Support NeoGAF

[Malvingt2]

Vibers waaaaay better

You are crazy. Viber is horrible

 

[poppabk]

No, because dedicated users won't jump the ship for more of the same.

Why would anyone be dedicated to a SMS/IM replacement?

 

[Yaboosh]

It's probably a very low estimate.

Solving that sort of issue would be a logistical nightmare on an unparalleled scale.

Yep, if it were as easy as throwing $10b at it Gates would have already done it.

 

[Septimius]

Just try to imagine the following:

Every WhatsApp user transmits his phone's entire address book to WhatsApp. You don't have a choice, it does this automatically. Also, it doesn't matter if the other people in your address book actually use WhatsApp or not.

Let's say that each user transmits 4 (random guess) unique contacts to WhatsApp's servers, that's roughly 2 billion contact details.

So chances aren't that bad that they already have your contact details, even if you've never heard of WhatsApp before Just because someone who uses it has your number.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You register your number with WhatsApp. When you log on, you poll the server with your numbers. You get back a yes/no if the number is on WhatsApp. So yeah, they might have a lot of numbers, but they don't have any names. Those numbers are mostly public information, anyway.

 

[Emwitus]

Why would anyone be dedicated to a SMS/IM replacement?

For the same exact reason Facebook clones haven't been successful.
I personally have a long chat history there that I'm not giving up. This includes voice, video and text

 

[thenexus6]

I didn't even know that much money existed!

 

[Halcyon]

I downloaded WhatsApp. None of the 12 contacts in my phone have it. Even if they did, i wouldn't use it over Hangouts.

If somehow all my facebook contacts showed up in there, i still wouldn't use it. I don't use facebook messenger.


I hate talking to people.

 

[Septimius]

I downloaded WhatsApp. None of the 12 contacts in my phone have it. Even if they did, i wouldn't use it over Hangouts.

If somehow all my facebook contacts showed up in there, i still wouldn't use it. I don't use facebook messenger.


I hate talking to people.

Oh hey, look. You hate talking to people, so you find no use in an app that allows you to talk to people. Who would've guessed!

 

[Emwitus]

I know why is hard to understand for anyone in the U.S. since Whatsapp is just a simple IM application. The thing is it is huge in Latin America, which has a population nearing 600 million people, and that not counting the Latin American population in the U.S.

All my Hispanic friends use this app exclusively, even though must of them have iPhones. And Hispanics do not tend to care for privacy as Americans do (including me). I personally think this was an incredible acquisition for facebook, since a lot of U.S based companies are failing at targeting Latin America. There is a lot of money to be made for them in the region.

Its huge in africa and Europe too. All my contacts from my home country have it. Instant MMS and voice is amazing. The voice thing is intuitive in itself and pretty nifty if you ask me .

 

[Halcyon]

Oh hey, look. You hate talking to people, so you find no use in an app that allows you to talk to people. Who would've guessed!

that's the joke home slice.

 

[poppabk]

For the same exact reason Facebook clones haven't been successful.
I personally have a long chat history there that I'm not giving up. This includes voice, video and text

I guess I understand that, but I would imagine that most users consider it as a more disposable system though. I don't ever look at old chat logs, and if someone texts or messages me a picture that I want to keep I would save it elsewhere. Maybe I just don't 'get' how people are using this.

 

[MegaMelon]

that's the joke home slice.

Confused/10 would question relevance again.

Anyways, paying this much for it was a bit rash. Interested in seeing how they'll make up for it.

 

[Misterinenja]

Good for them I guess, but it's a shame that the app perfect for my social needs got bought by ones I dislike the most. They really can't stand having competition.

As long as I'm not seeing ads I'll keep using it though.

 

[numble]

For the same exact reason Facebook clones haven't been successful.
I personally have a long chat history there that I'm not giving up. This includes voice, video and text

People have abandoned Friendster and MySpace, many have abandoned Facebook for other social networks (some of which ended up beig bought up by Facebook), and the history of IM clients is a graveyard of clients that you'd think were indestructible at their time, only to realize that users are willing and able to migrate, even if it meant changing usernames, giving up chat histories, and reconstructing contact lists. You know how people used to say they wouldn't switch their carriers because they can't change their phone number? Now the ability to port numbers makes it easier for people to switch. Similarly, the ability to use your the exact same account number (your phone number) on other services and the ability to port your contact lists over, makes it very easy to switch.

