Support NeoGAF

[M3d10n]

Thats like trying to get my family who plays COD over to World of Warcraft... it never works. Useless for me, but cool otherwise I suppose. Have fun with it guys

You literally just need to install it. There's no account creation or anything like that, it's nearly frictionless. Your phone number is your account and the app will do all the work by itself most of the time.

 

[Slayer-33]

You literally just need to install it. There's no account creation or anything like that, it's nearly frictionless. Your phone number is your account and the app will do all the work by itself most of the time.

Exactly.

Excellent point.

 

[numble]

It seemed ridiculously overpriced to me, and then I read this post from Yglesias, and thought it was over priced and short sighted.


Once text and data start being charged at the same rate, the benefit of using it to get around texting limits goes away, and they're left with a bunch of people to sell ads to. I just don't see how that's worth $19b.

That's only if you understand it existing solely as an SMS replacement. The carriers don't have the infrastructure (and would have to work together, across countries as well) to implement all the social and group hooks, voice messaging, servers to connect to when on WiFi, etc.

 

[Pingoreous]

You don't dump it all at once, obviously. The holders of the $12B in stock wouldn't care if selling makes FB looks bad or else they wouldn't choose to sell. That stock will probably be worth much more than $12B in a couple years.

If the downward trend for Facebook continues it might be worth less. The OP mention with $19B you can buy so and so companies but i was just pointing out not to be amazed by the $19B number. That number is padded by stock options and looks like they wasted money when it's cyber space money.

 

[Prophet Steve]

It seemed ridiculously overpriced to me, and then I read this post from Yglesias, and thought it was over priced and short sighted.


Once text and data start being charged at the same rate, the benefit of using it to get around texting limits goes away, and they're left with a bunch of people to sell ads to. I just don't see how that's worth $19b.

With group messages, easily being able to share pictures and sound clips I doubt that people would go back to texting if that happens.

 

[n!smo]

I get that, but $19bn? That's just beyond any reason. What if people move on to the next app/site? Rinse repeat?

$19bn just screams desperation. As someone already said, with this acquisition they are just avoiding to suffer the same fate as myspace.

But what I don´t understand: The other day, I watched a documentary where they showed the facebook campus - one of the best workplaces. However, nowadays most of the innovation out of facebook still fail miserably, like poke or every new facebook feature.

They still don´t have the much needed competence internally which means they have to buy it externally. What the hell are these guys at facebook doing? To some part, this aquisition is also a proof for the inability of the folks at facebook to output innovations, even with all the freedom they have.

 

[M3d10n]

Once text and data start being charged at the same rate, the benefit of using it to get around texting limits goes away, and they're left with a bunch of people to sell ads to. I just don't see how that's worth $19b.

I agree $19b is ridiculous, but that'll never happen.

Why would phone companies ever do this? Charging for SMS is basically free money. Heck, they charge you more for international SMS, which is utter bullshit. Also, SMS will never work via wifi, the infrastructure is not there. You can actually use Whatsapp without a data plan if you connect solely via wifi.

 

[Bear]

I don't think they think they can make it profitable, at least not to the tune of $19 billion+inflation. Like it was said previously, it was a ransom, especially since there was a bidding war with Google. Whatsapp was capable of stealing all of its users and not trying to make much money off them with low fees and no ads (easy to support with so few employees). This purchase takes a competitor out of the market, and Facebook is flush with money to pay for it.

What I meant was that it could be made much more profitable than it is now. Whether they can make up the $19 billion purchase price is up for debate, but my point is that the company is definitely worth far more due to its user base than their current profits indicate. Even if they don't directly introduce ads to Whatsapp (which I'm sure they are considering), there is plenty of money they could make through data mining and expanding Facebook's global user base, especially in Asia and Latin America.

