Slashdot Mirror


Facebook To Buy WhatsApp

Facebook has announced an agreement to buy WhatsApp, the mobile messaging platform used by over 450 million people. The deal involves $4 billion in cash and an additional $12 billion in Facebook stock. They say WhatsApp will remain independent; its headquarters won't move, and it will continue to exist separately from Facebook's Messenger app. Mark Zuckerberg indicated they will focus on growth: 'Over the next few years, we're going to work hard to help WhatsApp grow and connect the whole world. We also expect that WhatsApp will add to our efforts for Internet.org, our partnership to make basic internet services affordable for everyone.' On WhatsApp's blog, they say, "Here’s what will change for you, our users: nothing. WhatsApp will remain autonomous and operate independently."

199 comments

  1. Beta's not that bad by DeTech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The only thing worse than beta is all these anti-beta's out there.

    1. Re:Beta's not that bad by TubeSteak · · Score: 0

      Keep your beta.
      Just don't take away my Classic.

      D1 for life.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Beta's not that bad by DeTech · · Score: 1

      AC's be hatin'. the pain, the pain.

    3. Re:Beta's not that bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're at it, question marks aren't lead with a space and they belong on the inside of quotation marks.

    4. Re:Beta's not that bad by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      While we're at it, question marks aren't lead

      That's right, they're not made from Element #82.

      with a space

      (They're not preceded by spaces, either.)

      and they belong on the inside of quotation marks.

      Sometimes Yes, sometimes No; it depends on the context. If you're asking a question about what's quoted, then the question mark goes on the outside. So in this case, he's right and you're wrong.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Beta's not that bad by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Why dont somebody just write a browser plugin that enforces the "classic" site and nukes any threads about "beta"?

  2. Oh Good by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We also expect that WhatsApp will add to our efforts for Internet.org, our partnership to make basic internet services affordable for everyone

    Yet another attempt to control the Internet.

    They're coming. And they will not stop until they own it or destroy it.

    The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls. We lose it and we're looking at 1000 years of darkness.

    1. Re:Oh Good by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Join the Resistance! Enlightened seeks to enslave us to the .... wait this isn't an Ingress thread is it?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Oh Good by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls.

      Yep, Skype's gone, and now WhatsApp will be ruined.

      Are there any open and demonstrably secure voice/video chat/IM etc applications in the pipeline that anyone's aware of?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Oh Good by alostpacket · · Score: 3, Informative

      Was WhatsApp ever secure or open? Wasn't it just a proprietary wrapper for xmpp?

      There are other jabber/xmpp/jingle clients out there. I'm not sure what is the best client but pidgin works well for most things IIRC. Miranda IM may also be worth a look, or Adium. All three are a GPL or similar license I think.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    4. Re:Oh Good by Burz · · Score: 1

      RedPhone and TextSecure can do voice and text: https://whispersystems.org/

    5. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it isn't open source (was skype open?), Blackberry Messenger (BBM) meets all your requirement. And is now also available for Android OS and ios.

    6. Re:Oh Good by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

      linphone?

    7. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, we did just fine without internet. I know, because I was born in the 70's.

      It will probably become some kind of TV (a kind of fly lamp for ad-viewers). But then other networks for the content creators will arise.

    8. Re:Oh Good by itsthebin · · Score: 1

      I have moved over to Line

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    9. Re:Oh Good by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      But openness and security depend on what server you connect to, not on what client you use, isn't it?

    10. Re:Oh Good by savuporo · · Score: 1

      And if you connect to a "server", you already lost.
      Only truly decentralized solutions will save you. Neither Skype or WhatsApp ever were that.

      "Internet" is broken at many layers, starting from DNS and SSL, fix the trust models first and everything else can follow after.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    11. Re:Oh Good by OpenSourced · · Score: 2

      Try Threema. Fully encrypted. But not free. And nobody you know will have it, most likely.

      In any case I wonder at so much money paid for an app to which the telecom operators can put an end to in 2 weeks, just by dropping to 0 the price of messaging. Risky, I'd say.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    12. Re:Oh Good by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      The hipocrisy on an ONG that want to impose closed protocols with closed source clients is incredible. And people just fall right into it!

    13. Re:Oh Good by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      XMPP, as always, continues to cover everything. Open standard, lots of open source implementations, de-centralized, IM, voice, and video.
      But people will still use whatever has the best marketing.

    14. Re:Oh Good by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Check out Threema https://threema.ch/en/

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    15. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look into VSee http://vsee.com

      It's been working for me so far as an alternative. It's also supposed to be encrypted because healthcare professionals use it.

    16. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls.