 

[snack]

WhatsApp Plans Voice App for Devices From iPhone to Android

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...evices-from-iphone-to-android.html?cmpid=yhoo

 

[qizah]

I feel like Facebook has no direction. Buying all these applications, but if you're going to end up keeping Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp separate, what's the point besides simply buying out the competition.

$19 billion is a hell of a lot to simply just buy out the competitor, especially with something that could easily be taken over by something else in a few years.

 

[animus82]

I'd be pissed if I were a stockholder.

I own half a million dollars worth of shares and I ain't even mad one bit.

Growing their ad base is huge for them.

Soon, it doesn't matter if you hate Facebook or not. YOU WILL see their ads.

 

[animus82]

I feel like Facebook has no direction. Buying all these applications, but if you're going to end up keeping Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp separate, what's the point besides simply buying out the competition.

$19 billion is a hell of a lot to simply just buy out the competitor, especially with something that could easily be taken over by something else in a few years.

The point is to expand their marketing reach and keep competitors in check.

Same thing with instagram and that's paid out well.

When the next thing "big" thing comes out. Facebook will buy that, to expand their marketing reach.

Facebook is all about their ad network now. Same as Google.

IF You advertise on the internet it will be through two means. Facebook or google.

 

[Emwitus]

People have abandoned Friendster and MySpace, many have abandoned Facebook for other social networks (some of which ended up beig bought up by Facebook), and the history of IM clients is a graveyard of clients that you'd think were indestructible at their time, only to realize that users are willing and able to migrate, even if it meant changing usernames, giving up chat histories, and reconstructing contact lists. You know how people used to say they wouldn't switch their carriers because they can't change their phone number? Now the ability to port numbers makes it easier for people to switch. Similarly, the ability to use your the exact same account number (your phone number) on other services and the ability to port your contact lists over, makes it very easy to switch.

I haven't abandoned Facebook and the numbers show they are still a lot of active Facebook users. At this point whatsapp has a bigger userbase that are more active than MySpace ever was so that comparison isn't exactly a good one.

On switching, like I said, chat history is the main issue here not ease of adding contacts. And regardless, you still have to get your friends to install another app even if they have your contact. That's a chore.

So yes, this isn't a crazy undertaking by Facebook. Personally, whatsapp is my first im app and will probably be my last. No way I'm getting my parents and uncles/aunts in africa to change to a different one either. Lawd knows how hard it was to get them on whatsapp

 

[The Albatross]

Why would anyone be dedicated to a SMS/IM replacement?

You just described the rise of and inexplicable lingering on of AOL and Instant Messenger. An entire generation of teenagers who first explored the internet in the 1990s are still dedicated to the AIM system.

I have 5 or so friends who still think it's the primary way to communicate with some one on a computer and who have had the same screen names for like 15 years.

People are very dedicated to apps and ecosystems. The app you have today is already better than the better app that you don't have. The service you subscribe to today is already better than the better service that you don't have. I downloaded WhatsApp ages ago on my old android phone, registered, and never used it. Most of the late 20-30 year old Americans (me) I know don't know what WhatsApp is. But if you're 12 - 22 or live outside the United States, there's a much higher likelihood that it's part of your life. That's exactly the market Facebook wants these days, too.

 

[Emwitus]

I guess I understand that, but I would imagine that most users consider it as a more disposable system though. I don't ever look at old chat logs, and if someone texts or messages me a picture that I want to keep I would save it elsewhere. Maybe I just don't 'get' how people are using this.

As an example, me and one of my cousins entire chat history is only voice(cousin lives in Africa, I'm in the states). On the chat box? Right beside it where you would have the send button there Is a voice icon that you hold to record and release to send. So I just catch random moments and send. So I have a lot of that kind of history.

