4 ms·
I think trying to monitize the way they did was a big mistake. A social network isn't really a business tool and mass-market consumers aren't ready to shell our
by arielm 12y ago
I think trying to monitize the way they did was a big mistake. A social network isn't really a business tool and mass-market consumers aren't ready to shell our a monthly fee for a new and unnecessary way to communicate.
Twitter, the giant that's integrated into pretty much everywhere, is still fighting for engagement and new signups. So for a company to come and challenge them with such a vague value proposition is plain bad.
- yllus 12y agoI think that makes sense. I wonder though if WhatsApp is an outlier - did they always charge a flat fee to use their messenger client, or is that a recent thing (after they attracted immense numbers of users)?
- arielm 12y agoThat's a somewhat different use-case though because the alternative (text-messages) always had some sort of price tag, and iMessage wasn't around when WhatsApp started.
- comex 12y agoWhatsApp also is free for a year, literally costs $1 per year after that, and is for phones, which generally have a fast payment process. The friction is a lot less!
- Raphael 12y agoThere were free mobile clients for email, Skype, Google Talk, AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, etc.
- arielm 12y agoTrue, but they're only extending an existing service you have to be a part of.
- Raphael 12y agoIt was always free for the first year and 99 cents per year thereafter. This is pretty clever, because they get the network effect of a free service, plus the door is open to add premium content or services.