      Yep, Skype's gone, and now WhatsApp will be ruined.

      Are there any open and demonstrably secure voice/video chat/IM etc applications in the pipeline that anyone's aware of?

      Given the track record of the corporatocracy - these applications may soon become the next acquisition victims..

    17. Re:Oh Good by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Skype was always shit. No great loss there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Oh Good by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls. We lose it and we're looking
      > at 1000 years of darkness.

      Come on; reading books, listening to music and playing backgammon wasn't that bad.

    19. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with Facebook owning it, it will deliver the messages it wants, when it wants.

    20. Re:Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this informative? So people ask for a mobile application replacement and you go ahead and offer desktop software alternatives? Did you even checked the link you posted?

    21. Re:Oh Good by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

      I use WhatsApp and have unlimited free SMS. WhatsApping is useless for me in a 1v1 conversation, but group chats are where the attraction lies. Also my sister isn't officially allowed to send private messages from her work phone, but WhatsApp circumvents that.

      --
      Error: No error occurred
    22. Re:Oh Good by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      They're after the user base, and were afraid WhatsApp was becoming to big a competitor. They're no competitor anymore.

      And besides, WhatsApp is more than SMS has on offer - can send photos etc, group chat, whatever. Pretty much everything Facebook is useful for (the News Feed used to be the strong point of Facebook, until they fucked that one up: I get messages posted "one hour ago" a few screen pages deep in my feed, in between day-before-yesterday's messages; plus messages of pages that I like are simply not there!).

    23. Re:Oh Good by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      Well, there aren't really any apps that satisfy all of that. Open-source, secure, video and mobile. Thought the post I was replying to did not specify mobile (although that's WhatsApp's main platform I guess). But the Point I was trying to make is that WhatsApp didn't satisfy those requirements either. It wasn't open, nor secure.

      Anyways. there is Xabber for Android -- but I don't think that has video. Also many Android users use Google Hangouts / Talk etc for chat and video, but that is not open-source. There seem to be a number of other XMPP clients for Android but I don't know enough about them.

      Also, FYI that Wikipedia link covers lots of apps -- both desktop and mobile (including WhatsApp).

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    24. Re:Oh Good by stub667 · · Score: 1

      Line took over nearly completely from WhatsApp in my region.

  3. Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $16 billion for a messaging app? The end is nigh...

    1. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, $16B ($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?) for:

      the mobile messaging platform used by over 450 million people

      ( plus underlying tech, as simple as it is )

      And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.

    2. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by snookiex · · Score: 2

      The user base is significant (and the private information that comes with it) but I agree that there's a tech bubble many times bigger than the 98's. I wonder how much will the big investors get out of it before it bursts.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    3. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I see user numbers like that, I assume it includes everyone who ever looked at it and then the multiple troll accounts the real users use.

    4. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.

      "Independent"? Nothing will change? LOL. They are in for a big surprise if they actually believe Facebook's line of bullshit. And here's a short piece of one of their blog entries:

      http://blog.whatsapp.com/index...

      Why We Don't Sell Ads

      When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say “Have you considered the alternative?”

      At WhatsApp, our engineers spend all their time fixing bugs, adding new features and ironing out all the little intricacies in our task of bringing rich, affordable, reliable messaging to every phone in the world. That’s our product and that’s our passion. Your data isn’t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.

      Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.

      Now that Facebook has spent $4 Billion Dollars (the $12 Billion in funny money is irrelevant) these guys are in for a rude awakening.

    5. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      ($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?)

      Brian Acton and Jan Koum.

    6. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how this will affect me.
      As far as I know microsoft has some kind of deal with them to offer whatsapp for free on windows phone.

    7. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't believe it has that many users and I've never heard of it.

    8. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not the only one. Is this a chinese only app? Because 450 million is more than everyone in the US, hard to believe savvy /. users would not have heard of it

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    9. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      not sure how you can not have heard of it. It runs on almost every mobile platform available and is the most common messaging app around. I don't use social media at all and barely message anyone and even I have had it installed on my phone for over a year.

    10. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So this is how you make big bucks on the internet nowadays:

      1. Launch a service that does something people really want without any of the annoyances of other similar services (ads, privacy intrusions,...) and without trying to make much money. Maybe even lose money, who cares.
      2. Get lots of users who appreciate the fact that somebody is finally catering to their needs without constantly trying to milk them for information or bombard them with ads.
      3. Sell to some big company like FaceBook for billions of dollars, which then proceeds to add the usual annoyances like ads and privacy intrusions after having promised not to do so.
      4. Goto 1.

      Rude awakening, you say? I bet they're just yelling "Profit!"

