3 ms·

I honestly think that if a messenger app wins, it will be more valuable than Facebook, and its not even close. Facebook at its core is really only about 2 thin

I honestly think that if a messenger app wins, it will be more valuable than Facebook, and its not even close. Facebook at its core is really only about 2 things: 1) Identity 2) Photos But if a messenger wins, it will actually take over 1) Identity, and can potentially take over 2) Photos. This is because Messenger Apps has way more reach in terms of devices. If most people in the world use one service, or most people in the country use a service, this service can now become a platform for all sorts of things, but most importantly, in terms of monetization, it can be a platform for purchasing goods and services. Never in the history of this planet has there been anything like the Mobile Phone. Something everyone in the world could potentially have, and there is a chance that there can be a single service that almost everyone in the world uses. The author seems to be in his own personal bubble though. He lists Line, Kakao, WeChat, Kik as the only potential messengers that can become the biggest messaging platform. I don't believe this is true. It's possible for new entrants and even Facebook to win. It may also be that messaging stays fragmented in its current state without a unifying messenger for the entire world, with each messenger being ubiquitous to a country or region.

corry 13y ago
I wouldn't say he's in his own bubble. Each of those companies has a good head start of 100's of millions of DAILY ACTIVE users + apps that actually are great at what they do. Could Facebook still enter? Sure, but they've bought a few other messaging apps and done basically nothing with them. Could a fresher startup come in? Sure, you can never discount that. But the listed messaging apps are (a) not a zero sum game / mutually exclusive, and (b) already have a huge head start.
- kawera 13y ago
  (a) not a zero sum game / mutually exclusive This is a very important aspect. Like many others, I have friends using different messaging apps and it costs me almost nothing to have all of then running alongside each other.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Facebook's Messenger for Android is pretty good and when I write messages with it, people reply. This is why I think the Whatsapp acquisition makes no sense, unless it was a defensive move.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    I also did not understand it. First of all, if it wasn't for the aquisition I wouldn't even be aware Whatsapp exists, as none of my friends uses it. Second, a messaging application used to be a standard exercise to be done during network programming classes in my CS degree, so no big technical challenge to solve.

corry 13y ago

I wouldn't say he's in his own bubble. Each of those companies has a good head start of 100's of millions of DAILY ACTIVE users + apps that actually are great at what they do. Could Facebook still enter? Sure, but they've bought a few other messaging apps and done basically nothing with them. Could a fresher startup come in? Sure, you can never discount that. But the listed messaging apps are (a) not a zero sum game / mutually exclusive, and (b) already have a huge head start.

kawera 13y ago
(a) not a zero sum game / mutually exclusive This is a very important aspect. Like many others, I have friends using different messaging apps and it costs me almost nothing to have all of then running alongside each other.
bad_user 13y ago
Facebook's Messenger for Android is pretty good and when I write messages with it, people reply. This is why I think the Whatsapp acquisition makes no sense, unless it was a defensive move.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  I also did not understand it. First of all, if it wasn't for the aquisition I wouldn't even be aware Whatsapp exists, as none of my friends uses it. Second, a messaging application used to be a standard exercise to be done during network programming classes in my CS degree, so no big technical challenge to solve.