 

[Dunlop]

"Old school" SMS user here

Just picked up a Nexus 5 which uses Hangouts as the default SMS client

Any particular reason I should use WhatsApp instead?

 

[numble]

I haven't abandoned Facebook and the numbers show they are still a lot of active Facebook users. At this point whatsapp has a bigger userbase that are more active than MySpace ever was so that comparison isn't exactly a good one.

On switching, like I said, chat history is the main issue here not ease of adding contacts. And regardless, you still have to get your friends to install another app even if they have your contact. That's a chore.

So yes, this isn't a crazy undertaking by Facebook. Personally, whatsapp is my first im app and will probably be my last. No way I'm getting my parents and uncles/aunts in africa to change to a different one either. Lawd knows how hard it was to get them on whatsapp

If you want other good comparisons, the rise and relative decline of QQ and Weibo are also good comparisons. Chat history is not a big thing at all. You may value it, but that has always been there for all these other clients that had chat histories as well.

I don't think there is such thing as critical mass to make something too big to fail. Everything is always ripe for disruption, especially things that aren't as sticky as they seem.

You might not need to get them to install another app. They might ask you to. Why do people in the West end up installing Kakao, Line, and WeChat? Because their friends in Korea, Japan and China tell them to. It seems people in developed countries eventually favor homegrown solutions that are tailored to local needs, something that may be difficult for a small outfit like WhatsApp. WeChat, which is partially owned and developed by a South African company, is the fastest growing client in South Africa, for instance. It's now above WhatsApp on the iTunes App Store there.

http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/52567/wechat-shows-astonishing-growth/

WeChat announced in a press release on Friday, 31 January 2014, that it is now the top free app on the South African iTunes app store, beating out WhatsApp, BBM, and Facebook.

The instant messaging application also said that it is the fastest growing “mobile social communication” platform as per the Q4 2013 report from GlobalWebIndex (GWI).

According to WeChat, GWI reported that its platform grew 379% during the period Q2 to Q4 2013.

 

[Zoopa]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You register your number with WhatsApp. When you log on, you poll the server with your numbers. You get back a yes/no if the number is on WhatsApp. So yeah, they might have a lot of numbers, but they don't have any names. Those numbers are mostly public information, anyway.

oh ok. Then I probably see the display name of the contacts that I don't know and most of them in my football group happen to use their real names. Makes sense now that I think about it.

 

[numble]

This article echoes a lot of my feelings:
http://continuations.com/post/77698925932/facebook-massively-overpaid-for-whatsapp

A couple of days have passed since the news of the monster acquisition of WhatsApp by Facebook broke. More people have written about it already than I can possibly link to so I won’t even try. My immediate reaction just based on financial metrics was that Facebook massively overpaid but I wasn’t sure about the strategic side. Having had some time to think about that I am now convinced that this deal makes no sense.

Why? Because phone number based messenger apps can bootstrap very rapidly off the graph that is contained in people’s address books. We are witnessing that now with the Telegram Messenger app which apparently signed up nearly 5 million users yesterday. The UIs of all of these apps are virtually identical and are also extremely similar to the basic SMS UI that everyone around the world knows and understands. The combination means there is virtually no enduser lock in at the messaging layer.

So instead of paying $19 Billion, Facebook should and could have created its own version and promoted it via its massive network. I am quite convinced that they would have been able to get to half a billion users for a fraction of the amount of money! They could have promoted their version via Facebook itself and then spend a “cool” billion or two on advertising this globally and/or incentivizing installs. Let me repeat the key point: the switching cost for users on a phone number based messaging services is at or near zero (this is different for identity based services and even more so if they are a platform that third parties can integrate with such as WeChat and Kik — the latter is a USV portfolio company).

All the arguments being made about Facebook simply using its highly (over?) valued stock to buy a business don’t add up. If you buy something with sustainable revenue streams, then great and you should do that all day long (especially if your revenue / earnings multiple is higher than the target’s). But shelling out a lot of money for something that you will (likely) make free and on top of it paying close to or possibly above your own revenue multiple makes no sense. Neither does the argument that they were taking out a threat. How many times can you take out a threat at 10% of your market cap? And why would you pay that much to eliminate a threat, when you have a credible “build” alternative?