    11. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Only $35 per user, that's cheap! RIght? And they won't change a thing, no ads, no collection of personal information, nada! At the current subscription rate of 99 cents per year, they'll recover their investment in only... errr.. wait, there must be a mistake here somewhere.

    12. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I don't think Facebook care if they move users over from WhatsApp or not. They don't care as much about the users as they do about their data. As long as the data can be cross referenced at the back end, then who cares if the end user's front end is totally different?

      This is the way that Facebook needs to evolve. They've realised that teenagers (tomorrow's consumers) don't want to hang out on the social network that their parents use. So you establish/buy/build another social application that has the appearance of being totally separate. As long as you can still link the data up for your advertisers, it doesn't matter where its coming from. The end-user then gets the appearance of being elsewhere, but in reality its still all the same big data leech.

      And in 10 years time you repeat the process for the next generation.

    13. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      It's world-wide. We use it to "text" family in Central Asia. We get one of the younger ones to get the older ones onto Skype for a video call but often just for regular quick short messages, pictures, videos, etc. The older generation doesn't seem to have it on their phones, which tend toward the simpler, usually.

    14. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States and China are the only two countries in the world; you dickhead.

    15. Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by Cheburator-2 · · Score: 1

      There are many users in Europe, Russia and Asia. US seems to be enchanted by a madness of Snapchat.

    16. Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      $16 bln for one less serious competitor for your many-times-that empire? Deal.

  4. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's pronounced what-a-sap, right?

  5. Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    449.99 million people ditched WhatsApp.

  6. will continue to exist by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Not for long.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  7. Ok.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WhatsApp is dead... WhatsNext?

    1. Re:Ok.. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      How about a free e-mail solution without ads, without mandatory spam filtering, accessible whichever way you like (pop, imap,...), fully configurable, etc...

      Then wait for it to get a couple of hundred million users and sell it to Google or FaceBook for many times your initial investment. Who will then proceed to add ads, restrict functionality, etc...

      OK, what's next then?

      O, by then Whatsapp has been merged into FaceBook, so you can roll out a new messenger app without ads that doesn't collect your private information. You know, like Whatsapp before FaceBook bought it and promised not to change it. Then wait for it to get a couple of hundred million users...

  8. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Billions for a goddamn chat app? It might be the trend of times, but this is nothing short of ridiculous.

    Even my government's never-finishing (and never-properly-working) IT projects seem cheap by comparison.

  9. Like ping ball games by future+assassin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember where the scores on pinball machines were sane then one day I saw the ST TNG pinball and the score was like in the millions. Was like WTF? The pricing on some of these virtual companies is the same.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Like ping ball games by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Virtual companies, virtual currency, virtual value...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Like ping ball games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pay only ~$35 per user. I argue that's not too much.

      Why?

      First, there's a consensus that the user base will increase dramatically in the near future. Needless to say, that pushes down the revenue required per user (considering the substantial economies of scale and scope in producing social network services).

      Second, even though they promise no ads and no gimmicks, there are still a lot of ways to further monetize the product. Fees could be associated with a new desktop client, voice, video, whatsapp-to-other-services, etc. etc.

    3. Re:Like ping ball games by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      3500 cents per user. At a fraction of a cent per user per dataset sold, that's going to be a lot of marketing demographic / dat mining pulls to even think about breaking even. It's one thing to sell click-though or impression adds for fractional cents (on average, sure you might get 10c on some, but not everyone is a homosexual male 22-35 with a 6+ figure income), but there's currently no ad stream for this set.

      As for monetizing the product, we've moved out of desktop and winmobile apps that could reasonably charge $20-40 for purpose application - people hesitate at spending more than $0.99 on an app nowadays. Can you imagine the outrage if they tried to get $9.99 for an app? That puts it in the very top tier of pricing for the app marketplaces.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  10. And if they make me have a Facebook account... by mfearby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... UNINSTALL! I refuse to have a Facebook account and if Whatsapp starts making it mandatory to have one, then I'll go back to plain old SMS.

    1. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they will surely collect your data.

    2. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Too late, you already have a Facebook account, everyone on the internet does.

      You just don't know the password yet.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    3. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks to biometric face reading techniques this is true. Any photo of you that is on there has enough biometric data for them to uniquely identify you and who you hang out with. And people can even tag your name to the photo if you don't have an account, so they get a name to match with the biometric data. Then they can know who your friends are and family. are, the places where you go and probably some other stuff. All this because someone took some photos of you and posted them.

    4. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Or move to LINE. That one has almost as many users as WhatsApp already.

      Which leads me to wonder: is Facebook going to play money-bag whack-a-mole with every new social network that shows up? That's going to get expensive really fast.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      If you've used WhatsApp, you already have one.

