core platform while using our platform" disclaimer, and then the meta-service could offer it's own encryption as an alternative. I'm not saying such a service would be able to duplicate all features of the ones that integrate with it, but ... I mean it would just make things so much simpler if you could link in your "whatever account" to such a meta service and then just add contact info of others on other services and just be able to speak/chat with them instead of signing up for a multitude of services just to keep in touch with extended family. I'm sure it's not as technically easy as I made it sound, but I'm also sure there would be a market for that; I can't imagine people who regularly keep in contact with family members dispersed across the world scoffing at a modest monthly fee for such a service, especially since the definition of "modest" would be aimed at U.S./European users who need to keep in contact with family members in other parts of the world.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Remittance services existed forever, and it moves $500 billion every year. With Transferwise, it is almost instant. Why does this depend on whatsapp?
  - GWBullshit 4y ago
    1. Simplicity 2. Intuitiveness 3. Phone-based 4. "Already there" factor for something people use on their phones already for other things, for example, chatting with each other. I've tried sending money overseas with other approaches and was shocked at how fragmented and inconvenient it was compared to things like WhatsApp, etc. Different services only seem to offer abilities in different countries/markets, some require complicated sign-up processes, others require a ton of information about the receiver, etc.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      You are listing reasons to explain why it is easier, but not why they depend on WhatsApp. If sending money is actually important, it doesn't matter if you can do it in the most convenient way possible. It just matters that it is possible.
      - GWBullshit 4y ago
        So ... you're saying ... that it "doesn't matter" if you can send money in the most convenient way possible ... it just matters that it's possible? Ok ... so then ... why do people seem to consistently en masse choose to do it "the most convenient way possible" with things like WhatsApp? I don't know, it just seems like given the choice between sending money conveniently and sending money inconveniently, they seem to prefer to do so conveniently. I could be wrong though, maybe WhatsApp flashes subliminal messages directing them to choose WhatsApp to send money.
        rglullis 4y ago
        No, I am saying that, when the convenient way is not available (for example when your account is blocked) you can still use alternatives.