4 ms·

> However, we didn’t receive any reward as only Koreans are eligible to receive a bounty Talk about discouragement for research. KakaoTalk is huge -- the equiv

by Shank 2y ago

> However, we didn’t receive any reward as only Koreans are eligible to receive a bounty Talk about discouragement for research. KakaoTalk is huge -- the equivalent of WhatsApp for EU people or LINE in Japan. Many foreigners learning Korean use KakaoTalk to chat, so this definitely affects people outside of the country. Restricting payment to just Koreans is objectively a terrible decision, as it endangers their users for no discernible reason.

snaeker58 2y ago
I can see some executive being sneaky and saving 0.0001% of all their expenses.
unsupp0rted 2y ago
KakaoTalk is huge in the sense that it's almost impossible to find any Korean person, teenager or adult, who doesn't use it daily. It'd be like finding a person who doesn't use electricity.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
its-summertime 2y ago
> KakaoTalk is huge -- the equivalent of WhatsApp for EU people or LINE in Japan I feel that doesn't really describe it well, one should look into the respective product listings for these companies to get a proper idea of the scope of potential damages that could occur. https://www.kakaocorp.com/page/service/service https://www.kakaocorp.com/page/service/service https://line.me/en/#allProduct https://line.me/en/#allProduct WhatsApp is only just getting into the complete ecosystem side of things with Meta Pay. Google as a company is probably more representative of scale https://about.google/products/#all-products https://about.google/products/#all-products
- mschuster91 2y ago
  That kind of stuff is what Musk chases with X, by the way. It's his once-a-lifetime bet, even bigger than SpaceX and Tesla combined - succeed in delivering a "one for everything" Asian-style app to the Western ecosystem and you have a money printer of unfathomable power. Had he not completely destroyed all trust in the brand Twitter/X, I'd think he'd have a serious chance of achieving that goal. The really interesting thing, IMO, is where Facebook went off the rails. They have the moat with literal billions of people using their apps already, they got real names, addresses, location data, in some cases (legacy Whatsapp users, people who ever ran ads) payment data, Facebook already has sort of a "shop" solution with Marketplace... but they don't seem to be attractive at all, or doing anything innovative. It's all Metaverse or whatever.
  - its-summertime 2y ago
    Meta was probably against pushing super hard to avoid the kind of situation that X is now in.
    - jacobgkau 2y ago
      How do you mean? The situation with X seems mostly to do with marketing (people not liking the owner & his behavior) and bots, with maybe a little bit of instability thrown in. As noted elsewhere in the thread, Facebook already has experience with a bunch of different types of services-- from the games they used to host, to Marketplace mentioned elsewhere in the thread, to event management rivaling Meetup & Eventbrite, and even a dating app. X talks about being an "everything app," but they really just have posts (with media) and that's their only feature to date. Facebook does a lot more. So I don't see how pushing harder on non-social features would make them any more like X is right now.
      - its-summertime 2y ago
        X public perception is centered around Musk, easily enough. Meta's public perception was semi-centered around Zuck, not nearly to the same degree, but I can easily imagine that if they didn't pull back a bit, they would have had a hard time continuing forward with that prior image. Not saying they can't go forwards now, just that they are being careful, to try and make a more solid, longer lasting brand. As opposed to the burn-everything approach of X. They have the time to spend: X isn't going to ever trend upwards in public perception, Google is already there in every aspect, so the only option is to play catch-up to Google and not worry about anything else.
  - numpad0 2y ago
    It's not just Facebook that "failed" to build the so-called superapps, none of Western private chat apps company had done it, let alone social media, or any app from anyone with strong C-class leadership and lean bureaucracy for that matter. The way those "superapps" grow the "apps" is middle management doing his personal projects on corporate microservice infrastructure and IC hire upper management succumbing to bureaucracy. Thanks to bureaucracy, some brand integrity is maintained, and that kind of makes money anyway as company side gigs. After it goes garbage in and out of translation, the whole company doings end up on BBC as Oriental wonder superapps. SoftBank subsidiary owns LINE. So do Masayoshi Son even know how many individual sub-apps there are or who's under who running what? I highly doubt it. And I also highly doubt a control freak like Musk can even bear that kind of situation; he'd personally dragged out a server rack out of an NTT datacenter without going through rituals and ceremonies, which made a web article by itself. None of superapp operators seem to have that kind of boss.

