←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 3 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andrepd ◴[16 Jun 25 14:00 UTC] No.44289568[source]▶
Would be nice if these kinds of articles would at least take a paragraph to plug some alternatives, such as Signal.
replies(6): >>44289598 #>>44289607 #>>44289679 #>>44289691 #>>44293594 #>>44295428 #
laurent123456 ◴[16 Jun 25 14:04 UTC] No.44289607[source]▶
As always network effect will be the problem. I know plenty of people on WhatsApp and almost nobody on Signal
replies(4): >>44289639 #>>44289698 #>>44290004 #>>44290024 #
stevage ◴[16 Jun 25 14:08 UTC] No.44289639[source]▶
I don't find there is much network effect for one on one messaging. I have to use a few different apps to talk to all my friends, it's not a big deal to switch to/from Signal or Whatsapp. With groups it's more effort.
replies(1): >>44289744 #
1. tiluha ◴[16 Jun 25 14:18 UTC] No.44289744[source]▶
This does not match my experience in Germany. If somebody gives you their phone number it is just expected that you can reach them on WhatsApp and i have yet to meet anyone that doesn't use WhatsApp.
replies(2): >>44293997 #>>44295452 #
2. standardUser ◴[16 Jun 25 22:32 UTC] No.44293997[source]▶
That seems true throughout the most of the Western world, excluding the US. I have a big WhatsApp network, but that's by virtue of living in SF and NY. Without big immigrant/expat/world-traveler communities, I think most of the US just uses iMessage or regular text.
3. stevage ◴[17 Jun 25 03:20 UTC] No.44295452[source]▶
Yeah, it's true that almost everyone has WhatsApp, but that doesn't by itself create a network effect. Do people refuse to use other platforms?