    6. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is exactly what is going on. That's the only way to put anything like these supposed values on companies that don't produce revenue.

    7. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the DMV? They have every eligible driver's face/name/addy/gender... Why doesn't facebook buy that database, too?

    8. Re: And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, my face is copyrighted. If they have it on the service I demand 4 billion in potentiallylost sales revenues.

    9. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Burz · · Score: 1

      Use these instead... https://whispersystems.org/

    10. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by tgv · · Score: 1

      I've got facebook.com and fbcdn.com and friends blocked. It's surprising how many pages link to one of those sites.

    11. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always suspected as much. But is there actual proof? Just asking because that seems to be illegal maybe even criminal in my jurisdiction.

    12. Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 2

      Facebook says they don't, law suits against Facebook Ireland say they do (and that it's a violation of EU data privacy laws).

      Personally, I think it would be too easy for a company that has the data on hand, and no concept of "boundaries" or "no, that's creepy" to resist. They already have millions of users complete address books from the find a friend feature, faces of people they know IRL tagged in photos, locations from check-ins, etc. it's just a matter of writing the right queries to tie them all together into a barebones profile. They either built shadow profiles for non-FB-users until the legal complaints started, or they still do but they keep them in US data centers where "your data is our trade secret" trumps "I never agreed to that!".

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  11. sixteen billion??? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    $16B!! Are they nucking futs? It feels to me – as someone who worked through InetBubbleBurst 1.0 - like FB is flailing at something, anything, using the huge cash cache it’s currently sitting on in a feeble and misdirected attempt at non-relevance. Just proof that huge dollars huge brains.

    1. Re:sixteen billion??? by gordo3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nah, seems more like they are throwing cash at every company that mimics in a superior manner any piece of fb people used to use. Chat and images are the big two,
      the problem is, any new company can come along and start the same service, at which point fb will have to buy them as well. this was the story with instagram, they then tried to buy snapchat, and now bought whatsapp.

    2. Re:sixteen billion??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $16B!! Are they nucking futs? It feels to me – as someone who worked through InetBubbleBurst 1.0 - like FB is flailing at something, anything, using the huge cash cache it’s currently sitting on in a feeble and misdirected attempt at non-relevance. Just proof that huge dollars huge brains.

      Jan Koum of WhatsApp and Mark Zuckerberg are good friends and well networked with one another. The excessively large payout is being done in juggling "stock" money. This, suspiciously feels .. well ... legitimate with a bit of shadiness.

  12. This is news for nulls by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    That's why the many millions and billions. We rather need news that financially measures in micro-mills.
    I'm serious.

  13. Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch now by netsavior · · Score: 0

    I have never heard of "WhatsApp" ...450 million users?

  14. There you go by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to delete my WhatsApp app.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:There you go by beefoot · · Score: 1

      I hate to blow your bubble. It is too late. Your personal information has been transmitted to FB and an account has been created for you if you haven't already have one.

    2. Re:There you go by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Whatsapp has absolutely zero personal information about me at this point in time apart from my phone number (which I change about once a year). I really like how simple and useful whatsapp is however there aint no fucking way I will believe FB spent that much money on an app that loses money and doesn't intend to change anything. but just like the bloat and shit that allowed whatsapp to become successful something else will take its place as FB tries in vain to turn it into a money making business and destroy the thing that made whatsapp so popular.

    3. Re:There you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatsapp and now Facebook has your phone number, the phone numbers of all your friends, the name of your Google/Facebook/Skype account if you ever installed it on Android (since they have account permission), the IMEI of all phones that you used it on, ... oh, and the content of all your chats (which likely includes your name, your location and your hobbies if they ever bother mining it).

      Ideal for advertising, and ideal for completing your friend network shadow profile on Facebook.

    4. Re:There you go by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Actually the only thing it has is phone numbers. never registered a facebook/google/Skype account with it and never would. the details of the phone numbers are near useless due to how often myself and my friends replace them and none of us use real names in messaging, paranoia thing from way back and seemingly justified given FB buying them out.

  15. Received so many SPAM phishing emails from this si by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a while I got so much SPAM Phishing mail from this site. Really think its a bad service and Facebook wants it for its data mining I guess.

  16. Messaging? by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read the web site, and I still don't understand what this web site is all about. Is it really just yet another messaging platform designed to get around SMS messaging charges? Am I missing something obvious?

    1. There are tons and tons of ways to send messages to people last I checked. Why is this one worth "$16B"?

    2. Who still pays for SMS messages? I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills. Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills

      If the amount you are paying for SMS is greater than 0 (plan or no), you have been doing it wrong. Try something like Google Voice for zero charge for SMS.

