Most active commenters
  • owebmaster(4)

←back to thread

WhatsApp introduces ads in its app

(www.nytimes.com)
713 points greenburger | 25 comments | 16 Jun 25 13:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.485s | 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 #
1. phyrex ◴[17 Jun 25 10:27 UTC] No.44297519[source]▶
It's been 11 years. If they hadn't been bought they'd have found a different monetization model long ago
replies(3): >>44297725 #>>44297856 #>>44298154 #
2. owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 11:10 UTC] No.44297725[source]▶
WhatsApp make billions of dollars but Meta wants it to make hundreds of billions. There's no way to appease the dragon.
replies(2): >>44298245 #>>44299261 #
3. Crosseye_Jack ◴[17 Jun 25 11:31 UTC] No.44297856[source]▶
They kinda did. Before facebook brought them, the app cost $1/£1 per year (iirc your first year was free). Thing is back then MMS and/or texts across borders was expensive, so if you were regularly sending picture messages to people the $1/£1 sub was a no brainer.

Lets wave a magic wand and presume 50% of the user base thought it was also worth $1 a year and it grew just as well as it did (It was growing very well in the UK before the takeover just by word of mouth). That's still just a messaging app that would be raking in $1.5B per year today, and that's before you bolt on any paid cosmetics or upgrades (small things that users don't mind dropping a few more bucks on).

replies(4): >>44298551 #>>44298558 #>>44298592 #>>44301321 #
4. ◴[17 Jun 25 12:11 UTC] No.44298154[source]▶
5. xeromal ◴[17 Jun 25 12:20 UTC] No.44298245[source]▶
Curious how whatsapp makes any money besides the handful of companies that use it as a customer support portal
replies(3): >>44298755 #>>44300131 #>>44301145 #
6. pantulis ◴[17 Jun 25 12:54 UTC] No.44298551[source]▶
I happen to remember paying 1€ for Whatsapp.
7. nielsole ◴[17 Jun 25 12:54 UTC] No.44298558[source]▶
And my understanding back then was that enforcement of payment was via the honour system. It was even possible to pay for your contacts, likely to make it as low friction as possible especially as paying for something on the internet was still a relatively new thing.
replies(1): >>44298931 #
8. parthdesai ◴[17 Jun 25 12:58 UTC] No.44298592[source]▶
There's no way it would've gotten the adoption it did in 3rd world countries if you had to pay $1 per year.
replies(2): >>44299048 #>>44299146 #
9. owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 13:10 UTC] No.44298755{3}[source]▶
WhatsApp integrates into the rest of Meta ads machine so it distribute leads from facebook and instagram directly to whatsapp. It also makes money with spam.
replies(1): >>44302846 #
10. jonpurdy ◴[17 Jun 25 13:26 UTC] No.44298931{3}[source]▶
For $1 per contact, I'd be happy to pay for anyone I know, or ever meet in the future to keep a messaging platform ad-free/user-centric.
11. calt ◴[17 Jun 25 13:37 UTC] No.44299048{3}[source]▶
Thing is, it already was getting that adoption, and network effect can largely take care of the rest. Also, some it’s tied to a real phone number, geographic price differentiation is trivial to implement.
replies(1): >>44299426 #
12. 55555 ◴[17 Jun 25 13:45 UTC] No.44299146{3}[source]▶
I think it grew there when you had to pay. It was still cheaper than the alternative.
13. bachmeier ◴[17 Jun 25 13:53 UTC] No.44299261[source]▶
How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.
replies(3): >>44299581 #>>44299625 #>>44300626 #
14. kshacker ◴[17 Jun 25 14:07 UTC] No.44299426{4}[source]▶
Ok I paid the 1 buck, or agreed to pay a year later. Those days I lived in India, and my friend kinda forced me to use whatsapp by selling it. I still remember sitting in an auto-rickshaw and downloading the app after the sales pitch :) This must have been 2012, but could it be earlier - maybe.

Point being, I agree with you, it was getting that adoption anyways, even with the fees. And within months, I was hearing this from so many others.

How do I remember? I moved back to US in Feb 2013, so it had to be before that, just can not recall the exact year and month.

15. mikestew ◴[17 Jun 25 14:19 UTC] No.44299581{3}[source]▶
So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?
replies(1): >>44302798 #
16. Coffeewine ◴[17 Jun 25 14:23 UTC] No.44299625{3}[source]▶
What choice do we have? Indeed, I would rather prefer that the companies that comprise the broad market embrace some form of ESG ethos, but that's clearly out of vogue these days. I vote to that extent, but I'm a breathtakingly small portion of the vote when it comes to corporate governance.
replies(1): >>44308931 #
17. fnands ◴[17 Jun 25 15:05 UTC] No.44300131{3}[source]▶
> handful of companies

Go to India. Way more than just a handful of companies using it

18. owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 15:55 UTC] No.44300626{3}[source]▶
That is not my case. If Meta had minted thousands of millionaires in my country I would have way less problems with them
19. nathancahill ◴[17 Jun 25 16:49 UTC] No.44301145{3}[source]▶
On a global level it's completely pervasive.
20. mike_hearn ◴[17 Jun 25 17:06 UTC] No.44301321[source]▶
> the app cost $1/£1 per year

Not really. They claimed they'd charge this but then kept giving away free time to huge numbers of people because this wasn't an actual business model, they did it just to slow their growth down when they were running out of server capacity. It's discussed in some interview with the founder, iirc.

21. bachmeier ◴[17 Jun 25 19:17 UTC] No.44302798{4}[source]▶
Well, I'm saying we should be hesitant to immediately throw out blame for pursuing profit, because it's not just more money for Zuckerberg and other billionaires. If retirement funds were growing at 2%, the same people criticizing this decision would be looking for alternative investment vehicles.
22. phyrex ◴[17 Jun 25 19:20 UTC] No.44302846{4}[source]▶
WhatsApp makes absolutely no money with spam. There isn't a per-message cost or however you think that would work
replies(2): >>44303639 #>>44304830 #
23. hermanzegerman ◴[17 Jun 25 20:35 UTC] No.44303639{5}[source]▶
There absolutely is a per-conversation cost for marketing messages.

https://business.whatsapp.com/products/platform-pricing?coun...

See also here

>With marketing messages, you pay for each message that is delivered to a receiver you chose within five days of being sent.

https://faq.whatsapp.com/178447635241069?cms_id=178447635241...

24. owebmaster ◴[17 Jun 25 22:47 UTC] No.44304830{5}[source]▶
You are wrong.
25. account42 ◴[18 Jun 25 11:30 UTC] No.44308931{4}[source]▶
How would being actively discriminatory against a large part of the population help anything?