by Shank 2y ago

snaeker58 2y ago

I can see some executive being sneaky and saving 0.0001% of all their expenses.

unsupp0rted 2y ago

KakaoTalk is huge in the sense that it's almost impossible to find any Korean person, teenager or adult, who doesn't use it daily. It'd be like finding a person who doesn't use electricity.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

its-summertime 2y ago

> KakaoTalk is huge -- the equivalent of WhatsApp for EU people or LINE in Japan I feel that doesn't really describe it well, one should look into the respective product listings for these companies to get a proper idea of the scope of potential damages that could occur. https://www.kakaocorp.com/page/service/service https://www.kakaocorp.com/page/service/service https://line.me/en/#allProduct https://line.me/en/#allProduct WhatsApp is only just getting into the complete ecosystem side of things with Meta Pay. Google as a company is probably more representative of scale https://about.google/products/#all-products https://about.google/products/#all-products

mschuster91 2y ago
That kind of stuff is what Musk chases with X, by the way. It's his once-a-lifetime bet, even bigger than SpaceX and Tesla combined - succeed in delivering a "one for everything" Asian-style app to the Western ecosystem and you have a money printer of unfathomable power. Had he not completely destroyed all trust in the brand Twitter/X, I'd think he'd have a serious chance of achieving that goal. The really interesting thing, IMO, is where Facebook went off the rails. They have the moat with literal billions of people using their apps already, they got real names, addresses, location data, in some cases (legacy Whatsapp users, people who ever ran ads) payment data, Facebook already has sort of a "shop" solution with Marketplace... but they don't seem to be attractive at all, or doing anything innovative. It's all Metaverse or whatever.
- its-summertime 2y ago
  Meta was probably against pushing super hard to avoid the kind of situation that X is now in.
  - jacobgkau 2y ago
    How do you mean? The situation with X seems mostly to do with marketing (people not liking the owner & his behavior) and bots, with maybe a little bit of instability thrown in. As noted elsewhere in the thread, Facebook already has experience with a bunch of different types of services-- from the games they used to host, to Marketplace mentioned elsewhere in the thread, to event management rivaling Meetup & Eventbrite, and even a dating app. X talks about being an "everything app," but they really just have posts (with media) and that's their only feature to date. Facebook does a lot more. So I don't see how pushing harder on non-social features would make them any more like X is right now.
    - its-summertime 2y ago
      X public perception is centered around Musk, easily enough. Meta's public perception was semi-centered around Zuck, not nearly to the same degree, but I can easily imagine that if they didn't pull back a bit, they would have had a hard time continuing forward with that prior image. Not saying they can't go forwards now, just that they are being careful, to try and make a more solid, longer lasting brand. As opposed to the burn-everything approach of X. They have the time to spend: X isn't going to ever trend upwards in public perception, Google is already there in every aspect, so the only option is to play catch-up to Google and not worry about anything else.
- numpad0 2y ago
  It's not just Facebook that "failed" to build the so-called superapps, none of Western private chat apps company had done it, let alone social media, or any app from anyone with strong C-class leadership and lean bureaucracy for that matter. The way those "superapps" grow the "apps" is middle management doing his personal projects on corporate microservice infrastructure and IC hire upper management succumbing to bureaucracy. Thanks to bureaucracy, some brand integrity is maintained, and that kind of makes money anyway as company side gigs. After it goes garbage in and out of translation, the whole company doings end up on BBC as Oriental wonder superapps. SoftBank subsidiary owns LINE. So do Masayoshi Son even know how many individual sub-apps there are or who's under who running what? I highly doubt it. And I also highly doubt a control freak like Musk can even bear that kind of situation; he'd personally dragged out a server rack out of an NTT datacenter without going through rituals and ceremonies, which made a web article by itself. None of superapp operators seem to have that kind of boss.