    2. Re:Messaging? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, people in Europe still suffer from text messages costing money if sent across borders. Anachronistic with a culture that thrives more and more on international communication, but that needs some sort of fix.

      And WA was that fix. Dunno what I'll use now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Messaging? by grantek · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's Jabber, but without the hassle of account creation. Username is automatically set up as your phone number, and password is your IMEI or something.

      So it's about as secure as SMS, but also as practical for technophobes. It's free of charge and allows much more data than SMS (file transfer of pics etc.), which is why people use it.

    4. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google voice, google hangouts, e-mail, FB messaging, skype. So many alternatives...

    5. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people in other countries use it because it costs money in those countries to send text messages and make calls. It's very popular in Latin America. Nearly everyone I know here (In Honduras) uses it as their main way of communicating. Like texting it's more private than facebook. The company I work for has a broadcast channel that they use for organising logistics in different parts of the country.

      It will be a crying shame if this goes to Facebook. I will recommend that the company moves over to Telegram

       

    6. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Am I missing something obvious?

      The fact that it is installed and used by close to 400M people - it gives access to closed groups of people that Facebook would not ordinarily be able to graph.

    7. Re:Messaging? by mwissel · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it's more than yet another SMS replacement.

      It can do cross-mobile-platform IM, group chats, file sharing (video and audio mostly) and as of recent push to talk communication. Also, the phone number is your user account - everyone of your phone contacts will show up in your WA contact list if they use it. Many agree it is the tidies and simplest messenger for mobile platforms around.

      On the downside there is their shitty data protection and blatant security faults in the past. On Android, you can't switch off presence and reading confirmations which is quite unfortunate if your boss or knows your phone number - they will always be able to check when you were last on.

      As much as I'd love to dispose WhatsApp, I have given up any attempt to do so. Once you registered, you can't unregister (or rather, the function does nothing) and people will continue to send you things. I resigned and tell everyone to not send any sensible information over this service and I use a modded Android app (WhatsApp+ ... you can find the project page on Google+) which allows me to hide my online status.

    8. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only free for the first year, IIRC. Then it's $0.99 a year. Still pretty cheap.

    9. Re: Messaging? by alen · · Score: 1

      International sms costs money and lots if people have friends and family around the world

      And kids are using thesr apps for privacy reasons

    10. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still can't imagine that paying for mobile Internet access is cheaper than SMS costs...

    11. Re:Messaging? by GumphMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      After you remove the massive overlap between these claimed 450 million and FaceBook's claimed 1.3 billion or so accounts, and even wider database of identities, you can map the remaining 37 people ;)

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    12. Re:Messaging? by mathfeel · · Score: 1

      I use WhatsApp. Two reasons. One, the message seamlessly integrates with insert photos, audio, and video. Traditional SMS does not support those media well. Two, it is very popular out of the US. I have a lot of personal contacts from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Europe. It is nice to have everyone on the same platform. I have no idea about how much international SMS costs.
      Recently (last two years), I have noticed that most of the messaging activities between my contacts and I have be gradually shifting from Whatsapp to, ironically, Facebook messenger. I paid 3 years license a few years back. It looks like I will not be renewing.

      --
      The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
    13. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, it is. Actually it's almost the same, but with internet I also get to check email and porn etc.

    14. Re:Messaging? by pop+ebp · · Score: 1

      Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

      I live in Hong Kong, and most carriers charge HK$0.6 (about US$0.08) for each text message between different carriers. I have once been charged HK$200 (US$25) a month just for sending those. So yes, the lower cost was a big reason of WhatsApp's success (at least here).

    15. Re:Messaging? by Camembert · · Score: 1

      (I also replied the following elsewhere in this discussion, but it is apt here as well)

      I currently live in Asia. Whatsapp is very, very popular over here.
      A good number of my European contacts are also using it.
      I don't know how popular it is in the USA.
      I find it a very useful piece of software, one of the most used apps on my iphone.

    16. Re:Messaging? by Jamlad · · Score: 2

      So your alternatives are: Google, Google, Google/Microsoft/Yahoo, Facebook, or Microsoft? I'm not seeing alternatives here.

    17. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Who still pays for SMS messages? I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills. Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

      I pay 0.069 € / SMS message. But my phone bill consists of 14 €/month for a no-quota 21Mbps data and a few euros for all the calls and sms's I make.

      How many SMS messages do you really send, for whatever ridiculous phone bill you have.

    18. Re:Messaging? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Two words: established userbase.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    19. Re:Messaging? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      I read the web site, and I still don't understand what this web site is all about. Is it really just yet another messaging platform designed to get around SMS messaging charges? Am I missing something obvious?