I guess if you can take WhatsApp and turn it into a copy of WeChat (which basically took WhatsApp and added on the equivalents of Skype, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Yelp and even taxi apps like Uber), you could monetize it to make it worthy of valuation. But at that point you've changed it so much further from where it is now, and you might as well have tried to build out your own version.

 

[MNC]

Can someone tell me why I prefer telegram over whatsapp and hangouts? It's crazy.

 

[numble]

Double post.

 

[numble]

So much for stickiness:

Conquistador: Telegram is flipping entire Latin America from WhatsApp... now #1 app in Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Bolivia.

https://twitter.com/teroterotero/status/437996466074701824

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5445864/telegram-messenger-hottest-app-in-the-world

When WhatsApp went down for four hours this weekend, nearly 5 million people signed up for messaging service Telegram. The app skyrocketed to the top of the App Store charts, and is now the top free app in 46 countries from Germany to Ecuador. In the US and several other countries, the app is no. 1 in the social networking category, ahead of Facebook, WhatsApp, Kik, and others.

...

Its rise isn’t only due to WhatsApp’s acquisition and subsequent downtime. "We have been the no. 1 app in Spanish, Arabic, and several Latin American app stores for several weeks before the Facebook deal happened," says Telegram's Markus Ra. "The growth was there — so the WhatsApp acquisition and problems merely multiplied the effect across all affected countries." According to app analytics site App Annie, Telegram started truly gaining steam on February 17th, days before the WhatsApp news even hit.

...

Telegram is interesting not just because of its stringent security standards, but also because it allows any developer to build a Telegram client of their own, and even for desktop computers. Most new messaging services today, including WhatsApp, build one-size-fits-all messaging apps and lock out third-party developers. It’s hard to blame them, since maintaining one federated language and security paradigm across dozens of apps is difficult. Also, making money off of a platform takes more thought than making money off a simple paid app. Yet, the Durovs’ VKontakte found a lot of success letting developers build alternate versions of its site. More importantly, Telegram operates as a non-profit organization, and doesn’t plan to charge for its services.

 

[Guevara]

That's the thing about messaging apps. There's always something new and better to switch to. AIM ruled my social life for a while, then Gchat was king, now I use iMessage mostly. I can't believe companies keep falling for it.

 

[Guevara]

A couple charts that I found interesting and explain the extreme purchase price:

http://om.co/2014/03/03/whatsapp-vs-facebook/

 

[pants]

So i'm going to be moving over to line soon, I dont want to be part of the facebook ecosystem

 

[linsivvi]

So much for stickiness:



https://twitter.com/teroterotero/status/437996466074701824

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/2/25/5445864/telegram-messenger-hottest-app-in-the-world

You might have a point with people switching platforms easily, but it's very dishonest to use the top download charts as an indication of anything. Obviously people who already have the app are not going to download it again unless there's an update. So when a new popular app launches it will have a better chance to go to the top. Newer apps are also less stable so they will have more updates.

Even with all that factored in, Telegram has fallen back behind Whatsapp in Argentina, Mexico and Chile as of today. I can't find data for the 3 other Latin American countries with the links provided.

At least wait a few months and look at their actual monthly active users as compared to Whatsapp before you launch that victory march.

 

[numble]

You might have a point with people switching platforms easily, but it's very dishonest to use the top download charts as an indication of anything. Obviously people who already have the app are not going to download it again unless there's an update. So when a new popular app launches it will have a better chance to go to the top. Newer apps are also less stable so they will have more updates.

Even with all that factored in, Telegram has fallen back behind Whatsapp in Argentina, Mexico and Chile as of today. I can't find data for the 3 other Latin American countries with the links provided.

At least wait a few months and look at their actual monthly active users as compared to Whatsapp before you launch that victory march.

