6 ms·

> 3) There is real value in the app. No one needs to question this. There's no big pitch deck's, presentations, etc.The app was allowed to grow organically due

> 3) There is real value in the app. No one needs to question this. There's no big pitch deck's, presentations, etc.The app was allowed to grow organically due to its network affect. The business can scale into the millions and billions of users. Can you explain this one? Something that seems to have been lost in all the hype is how yet another messaging app is somehow novel, innovative, or exciting. Is this somehow a major technological leap from other instant messengers (which we've had for nearly 2 decades now).

hayksaakian 13y ago
His 3rd point was regarding the value of the app. I think we can agree on it's usefulness, but your concern was Whatsapp's novelty. The part that's indisputable is the massive and active user base. The real question is whether Whatsapp can retain their users, due to it's novelty or despite the lack thereof.
- bertil 13y ago
  > whether Whatsapp can retain their users, due to it's novelty or despite the lack thereof. WhatsApp's been around for years; not sure what novelty you are talking about. It's a very classic and straightforward user-base argument: do I know anyone who uses it? Yes, then it's absolutely worth the six SMS it costs me; no? Meh. I personally had it for years, on and off, simply depending (internationally mobile) friends asking: “Communicate via WhatsApp?” It's about as obvious to subscribe as a all-you-can-eat SMS plan.
twic 13y ago
WhatsApp is different to most messaging apps in that it runs on dumb phones (featurephones), not just smartphones. It's different to built-in text messaging in that it uses data rather than SMS. Dumb phones are a lot cheaper than smartphones, and for most people, data is cheaper than SMS. There are an awful lot of people in the world who can't afford a smartphone or a serious SMS habit. Those people use WhatsApp. There is a parallel here to BlackBerry Messenger. In the UK at least, the two groups that use (or used, a couple of years ago) BlackBerries are businesspeople, who use it because it integrates with their corporate IT whatnot, and schoolchildren, who use it because BBM is free, unlike SMS. However, BBM is tied to a shonky and still not that cheap hardware platform that uses special snowflake network services that are not available everywhere, whereas WhatsApp is portable.
- yohanatan 13y ago
  That sounds rather trivial to me. Facebook has a huge userbase and I'm sure that if they made FB Messenger run on J2ME as well, it would have massive uptake. Seems like Zuck just wanted to spread the love around a bit and generate some news (or has some serious lack of confidence in the competence of his own developers).
  - aestra 13y ago
    A difference is you don't have to create a WhatsApp account, it just uses your phone number. It is plug and play.
    - yohanatan 13y ago
      Trivial to implement.
      - roel_v 13y ago
        Yes, everything about WhatsApp is so trivial that Facebook with their billions and billionaires and 1000's of high-quality engineers decided to spend 18 Billion dollars on it. But of course they're all dumbasses because you say it's all 'trivial', right?
        yohanatan 13y ago
        I think it's pretty clear that Facebook didn't buy WhatsApp for the technology itself but rather the large market penetration/installed user base. Whether that was stupid or not is up for debate.

hayksaakian 13y ago

His 3rd point was regarding the value of the app. I think we can agree on it's usefulness, but your concern was Whatsapp's novelty. The part that's indisputable is the massive and active user base. The real question is whether Whatsapp can retain their users, due to it's novelty or despite the lack thereof.

bertil 13y ago
> whether Whatsapp can retain their users, due to it's novelty or despite the lack thereof. WhatsApp's been around for years; not sure what novelty you are talking about. It's a very classic and straightforward user-base argument: do I know anyone who uses it? Yes, then it's absolutely worth the six SMS it costs me; no? Meh. I personally had it for years, on and off, simply depending (internationally mobile) friends asking: “Communicate via WhatsApp?” It's about as obvious to subscribe as a all-you-can-eat SMS plan.

twic 13y ago

WhatsApp is different to most messaging apps in that it runs on dumb phones (featurephones), not just smartphones. It's different to built-in text messaging in that it uses data rather than SMS. Dumb phones are a lot cheaper than smartphones, and for most people, data is cheaper than SMS. There are an awful lot of people in the world who can't afford a smartphone or a serious SMS habit. Those people use WhatsApp. There is a parallel here to BlackBerry Messenger. In the UK at least, the two groups that use (or used, a couple of years ago) BlackBerries are businesspeople, who use it because it integrates with their corporate IT whatnot, and schoolchildren, who use it because BBM is free, unlike SMS. However, BBM is tied to a shonky and still not that cheap hardware platform that uses special snowflake network services that are not available everywhere, whereas WhatsApp is portable.

yohanatan 13y ago
That sounds rather trivial to me. Facebook has a huge userbase and I'm sure that if they made FB Messenger run on J2ME as well, it would have massive uptake. Seems like Zuck just wanted to spread the love around a bit and generate some news (or has some serious lack of confidence in the competence of his own developers).
- aestra 13y ago
  A difference is you don't have to create a WhatsApp account, it just uses your phone number. It is plug and play.
  - yohanatan 13y ago
    Trivial to implement.
    - roel_v 13y ago
      Yes, everything about WhatsApp is so trivial that Facebook with their billions and billionaires and 1000's of high-quality engineers decided to spend 18 Billion dollars on it. But of course they're all dumbasses because you say it's all 'trivial', right?
      - yohanatan 13y ago
        I think it's pretty clear that Facebook didn't buy WhatsApp for the technology itself but rather the large market penetration/installed user base. Whether that was stupid or not is up for debate.