Facebook has an annual revenue of ~$6.5 billion in annual revenue with the userbase they have now, with the mobile division growing fastest and now representing around half their revenue. Whatsapp could bolster that significantly if they play this right, especially if they want to avoid the obsolescence of past social networks.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

Pretty sure they do.
If not, I know that Trillian does, which provides the functionality of serveral messengers in one (including AIM and Yahoo)

I'm still not seeing what it's doing that hasn't been possible with other programs for ages (aside from the no ads thing I guess)

When someone says that it's the best thing for instant communication, I figure it's fair game to point out there are other methods which are much better at it.

Another poster mentions how easy it is to use without the need for account registration or passwords. It basically makes use of your contacts list. Basically you activate and then it works. Can you say the same about these other methods?

Why would I start using SMS again? It's terrible in comparison.

It's less of service providers forcing you to use SMS again and more of them slowly adjusting data charges to make more money. Mine used to offer 10gb worth of data and 360 SMSs per month but 1 year or so ago it revamped the plan and the plan now only gives a 2 gb data plan and at least double the SMSs. They realised that their customers rarely go over that 10 gb limit so they trimed it down to make more money and offer data add-ons instead. If data charges continue to increase in the future, consumers would not be paying less than they did when they were using pure SMSs services. You might get more value for your buck (due to data being inherently more useful than SMSs) but you might not save money.

 

[hachi]

Yes, it does, and that's the secret to its success: it combines the strengths of texting and internet IM into one service.

1) Just like texting, there's no need to register e-mail accounts, to remember passwords nor to add friends.

2) Just like internet-based IM, you don't pay per message and can exchange messages with anyone anywhere in the world using your wifi or mobile internet connection.

For many people it's "free SMS over wifi", which I'm sure it's instant install in many countries where SMS is exploitatively expensive (many places charge for long distance and international SMS).

Plus, there are other added benefits:

- You can send photos, videos and audio (SMS can do it too, but it's often even more expensive and you often need to sign up for additional services).

- It shows if and when a message was viewed. No more guessing whether someone ever got that SMS or not.

- You can also create "groups": send a message to a group and everyone receives it and vice-versa. This is incredibly useful and impossible via SMS.

Again, it sounds like it offers nothing feature-wise over the iMessage functionality that is already built into all iOS devices, which handles the "free SMS over WiFi" requirement as well as smoothly using pictures, videos, etcetera.

Except, perhaps, for the feature of showing whether a text has been read, but I would personally never want that in any shape or form, because there's absolutely nothing worse I can envision than not being able to blow off messages quietly when you're simply not ready or willing to respond to someone.

But of course, iMessage is iOS only, so I understand the need for this if you're trying to communicate across differing platforms.

 

[terrisus]

Another poster mentions how easy it is to use without the need for account registration or passwords. It basically makes use of your contacts list. Basically you activate and then it works. Can you say the same about these other methods?

This is true, those don't do that. So, I suppose if one sees that as a plus, there's that.

I'd prefer a program not go digging through my contacts though.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

When someone says that it's the best thing for instant communication, I figure it's fair game to point out there are other methods which are much better at it.

He said "app".

Preeeeetty lame.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Trying to explain to people what Whatsapp really is is really difficult, especially when you have lots of americans going "Hurr durr it's just instant messaging like iMessage, what's the deal?!"

It's used by everyone. iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone, it doesn't matter.

Your contact point is your telephone number, so it's perfect. Of course you can add your own name, profile photo, status, etcetera.

You can have unlimited group chats. This is the killer feature. I have a group chat for family members, a few groups of classmates, coworkers, small event-related chats for birthdays and get-togethers, etcetera.
Of course, one-on-one chats are just as easy. Just tap the name in your contact list.

It sends almost everything. Share images, voice clips, video's, links, contacts, locations and more with a single button.
It's also customizable with backgrounds, titles and profile images for all groups.

It's really not weird that this service catched on big time. It shits over everything else.

 

[numble]

What I meant was that it could be made much more profitable than it is now. Whether they can make up the $19 billion purchase price is up for debate, but my point is that the company is definitely worth far more due to its user base than their current profits indicate. Even if they don't directly introduce ads to Whatsapp (which I'm sure they are considering), there is plenty of money they could make through data mining and expanding Facebook's global user base, especially in Asia and Latin America.

