3 ms·

i never used it back then, so i never had to pay a fee, but the fee was $1 per year according to https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/ https://v

i never used it back then, so i never had to pay a fee, but the fee was $1 per year according to https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/ and the fee was only being charged in some countries, and not in India and "many other developing countries." actual revenue might have been more like 100M * .7 (after app store take) so $70 million per year, which might be barely profitable. if they hadn't sold to FB, FB or another company would have run them out of business by doing the same loss-leading advertising and subsidies for their own product that they did for WA.

dan-robertson 4y ago
I would assume WhatsApp would pick a price such that they could continue to offer the first year for free. Maybe it’s tricky for technical reasons for some users to pay $1 but I would assume that most users (in middle or high income countries) would find it affordable and reasonable. It seems to me that being free to try is a necessary condition for a competitor to be successful but being free forever is neither necessary nor sufficient.
- metalspot 4y ago
  i would argue that being free is not even enough to be competitive long term. the problem is that because messaging is very cheap and easy to implement and is a service that almost everyone uses it is in the best interest of companies like FB to actually pay people to use their service (which is what they do with WA) in order to prevent competitors from building a user base that could be used to compete with their core monetized apps. apple and google are essentially doing the same thing, giving away their proprietary messaging apps for free, and giving them highly valuable real estate on their platforms in order to win/keep market share, and they have even more power than fb, because they can change the platform, introduce new protocols, etc, to give themselves a competitive advantage. microsoft was willing to spend billions to give skype away for free for the same reasons. free is not a guaranteed winner if you have three trillion dollar companies paying people to use their competitive products and they control the platforms that your app runs on.

dan-robertson 4y ago

I would assume WhatsApp would pick a price such that they could continue to offer the first year for free. Maybe it’s tricky for technical reasons for some users to pay $1 but I would assume that most users (in middle or high income countries) would find it affordable and reasonable. It seems to me that being free to try is a necessary condition for a competitor to be successful but being free forever is neither necessary nor sufficient.

metalspot 4y ago
i would argue that being free is not even enough to be competitive long term. the problem is that because messaging is very cheap and easy to implement and is a service that almost everyone uses it is in the best interest of companies like FB to actually pay people to use their service (which is what they do with WA) in order to prevent competitors from building a user base that could be used to compete with their core monetized apps. apple and google are essentially doing the same thing, giving away their proprietary messaging apps for free, and giving them highly valuable real estate on their platforms in order to win/keep market share, and they have even more power than fb, because they can change the platform, introduce new protocols, etc, to give themselves a competitive advantage. microsoft was willing to spend billions to give skype away for free for the same reasons. free is not a guaranteed winner if you have three trillion dollar companies paying people to use their competitive products and they control the platforms that your app runs on.