      1. There are tons and tons of ways to send messages to people last I checked. Why is this one worth "$16B"?

      They pay for the userbase.

      2. Who still pays for SMS messages? I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills. Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

      Yes, outside the US prices vary a lot. I pay, what you'd percieve as 20-50cents per message. I know other countries do have free SMS. Some plans here have free SMS, but they're the extremely expesive ones.

    20. Re:Messaging? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      It's Jabber, but without the hassle of account creation. Username is automatically set up as your phone number, and password is your IMEI or something.

      Jabber with the most important part stripped off: de-centralization. And no voice/video support either.

    21. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your alternatives are: Google, Google, Google/Microsoft/Yahoo, Facebook, or Microsoft?

      I'm not seeing alternatives here.

      telegram.org

    22. Re:Messaging? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Domestic SMS is cheap. But internationally (and in Europe, "international" is something you can get quite easily, there's hardly a country with spots within its borders that has more than 1000 miles to a different country) you'd assume they're using carrier pigeons to deliver, considering the price, speed and reliability.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Messaging? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Once you registered, you can't unregister

      You can't uninstall?

      It's a non-free (both senses) phone-only app. I don't get it. Why isn't there a desktop version?

    24. Re:Messaging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Spain WhatsApp is so big, most of people gets a data plan so they get WhatsApp. No kidding. We even change carriers when WhatsApp does not work smoothly.

      Why? Sending an SMS is nearly as costly as making a call, for starters. If you send more than 20 SMS/month, its cheaper to get a data plan (you can get one for 4€). And with data plans you usually get much cheaper calls and SMS, so virtually nobody sends them. Old people, mostly.

      Much better prices, nearly same availability, more functionality, better usability, socially obliged... You get the idea.

    25. Re:Messaging? by mwissel · · Score: 1

      Yes you can uninstall. But I wrote unregister - thus unsubscribe from the service and disappear from everyone's contact list. Last times I unregistered, I still was available as a contact. For others it appeared as if I just never read the message when in fact it was lost. Even after registering again, the messages sent during my absence were not delivered.

      As said, they want to keep it simple. They won't provide a desktop client and you can't use one account on multiple devices either. No hopes that will ever change.

    26. Re:Messaging? by Flymo2 · · Score: 1

      Well, people in Europe still suffer from text messages costing money if sent across borders. Anachronistic with a culture that thrives more and more on international communication, but that needs some sort of fix.

      And WA was that fix. Dunno what I'll use now.

      People in the US pay to *receive* SMS. WRT current discussion - who cares, either pay trivial amount to send SMS, or pay trivial amount to via contact numerous media channels. Boring Disclaimer - I actually communicate with people (including many relatives) across the world electronically

  17. Grats to the Whatsapp guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good job cashing out while you can! Devs, owners, its time to go on and make that new thing you've been really wanting to do. Or do something philanthropic.

    You're not fooling anyone. We know you're going to ditch the moment Facebook makes doing what you're doing now annoying. Why stick around when they just handed you piles of 'fuck you' money?

  18. Darn Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I try soo hard to stay away from that privacy disaster and yet they keep finding ways to invade my life somehow... Does anyone have any data messaging app for ios/droid that also allows for encryption?

  19. Re:Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, instead of making this pointless post you could've searched for it in the interwebs. That is, if you really didn't know it in first place.

    You also must not be a regular reader of /. as there were a couple of headlines about security issues and other things.

  20. Genuine Question, re: App deletion numbers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..anybody know if these (number of deletions per app) are available anywhere?

    for sure, FB and TheCompanyFormerlyKnownAsWhatsApp won't be publishing these particular numbers anytime soon, but, I guarantee you, next 24 Hours will probably be a record for number of single-app removals.

  21. Re:Really? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    It is not like IM was invented yesterday you know? Some of us have better things to do than figure out what's the irrelevant app of the day.

  22. Re:soylentnews by adolf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    In other news, soylentnews.org is up and running!

    And 4-digit UIDs are still available!

  23. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah! Better things! Like posting on Slashdot, amirite guys?!

  24. Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by Phil+Urich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've never heard of it? Are you still using your carrier's txt plan? Lolz

    Why wouldn't I? I can text anyone anywhere in the world for free, and I don't have to worry about whether we're using the same service and if they actually still check that service or blah blah blah. And services like WhatsApp are tied to phone numbers anyways, so WhatsApp users are just a subset of people with numbers I could text to.

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
    1. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? For free?
      I have to pay for all international texts and calls. I also get "only" 40 texts per month.
      I never get close to using that, but I prefer whatsapp because you can actually have group conversations, and it's free even internationally.