Facebook has an annual revenue of ~$6.5 billion in annual revenue with the userbase they have now, with the mobile division growing fastest and now representing around half their revenue. Whatsapp could bolster that significantly if they play this right, especially if they want to avoid the obsolescence of past social networks.

I don't think its up for debate whether it can be more profitable than it is now. People are arguing whether it can be monetized to recoup the cost. I can buy a lemonade stand that is selling lemonade for 5¢ each and make it more profitable. Does it mean I should pay $1 million for the lemonade stand?

 

[terrisus]

He said "app".

Preeeeetty lame.

Alright, if the claim is that it's the "best app for instant communication," then it just highlights in general how inferior apps as a whole are compared to other options.

 

[freshlylickedcat]

If the downward trend for Facebook continues it might be worth less. The OP mention with $19B you can buy so and so companies but i was just pointing out not to be amazed by the $19B number. That number is padded by stock options and looks like they wasted money when it's cyber space money.

I see. In that case, I agree. I was a short term investor for FB with a couple thousand shares, I made my money and never looked back. Facebook is a momentum stock, and anything resembling bad news gives traders an excuse to short it. It sort of defies logic like Twitter, in that they are valued far too high for what they actually are. FB's market cap is ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

This is true, those don't do that. So, I suppose if one sees that as a plus, there's that.

I'd prefer a program not go digging through my contacts though.

There are other instant messaging apps that only add friends when you manually do so. But those would still do a scan of your contacts but make the process of friend adding manual. An example is the app called LINE. That also gives you the option to sign up for a free account for additional functions and features.

I wouldn't say that What's app digs through your contacts though, It merely uses your phone book the way you would if you were to call or text using your phone's basic calling and texting functions.

Alright, if the claim is that it's the "best app for instant communication," then it just highlights in general how inferior apps as a whole are compared to other options.

Again, how are apps inferior to other options?

 

[sqwarlock]

Maybe it's because I don't have more than four people that I text regularly, but I'm with everyone else on not seeing why I would use this over the built-in iOS app. I can definitely see its use, but, like a lot of other big acquisitions, I don't understand why they'd spend so much money on it.

 

[BocoDragon]

Trying to explain to people what Whatsapp really is is really difficult, especially when you have lots of americans going "Hurr durr it's just instant messaging like iMessage, what's the deal?!"

It's used by everyone. iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone, it doesn't matter.

Your contact point is your telephone number, so it's perfect. Of course you can add your own name, profile photo, status, etcetera.

You can have unlimited group chats. This is the killer feature. I have a group chat for family members, a few groups of classmates, coworkers, small event-related chats for birthdays and get-togethers, etcetera.
Of course, one-on-one chats are just as easy. Just tap the name in your contact list.

It sends almost everything. Share images, voice clips, video's, links, contacts, locations and more with a single button.
It's also customizable with backgrounds, titles and profile images for all groups.

It's really not weird that this service catched on big time. It shits over everything else.

iMessage isn't really the best alternative. Americans use Facebook for the same purpose.

Japanese use Line.

Koreans use KakaoTalk.

It's not like WhatsApp is the only option... it just caught on in multitudes of countries for whatever reason.

 

[Bomber Bob]

1) Just like texting, there's no need to register e-mail accounts, to remember passwords nor to add friends.

I don't get it, so your phone number is like your password? What if you fake your number to the phone os?

 

[cybamerc]

I don't get it. Aren't unlimited texts/mms the norm in most developed nations? I sure as hell don't pay per sms. Internationally it's another matter but with the EU abolishing roaming charges surely it can only be a matter of time before international texting is unlimited as well.

 

[Pingoreous]

I see. In that case, I agree. I was a short term investor for FB with a couple thousand shares, I made my money and never looked back. Facebook is a momentum stock, and anything resembling bad news gives traders an excuse to short it. It sort of defies logic like Twitter, in that they are valued far too high for what they actually are. FB's market cap is ridiculous.

