3 ms·

True, the reasons are different. But the motivation is the same : to stay ahead of the competition. In my view, and based on my own experience, Whatsapp is bei

True, the reasons are different. But the motivation is the same : to stay ahead of the competition. In my view, and based on my own experience, Whatsapp is being used as a light-weight social network built around messaging and optimized for mobile phones. In fact, I share a lot more stuff with friends and family on Whatsapp - including pictures/videos/messages - than I do on Facebook. The more Whatsapp satisifies my sharing needs, the less I use Facebook. And that is a competitive threat to Facebook. Instagram was similar - a light-weight social network built around photo-sharing. I think Zuckerberg is a deeply strategic thinker trying to avoid the pitfalls of the "Innovator's Dilemma". Both Instagram and Whatsapp are classic examples of what is described in Innovator's Dilemma - light-weight products that can slowly eat into the market share of the incumbent, and ultimately displace it. Edits : formatting.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
yes yes and yes. But boy - 16 billion.
- jmathai 13y ago
  The opportunity cost is much larger if they miss out. It's the difference between ponying up tons of cash to stay relevant or fading into obscurity.
  - nousernamesleft 13y ago
    But it in no way ensures they stay relevant. It is literally just blindly flailing around buying anything that gets a lot of users out of fear and having no idea how to maintain their position.
    - jmathai 13y ago
      It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform. It's a $19B investment in trying to keep people on Facebook. $20B if paired with Instagram and $24B if they had acquired SnapChat. The numbers sound crazy but they're trying to hold on to and grow a market cap that's currently $175B. Zuck has some steel nuts but it's what got him to the $175B number in the first place.
      - nousernamesleft 13y ago
        >It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform. I don't see any evidence to support that claim. It is a different strategy, but I don't see any indication that it is better. Flushing a few billion dollars down the toilet is a different strategy too, but that doesn't make it better.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

yes yes and yes. But boy - 16 billion.

jmathai 13y ago
The opportunity cost is much larger if they miss out. It's the difference between ponying up tons of cash to stay relevant or fading into obscurity.
- nousernamesleft 13y ago
  But it in no way ensures they stay relevant. It is literally just blindly flailing around buying anything that gets a lot of users out of fear and having no idea how to maintain their position.
  - jmathai 13y ago
    It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform. It's a $19B investment in trying to keep people on Facebook. $20B if paired with Instagram and $24B if they had acquired SnapChat. The numbers sound crazy but they're trying to hold on to and grow a market cap that's currently $175B. Zuck has some steel nuts but it's what got him to the $175B number in the first place.
    - nousernamesleft 13y ago
      >It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform. I don't see any evidence to support that claim. It is a different strategy, but I don't see any indication that it is better. Flushing a few billion dollars down the toilet is a different strategy too, but that doesn't make it better.