    2. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by zurmikopa · · Score: 1

      Free for you, but probably not for some of the people you're texting. In a reasonable world everyone's incoming texts would be free, but we do not live in such a world.

    3. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I have a smartphone on the cheapest plan I could find ($29/m). The plan has pathetically small downloads (200mb) but even then I get 400 free txt messages with no additional fee for international.

      I thought that almost free SMS was as standard part of contracts the world over now. Even pre-paid services here often include about 200 free messages.

    4. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100%. When I look at the evils of the world around me, some people paying for incoming texts is at the top of the list.
      #

    5. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by coolmadsi · · Score: 1

      In a reasonable world everyone's incoming texts would be free, but we do not live in such a world.

      I have never paid for incoming texts (in the UK) - I think the rest of the world outside the USA is reasonable as I've only heard of that practice happening in the USA. I used to be pay as you go for years although in January I started a one-month repeating package of unlimited texts and unlimited internet for £12 (which Google tells me is about $20).

    6. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free for you, but probably not for some of the people you're texting. In a reasonable world everyone's incoming texts would be free, but we do not live in such a country.

      FTFY. As far as I know only telcos in the US charges users for receiving texts and calls. The rest of the world uses the approach that the caller pays the additional costs for terminating to a mobile phone.

    7. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      400 texts is nothing. I use more than 500 texts every day. without whatsapp that's not feasible.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    8. Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah tell me about it. I don't know why anyone would talk about "normal" people when edge cases like us exist right?

      You know you're 1/10th of the way towards the world record right? Somehow I really doubt that there's 400million of you in the world. Somehow I doubt there's more than 4000 of you.

  25. Mark sees a future without Facebook by Anarchy24 · · Score: 1

    Younger people ( say 35 ) have been fleeing Facebook in droves, because it's been around a while, and not "cool" when your PARENTS have joined, friended you, friended your friends, and then gossip more to you about what they're doing than you know yourself. Because they're old and have no life. I deal with this every day. Needless to say, Mark is keeping 'Whatsapp' separate because he knows that Facebook will be toast within the next 10 years and he doesn't want to drag this investment down by attaching it to an ailing brand. Wise move.

    1. Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were him, though, I'd additionally push some of that extra cash into buying up one or two stable, unglamorous businesses. Just because you had luck on your side with your original business, it doesn't mean you have to rely on lucky guesses (i.e., predicting the next fad) for all of your investments.

    2. Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true "Younger people" who, for some reason that escapes me, think they have a life somehow more noteworthy than every other living thing on the planet.

      As for the business strategy, maybe you are right, or maybe the "separation" is to give at least the appearance of competition in that space or the non-appearance of an all-seeing eye.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      You thinking that people over 35 are old means you are very soon going to be in hot water. Breaking news: you are going to be joining us the "uncool" RSN!

      My young adult kids think I'm cool and that is all that really matters when you are "old". I always thought that facebook was a load of crap and have never bothered with it.

      --
      realkiwi
    4. Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever you say, grandpa.

  26. WhatsApp Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is that software even secure as of today? Last time I was reading, it used reverse IMEI as it's password for message encryption, and there has been software to imitate another user, exploiting this flaw.

    Might try another IM app, if I'll ever need one (IRC is all I need). ::B

  27. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're still using texts and have a carrier? What was it like having some of your classmates catch polio?

  28. LMBO by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    When is fuckedcompany.com coming back?

    Or is it just too sad to see that the internet is basically ran by 1/1000th of the amount of manpower in the 90's with 1000X the power/capacity?

    1. Re:LMBO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point, FuckedCompany.com would only have one entry in the Dot Bomb 2.0 Deadpool: Facebook. Because they keep buying up all the dot bombs out there...everything will be under one roof when the whole thing collapses.

      Good. I'll be the first to yell "Headshot" too.

  29. They want your thoughts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not having a Facebook account is no guarantee that Facebook will not contain data on you. If your idiot friends use Facebook and all of their contacts are harvested or they tag you in their photos, Facebook will eventually fill in the dots for human word of mouth. That's what Facebook ultimately wants to be able to do, map human communication paths. That's the gold they mine. Right now, we have an environment with the phone companies monitoring SMS messages and keeping that data gold (with the exception of government agencies). A messaging app that ties into all of their other products, and allows mining that data is just another way for Facebook to fill in the blanks and their pockets. I don't like it, but its a good move for suckerburg to continue to fill his pockets.

  30. The good thing, at least... by mousse-man · · Score: 3, Interesting

    will be that WHEN the bubble blows, only shareholders will be left to hold the bag, not taxpayers (except maybe through bad investment into their retirement funds).