Wow am glad you came out on top. Yeah this whole information age companies do defy logic lol.

 

[numble]

I don't get id, so your phone number is like your password? What if you fake your number to the phone os?

They can verify you are the person by contacting you. On your phone.

 

[Hoo-doo]

iMessage isn't really the best alternative. Americans use Facebook for the same purpose.

Japanese use Line.

Koreans use KakaoTalk.

It's not like WhatsApp is the only option... it just caught on in multitudes of countries for whatever reason.

Lol, Facebook is just as huge here as it is in the states, don't kid yourself.
Whatsapp just shits all over it in terms of simple communication in every way, shape and form.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

I don't get id, so your phone number is like your password? What if you fake your number to the phone os?

Think of What's app as an enhanced texting app that replaces your phone's inbuilt text app. It's that seamless. No ID. no password.

I was once dismissive and wondered what the fuss what when I first got my smartphone and a 3G plan. Once I installed it I barely touch my SMSs these days except for the odd person who doesn't use What's app or have a data plan.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I don't get id, so your phone number is like your password? What if you fake your number to the phone os?

It reads it off the SIM or through the network, so anyone that fakes it is probably commiting a crime, and that's a very tiny of sliver of people that might go through the effort to do that.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Why is this not popular in the US?

Because the USA uses cheques to pay for things and does measurement using the imperial system. They have therefore chosen to stick with SMS. Didn't you get the fax about it?!

 

[BocoDragon]

Lol, Facebook is just as huge here as it is in the states, don't kid yourself.
Whatsapp just shits all over it in terms of simple communication in every way, shape and form.

Yes, but this is what Americans are using for their cross-platform group chat, etc.

People aren't using WhatsApp because it's better than any number of alternative options. It just caught on in certain markets, and people use what their peers use.

 

[Slayer-33]

Because the USA uses cheques to pay for things and does measurement using the imperial system. They have therefore chosen to stick with SMS. Didn't you get the fax about it?!

Hilarious lol

 

[Pingoreous]

When you're hot you're hot, just ask the Flappy bird guy. I still want a straight answer from that guy. Facebook came up with that ridiculous number and they took it. Don't blame them one bit.

 

[M3d10n]

Pretty sure they do.
If not, I know that Trillian does, which provides the functionality of serveral messengers in one (including AIM and Yahoo)



I'm still not seeing what it's doing that hasn't been possible with other programs for ages (aside from the no ads thing I guess)



When someone says that it's the best thing for instant communication, I figure it's fair game to point out there are other methods which are much better at it.

I was in your position before using it. I'm a grumpy antisocial guy who is always late to these things. I don't have a Twitter account. I though, "why is this popular? it's no different than AIM/MSN/whatever". I was wrong, so let me show you why you're also wrong:

Your phone number is your account.

This simply detail changes everything. You don't need an e-mail account to "sign up". You don't create a password you need to remember. Your phone contact list is your Whatsapp "friends list".

All you need to use it is to install it. There's an automated setup to confirm that your phone number is really yours, but that's often painless and automated (it sends a SMS to yourself).

If you try to message someone who doesn't use Whatsapp, it'll inform you about it and ask if you want to SMS them a link to install the app.

The actual service is indeed no different than standard internet messaging. Send images, videos, audio, group messaging and so on. It's the entry point that's brilliant.

Heck, thinking about it, maybe that's the reason why Facebook bought them: the phone-number-as-account thing.

 

[BocoDragon]

When you're hot you're hot, just ask the Flappy bird guy. I still want a straight answer from that guy.

Still crying in a pile of money.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Yes, but this is what Americans are using for their cross-platform group chat, etc.

People aren't using WhatsApp because it's better than any number of alternative options. It just caught on in certain markets, and people use what their peers use.

That's fine. Facebook chat is used widely here as well, mostly when reaching out to people where you don't know their number yet.

