3 ms·
Honestly, it was just what it enabled. U.S. had cheap/free texting, so the network effect of just staying where you are was huge. Outside the US, there was only
by richardw 2y ago
Honestly, it was just what it enabled. U.S. had cheap/free texting, so the network effect of just staying where you are was huge. Outside the US, there was only expensive texting so there was a latent need.
A friend asked me to use it first. She's not a techie, but she wasn't earning much and my first instinct was a mild annoyance that she was being cheap and trying to get me to use this other weird thing. What I had "worked" and had everyone on it. But ok, I'll try it. Became an early-ish adopter, spoke with her and a few people, over time it grew and utterly replaced texts. For friends, work, groups. If you try texting there, you're a dinosaur. We had no sense of social stigma of blue/green ticks. Everyone had the same ticks.
Moved to Australia and now I have to check. It's mostly WhatsApp but still some texts, and I have to check if someone is on WhatsApp rather than assume. Once or twice I've had to send on both channels. But there are WhatsApp groups everywhere, so no idea why this texting thing is still alive.
Notice and compare your own instincts when you read this. You might have the opposite reaction depending on where you are.
And for startups, it's whether you can land and enable a benefit before the existing company builds it. Speed vs distribution. Texting was so big a source of revenue that the local network providers kept the price high and basically lost it all. They could have dropped the price to where network effects prevented movement. The comfort of having the buttons and features and network where you expect them is massive.