←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 2 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.561s | source
Show context
d3vmax ◴[17 Jun 25 06:18 UTC] No.44296182[source]▶
Alice Newton-Rex, head of product at WhatsApp: “Alongside of private messaging, people were saying they wanted to hear more about topics, teams and organizations across WhatsApp.”

- I am pretty sure NO ONE asked to hear about more topics and organizations across whatsapp.

replies(18): >>44296234 #>>44296318 #>>44296357 #>>44296745 #>>44296815 #>>44296987 #>>44297065 #>>44297198 #>>44297231 #>>44297394 #>>44297429 #>>44297694 #>>44297901 #>>44298313 #>>44298320 #>>44298336 #>>44298717 #>>44317586 #
camillomiller ◴[17 Jun 25 06:49 UTC] No.44296318[source]▶
How do one cope on a day to day basis with this level of blatant bullshittery, apart from justifying it with a golden salary? Is this person aware that her role is to enact a farce, or even engineer such farce?
replies(5): >>44296474 #>>44296614 #>>44296730 #>>44296769 #>>44297072 #
yarekt ◴[17 Jun 25 07:41 UTC] No.44296614[source]▶
Pay for services that you use instead of forcing companies to rely on ad revenue to run their useful service?

I get it though, no one wants to pay for 100s of little free marginally useful things we use every day, but if you look back at what whatsapp did in the beginning, the £3 a year they were asking is so worth it

replies(6): >>44296628 #>>44296640 #>>44296671 #>>44296749 #>>44296755 #>>44296779 #
1. chii ◴[17 Jun 25 07:44 UTC] No.44296628[source]▶
at the beginning, they "charged" $1 (or £3 as you said), but this "fee" was often just waived. You never really had to pay it to use whatsapp. The money was there as a form of advertising, to differentiate whatsapp from the others - because by making it seem more premium via attaching a price, it makes the people using it feel more superior and thus the platform more easily propagates; and it's also why they "secretly" let you use it for free if you refused to pay.
replies(1): >>44296795 #
2. dontlaugh ◴[17 Jun 25 08:15 UTC] No.44296795[source]▶
FWIW, £3 is closer to $4.