But really, the functionality and ease-of-use of the two are uncomparable. Get it together, 'murrica.

 

[Bear]

I don't think its up for debate whether it can be more profitable than it is now. People are arguing whether it can be monetized to recoup the cost. I can buy a lemonade stand that is selling lemonade for 5¢ each and make it more profitable. Does it mean I should pay $1 million for the lemonade stand?

No, but a lot of posters here people are undervaluing it. Although it's not popular in here in North America, I don't think a lot of people realize how this service dominates social networking around the world.

In terms of cost per user, they are paying much less than the average Facebook user is worth (around $40 vs $170). This deal could pay off if they can monetize the average Whatsapp user to a fraction of the extent of Facebook, especially at the rate it is growing now. The buying price won't make it easy to turn a profit, but it's feasible.

 

[RangerX]

I've never even heard of whatsapp. It can't be that popular.

 

[BocoDragon]

I was in your position before using it. I'm a grumpy antisocial guy who is always late to these things. I don't have a Twitter account. I though, "why is this popular? it's no different than AIM/MSN/whatever". I was wrong, so let me show you why you're also wrong:

Your phone number is your account.

This simply detail changes everything. You don't need an e-mail account to "sign up". You don't create a password you need to remember. Your phone contact list is your Whatsapp "friends list".

All you need to use it is to install it. There's an automated setup to confirm that your phone number is really yours, but that's often painless and automated (it sends a SMS to yourself).

If you try to message someone who doesn't use Whatsapp, it'll inform you about it and ask if you want to SMS them a link to install the app.

The actual service is indeed no different than standard internet messaging. Send images, videos, audio, group messaging and so on. It's the entry point that's brilliant.

Heck, thinking about it, maybe that's the reason why Facebook bought them: the phone-number-as-account thing.

That IS the big differentiation from other IM services... I think you're right.

I think that's why it's so popular in developing countries.

"Register with an email address"

"Uh, I don't have an email address because this is my first internet device... and I don't even really have a long term concept of what 'register' means. But this WhatsApp just works."

 

[M3d10n]

I don't get it, so your phone number is like your password? What if you fake your number to the phone os?

When you install Whatsapp for the first time, it needs to confirm that your phone number is yours. It reads your number from the SIM then sends a SMS with an activation code to it. If the SMS fails, you have the option to get a voice call with the number (works in a whole bunch of countries too).

After the number is confirmed, a login token is generated and stored in the device. So you can't really fake the number.

That IS the big differentiation from other IM services... I think you're right.

I think that's why it's so popular in developing countries.

"Register with an email address"

"Uh, I don't have an email address because this is my first internet device... and I don't even really have a long term concept of what 'register' means. But this WhatsApp just works."

Nah, it's actually the "it sends free SMS via wifi? I NEED IT!" bit. They charge ridiculous fees for SMS over here and everybody has wifi at work, shopping malls and other places.

 

[Pingoreous]

Still crying in a pile of money.

lol yeah.

 

[Slayer-33]

The actual service is indeed no different than standard internet messaging. Send images, videos, audio, group messaging and so on. It's the entry point that's brilliant.

Heck, thinking about it, maybe that's the reason why Facebook bought them: the phone-number-as-account thing.

Whatsapp features execution is vastly superior to default phone sms/mms system. I know you know this don't be so modest bro.

 

[freshlylickedcat]

Wow am glad you came out on top. Yeah this whole information age companies do defy logic lol.

Thank you! It does defy logic, which is precisely why it's best to invest in companies like P&G, coca cola, General Mills, etc...

 

[kodecraft]

Who cares. It's their money and they can spend it however (albeit foolishly) they want to.

This.

 

[BocoDragon]

That's fine. Facebook chat is used widely here as well, mostly when reaching out to people where you don't know their number yet.

But really, the functionality and ease-of-use of the two are uncomparable. Get it together, 'murrica.

Well let me put it to you this way: I have had the WhatsApp app on my phone for three years. No one has ever sent me anything on it.