It's not dishonest to use the top charts as an indication of popularity. I think it's dishonest to claim that the top charts can't be used "as an indication of anything." It's very easy to look at the top apps by just changing your country store or using something like AppAnnie. According to AppAnnie, Telegram is still #1 in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, as well as 30 other countries.


Updates of apps don't add on to the ranking, too many publishers would game the system otherwise. If you update and change the price, you actually reset your ranking. This prevents apps from trying to game the system by making an app free/cheap for a short while so that it can jump the charts, and then changed the price.

I don't see global messaging platforms as having much stickiness, given their history. The rise of regionally-specific favorites in places with higher smartphone penetration seem to highlight this.

Finally, I'm not launching a "victory march" for Telegram, simply pointing out that mobile messaging is far from monopolized by WhatsApp and combating the claims that nothing else can ever get popular with WhatsApp users. The history of messaging apps seem to disagree that these platforms actually are as sticky as people think. For another example, look at how fast WeChat has risen in China despite the fact that there are 800+ million QQ accounts.

 

[Exotoro]

wonder how much money facebook has? if they spent this much buying whatapp they might be out of business soon just for buying their competitors...

 

[linsivvi]

It's not dishonest to use the top charts as an indication of popularity. I think it's dishonest to claim that the top charts can't be used "as an indication of anything." It's very easy to look at the top apps by just changing your country store or using something like AppAnnie. According to AppAnnie, Telegram is still #1 in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, as well as 30 other countries.


Updates of apps don't add on to the ranking, too many publishers would game the system otherwise. If you update and change the price, you actually reset your ranking. This prevents apps from trying to game the system by making an app free/cheap for a short while so that it can jump the charts, and then changed the price.

I don't see global messaging platforms as having much stickiness, given their history. The rise of regionally-specific favorites in places with higher smartphone penetration seem to highlight this.

Finally, I'm not launching a "victory march" for Telegram, simply pointing out that mobile messaging is far from monopolized by WhatsApp and combating the claims that nothing else can ever get popular with WhatsApp users. The history of messaging apps seem to disagree that these platforms actually are as sticky as people think. For another example, look at how fast WeChat has risen in China despite the fact that there are 800+ million QQ accounts.

The very simple fact that you've dodge is that an instant messenger's popularity should be measured by active monthly users, not download charts. It is meaningless as far as measuring how many active users are actually using each messenger. I have not contested your claim of stickiness, I'm just questioning your use of download charts.

Beginning a post with "So much for stickiness" shows that you're just not being neutral with the numbers.

And stop with the QQ bullshit. WeChat took over because Tencent pushed WeChat over QQ. It would be like Facebook saying "Here, this is a better version of our app and you can use your Facebook account to sign in".

 

[numble]

The very simple fact that you've dodge is that an instant messenger's popularity should be measured by active monthly users, not download charts. It is meaningless as far as measuring how many active users are actually using each messenger. I have not contested your claim of stickiness, I'm just questioning your use of download charts.

Beginning a post with "So much for stickiness" shows that you're just not being neutral with the numbers.

And stop with the QQ bullshit. WeChat took over because Tencent pushed WeChat over QQ. It would be like Facebook saying "Here, this is a better version of our app and you can use your Facebook account to sign in".

I've dodge? I don't even know what that means.

If you follow the conversation I was having with multiple posters, they are talking about how nobody will leave WhatsApp, they were there first and nothing else can become popular because it was there first. Read the last paragraph again. It's about the stickiness argument, not some claim that Telegram has taken over. So much for stickiness--people are willing to switch to other clients, compared to arguments to the contrary where users are saying it is the last messaging app they'll ever download or that new apps won't gain any traction. I don't see how you can say you don't contest my claim of stickiness, and then say that saying "so much for stickiness" is an argument related to MAUs.

QQ still has more users than WeChat. You can use your WhatsApp "account" to login to Telegram as well (since it is just your phone number). I don't know if they really pushed QQ users over, I don't think I got any messages from them on QQ when WeChat came out. I think WeChat rose fast because of its simple account system, just like WhatsApp. Almost everyone I know that uses it just uses their phone number, not their QQ account.