←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.395s | source
Show context
mrtksn ◴[] No.44289633[source]
Does anybody have stats on how many people are O.K. paying for their core services, i.e. how many people pay for paid personal e-mail services?

I just don't want to believe that our services have to be paid for through proxy by giving huge cut to 3rd parties. The quality goes down both as UX and as core content, our attention span is destroyed, our privacy is violated and our political power is being stolen as content gets curated by those who extract money by giving us the "free" services.

It's simply very inefficient. IMHO we should go back to pay for what you use, this can't go on forever. There must be way to turn everything into a paid service where you get what you paid for and have your lives enhanced instead of monetized by proxy.

replies(32): >>44289645 #>>44289703 #>>44289718 #>>44289745 #>>44289761 #>>44289772 #>>44289802 #>>44290036 #>>44293255 #>>44293334 #>>44293379 #>>44294057 #>>44294163 #>>44294406 #>>44294408 #>>44294581 #>>44294594 #>>44294635 #>>44295476 #>>44295719 #>>44295781 #>>44295934 #>>44296021 #>>44296753 #>>44297076 #>>44297147 #>>44297258 #>>44297386 #>>44297435 #>>44297650 #>>44300018 #>>44301446 #
Xenoamorphous ◴[] No.44293255[source]
I remember when Whatsapp became a paid app, I can’t remember the details as I believe they varied by platform (iOS vs Android) but it was either €0.79 or €0.99, I’m not sure if one off or yearly payment, but it doesn’t matter.

I, as the “computer guy”, had friends and family asking how to pirate it. This is coming from SMS costing €0.25 per message (text only!) and also coming from people who would gladly pay €3 for a Coke at a bar that they’d piss down the toilet an hour later. It didn’t matter if it only took 3 or 4 messages to make Whatsapp pay off for itself, as they were sending dozens if not hundreds of messages per day, either images, videos and whatnot (MMSs were much more expensive).

At that moment I realised many (most?) people would never pay for software. Either because it’s not something physical or because they’re stuck in the pre-Internet (or maybe music) mentality where copying something is not “stealing” as it’s digital data (but they don’t realise running Whatsapp servers, bandwidth etc cost very real money). And I guess this is why some of the biggest digital services are ad-funded.

In contrast, literally never someone has voiced privacy concerns, they simply find ads annoying and they’ve asked for a way to get rid of them (without paying, of course).

I should say, I’m from one of the European countries with the highest levels of piracy.

replies(15): >>44293400 #>>44293463 #>>44293507 #>>44293719 #>>44293802 #>>44293919 #>>44294071 #>>44294145 #>>44294513 #>>44295697 #>>44295943 #>>44296198 #>>44296331 #>>44307625 #>>44312675 #
cherryteastain ◴[] No.44294071[source]
On the other hand, I did pay the $1 for Whatsapp back in the day and I was promised it'd be ad free. Want that $1 back, I actually even deleted my account and uninstalled Whatsapp!
replies(1): >>44294138 #
fossuser ◴[] No.44294138[source]
I feel a bit for Brian Acton - iirc he refused to sell because the 500M users paying $500M dollars was more than enough to fund his tiny team (of 30?), but when the offer went up to 19B$ it's just kind of hard to turn down - there's extreme opportunity cost there. Most people would sell before that, 19B$ of principle is quite a lot.

I think it's just if you're empire building - and Zuck is insanely good at this, one of the best - then it'll never be optimal to charge vs. grow massively and then monetize the larger attention base.

Zuck is also in a trench warfare competition with other social media players, it's far from a monopoly. He's historically been more inclined to do things that were worse for growth, but better for users when they had more of a dominant position - but he can't do that anymore.

Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat. Instead they're going to be stuck with the modern equivalent of BBM while Zuck and Meta erase their only remaining stronghold in the US as iPhone users continue to move to WhatsApp.

replies(5): >>44294168 #>>44294206 #>>44294224 #>>44294226 #>>44294486 #
Zak ◴[] No.44294206[source]
Now Brian Acton has a huge pile of money to help fund Signal, so I don't think he has to feel too terrible about selling out.

> Somewhat relatedly Apple really missed an opportunity with iMessage. Had they timed it right they could have had a dominant cross platform chat.

Google also had the opportunity to do this. Around the same time iMessage launched, Google made Hangouts the default SMS app on Android with a similar capability to upgrade to Internet-based messaging when all parties to a conversation had it. Hangouts was cross-platform. Rumor has it carriers whined and Google caved.

I'm kind of glad Google doesn't have a dominant messaging service, but it's only true due to their own lack of commitment.

replies(1): >>44294364 #
RestlessMind ◴[] No.44294364[source]
I used Hangouts including the dogfood versions internally at Google. Problem was it was too complicated because it was designed by Googlers for Googlers. So it supported desktop and mobile, work email and personal email and phone numbers, text and video, and so on. In short, every single complexity conceivable was crammed into the app.

Whereas Whatsapp was simple - only phone numbers to sign up, only text and images, only mobile phones. That simplicity meant my parents could onboard smoothly and operate it without having to navigate a maze of UX. I literally saw Whatsapp winning in real time vs Hangouts and other alternatives.

replies(1): >>44294473 #
Zak ◴[] No.44294473[source]
Thanks for the insider perspective.

I used Hangouts for a while and had a bunch of contacts on it when it was Android's default SMS app. Many of them were not particularly technical, including one of my parents whom I don't recall telling to use it. If you were using an Android phone, you were probably already logged in to a Google account. iPhone users had to work a little harder for it (install the app and remember the password to the Gmail account they probably already had).

I don't recall the UX on the mobile client having extra complexity over other messaging apps if I didn't go digging in the settings, but it's been a while.

replies(3): >>44294522 #>>44294902 #>>44296446 #
simfree ◴[] No.44294522[source]
I think the concept of a user having an existing Gmail account if they aren't in the Google ecosystem is a bit of hubris.

There are many people I run across who bypassed the whole Gmail and Google Workspace ecosystems and have rolled along merrily with me.com and other email providers.

It's not a given that users will have bothered to register for a Google account unless they grew up in the Bay Area after a certain time period.

Wind back the clock to when Google tried to roll out Hangouts and the Gmail penetration rate was even lower among the non-Android users out there.

replies(1): >>44294610 #
Zak ◴[] No.44294610[source]
I'm just thinking of my own friends and family, who are mostly not tech nerds and none of whom live in the Bay area. Gmail launched with so much more storage than any other free email service everyone thought it was an April Fools joke (no doubt in part because it was launched on April 1). Everybody wanted it, and nobody who got an invite code before I did would give me theirs.

This is all anecdotal of course. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, but how quickly they gave up was weird.

replies(2): >>44294674 #>>44296882 #
1. chgs ◴[] No.44296882[source]
I remember laughing with colleagues as the first edition of the evening standard came in with the 1G gmail on the front page. I remember the exact location I saw it too.

couldn’t believe they had fallen for an April fools.

But that was a limited time window when gmail massively outweighed the 10-20mbit of things like hotmail with effectively unlimited storage.