←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 8 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.469s | source | bottom
Show context
b0a04gl ◴[17 Jun 25 06:18 UTC] No.44296183[source]▶
everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about revenue, it's about control. they’re reshaping a private messaging tool into a broadcast platform with tracking hooks. and most users won’t even notice until it’s too embedded to undo
replies(5): >>44296420 #>>44296685 #>>44296698 #>>44296875 #>>44297519 #
bootsmann ◴[17 Jun 25 08:28 UTC] No.44296875[source]▶
> most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws

Network effects are much much smaller for messaging apps vis-a-vis social networks because there is no problem in incrementally moving your DMs from one place to another.

replies(1): >>44297049 #
1. whiplash451 ◴[17 Jun 25 08:58 UTC] No.44297049[source]▶
There is a massive barrier to switching.

In order to switch, you also need to convince your acquaintances to switch.

Good luck with that.

replies(4): >>44297062 #>>44297240 #>>44298255 #>>44300908 #
2. bootsmann ◴[17 Jun 25 09:00 UTC] No.44297062[source]▶
There is no switching involved, you can have two apps installed at the same time. It's not a social network where posting to one means the people posting on the other won't see your stuff.
replies(2): >>44297118 #>>44297245 #
3. amelius ◴[17 Jun 25 09:09 UTC] No.44297118[source]▶
You are ignoring chat groups here.
4. aleph_minus_one ◴[17 Jun 25 09:33 UTC] No.44297240[source]▶
> In order to switch, you also need to convince your acquaintances to switch.

Rather: you have to to convince yourself to be willing to make it a little bit harder, if necessary, for these acquaintances to contact you. :-)

5. swarnie ◴[17 Jun 25 09:34 UTC] No.44297245[source]▶
You're always going to send the message on the app with 100% coverage.

I'm not switching apps to send the same message to 50% of people and then again to 100% resulting in some switchers getting it twice.

And lets be honest, people dont walk around recommending chat apps to each other. It hasn't been 2010 for at least five years.

6. upcoming-sesame ◴[17 Jun 25 12:22 UTC] No.44298255[source]▶
This needs a regulatory involvement (for federation)
replies(1): >>44300542 #
7. alternatex ◴[17 Jun 25 15:48 UTC] No.44300542[source]▶
That already happened in EU with trying to force leading communications platforms to integrate with at least one competitor. I remember an initiative to make WhatsApp integrate with (wait for it..) Skype.

I'm not sure how or why it fizzled out.

8. barbazoo ◴[17 Jun 25 16:26 UTC] No.44300908[source]▶
When I did it, because my phone supports multiple apps being installed at the same time, I was able to do it gradually. Most people I know do have a second option to reach them so it wasn't a problem at all.