I get messages on FB from locals. I get messages on Line from my Japanese friends. I get messages on KakaoTalk from Korean friends.

If I make friends in Europe, Latin America or China, I'm sure I'll start getting WhatsApp messages.

So how would we "switch" since an entire culture around us would have to switch too? And by the way, WhatsApp is a crap app compared to the new FB messenger, Line and KakaoTalk. I wouldn't want to switch... it's the lesser IM app on my phone.

Nah, it's actually the "it sends free SMS via wifi? I NEED IT!" bit. They charge ridiculous fees for SMS over here and everybody has wifi at work, shopping malls and other places.

Yeah but many IM apps do that. Why WhatsApp? I'm trying to agree with your point that "no sign up" is the advantage here.

 

[BPoole]

I've never even heard of Whatsapp. Shows how out of the social media loop I am

 

[M3d10n]

Whatsapp features execution is vastly superior to default phone sms/mms system. I know you know this don't be so modest bro.

I said "internet messaging". The feature set isn't that different form MSN, Jabber, AIM and Yahoo. It's light years ahead SMS/MMS, of course.

Ah, sending videos *is* better than any other IM I know, because they actually host it in multiple resolutions and formats to be compatible with all platforms. I can actually watch videos sent from iPhones on my Nokia Asha.

 

[numble]

No, but a lot of posters here people are undervaluing it. Although it's not popular in here in North America, I don't think a lot of people realize how dominant this service is around the world. In terms of cost per user, they are paying much less than the average Facebook user is worth (around $40 vs $170). This deal could pay off if they are anywhere near as effective in monetizing Whatsapp's user base, especially at the rate it is growing now.

I don't think they are undervaluing it by saying $19 billion is too much. Mobile users and developing market users should be valued less, especially since mobile ads are less profitable, and developing market users are monetized at a lower rate.

I think they are taking a rising competitor out of the market, especially a competitor that was being pursued by a major competitor (Google). That's the only way you go from a $10 billion bid to a $19 billion purchase price.

And I personally think social/IM clients are still inherently risky propositions, given their history of rising and falling in line with innovations and fads. The phone number feature is innovative, but is already mimicked by other clients.

 

[t26]

If I make friends in Europe, Latin America or China, I'm sure I'll start getting WhatsApp messages.

China is pretty much WeChat.

 

[Akahige]

http://thingsthatarecheaperthanwhatsapp.tumblr.com/?og=1

Yeah, it's crazy.

goddam clean water $10b is not as much as i thought why can't this happen.

 

[Sepp]

That's what your private data is worth people. IMO Facebook, Whatsapp and co. should be outlawed and their CEOs thrown into prison.

 

[terrisus]

I was in your position before using it. I'm a grumpy antisocial guy who is always late to these things. I don't have a Twitter account. I though, "why is this popular? it's no different than AIM/MSN/whatever". I was wrong, so let me show you why you're also wrong:

Your phone number is your account.

This simply detail changes everything. You don't need an e-mail account to "sign up". You don't create a password you need to remember. Your phone contact list is your Whatsapp "friends list".

All you need to use it is to install it. There's an automated setup to confirm that your phone number is really yours, but that's often painless and automated (it sends a SMS to yourself).

If you try to message someone who doesn't use Whatsapp, it'll inform you about it and ask if you want to SMS them a link to install the app.

The actual service is indeed no different than standard internet messaging. Send images, videos, audio, group messaging and so on. It's the entry point that's brilliant.

Heck, thinking about it, maybe that's the reason why Facebook bought them: the phone-number-as-account thing.

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it.
That does make things easier to understand.

 

[Cromat]

Most of the 19 billion is in Facebook stock, which is an overvalued currency. Facebook knows that their stock will not remain at this level for long so they might as well put it into good use by buying out a major competitor.

It's not insane, it's just incredibly defensive. I think it shows a lack of confidence on the part of Facebook: they feel their stock is overvalued and will tank and they see no other way forward but to acquire the competition.