    1. Re:The good thing, at least... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure, it depends on how close FB's ties in Washington are.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
  31. Why Care by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would I want to join a site where all of the other idiots that keep posting Beta messages over stories have gone to?

    Good riddance, I say. Slashdot has been pretty good over the last week or so.

    Good luck with your proto-Digg. You're gonna need it.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why Care by rroman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In this thread: http://meta.slashdot.org/story... it is pretty obvious, that not only the "fuck beta" people are pissed. In that thread there were many great comments and suggestions to Dice, what is bad with beta and how should they improve it. After zero effort to improve anything, some of the very skilled people stopped to complain and started to do something about it and other people joined them on Soylentnews. Nowadays, I can assure you, that there is almost no topic on Slashdot that doesn't have some "fuck beta" comments, on Soylentnews there are almost zero "fuck beta" comments and there is also pretty on topic discussion. Surely, it isn't perfect yet, but even today, Soylentnews has better discussion than /.

    2. Re:Why Care by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In this thread: http://meta.slashdot.org/story... it is pretty obvious, that not only the "fuck beta" people are pissed.

      Yes, which Dice acknowledged, so it's pretty damn stupid to get worked up about it before the software comes OUT of Beta. There was a Beta, they have feedback - now the next step is changes based on Feedback.

      Slashdot users of all people should understand the software lifecycle!

      Yet instead we get moderated up ads for someone else's poor Slashdot clone? Screw that.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Why Care by daffmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      We gave them feedback in October, and they ignored it.

      When the beta was re-revealed in January they hadn't even touched the biggest issue, that the comment system was fundamentally broken (not "it's got bugs" broken, but "the design is completely wrong" broken).

      Consequently there was lots of gnashing of teeth that they _still_ didn't understand that this was the core feature, and everyone that had been paying attention gave up on any hope that they would address it.

    4. Re:Why Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot beta? "No Dice"

    5. Re:Why Care by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      The fact that there are no "Fuck Beta" articles at Soylent is irrelevant. There are none on the "Daring Fireball" blog either, for obvious reasons - that's not where you'd expect to find them.

      Furthermore, while Soylent doesn't yet have a huge number of comments it's clear there is a committed community of interested readers that like the site. So it's got lots of hope and lots of promise. I think it's early to boast "Soylent has better comments" but there's certainly proof the gang is heading in that direction.

      A bunch of us defected to Usenet too, and are hanging out at comp.misc where there has to date been some really interesting conversation.

      In sum, there are now several competing forums run by different groups in different ways. Let the best site win! And to win, you need good articles, healthy commentary, and a committed community hoping to keep "their" place a good one to visit. I think that's kind of the way it should be.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    6. Re:Why Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we get it. You are the only person in the world who likes the beta. Okay fine.

    7. Re:Why Care by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      While I agree the agitation has blown the issue out of proportion, software lifecycle?

      Do you know what beta means? Full features, probably significant bugs, useful but not necessarily stable. The slashdot beta does not satisfy those criteria. The lack of features make it an early alpha.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  32. Facebook's Next Defensive Purchase... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    The new and exciting "Smoke Signal" app. 1 puff signals "danger", 2 puffs for the "all clear" and of course 3 puffs for "party at my place".

  33. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope! I'm using my google chat that i've had for years. Not using their client, mind. Beejive on iOS. The best part is, I can move from phone to computer.

    People who tie themselves to a single-client chat implementation deserve whatever happens to them.

  34. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I see beta's copied from classic because post width has been widened so there's less wasted space to the right side of a post. How about some more constructive criticism:
    • Grey boxes -- these boxes surround every post. For deeply nested comments, a single comment is surrounded by half-a-dozen grey lines. It's ugly as hell and distracting. Get rid of it!
    • Frame at the top -- The frame at the top of the page should be eliminated. It serves no useful purpose, slows down page scrolling, and most importantly, reduces number of comments viewable on a screen.
    • Green-grey comment header -- All classic /. post titles are shown in teal-green background. This provides a nice visual separation between different posts. Beta does not distinguish between title and comment body much. Beta should retain classic's teal background for titles and grey background for secondary information like poster name and time.
    • Parent link needs to be brought back for obvious reasons
    • Username under post: Beta lists username under post using a bright green color and that's very distracting. The username should be non-bold, in a smaller font than the comment font and use a darker shade of teal. "Anonymous coward" should be displayed in grey font color, not teal.
  35. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All my friends moved off Google chat because the service was so atrocious, messages frequently got 'lost' (never delivered to recipient) and the inability to share multimedia was a PITA.

    They all use WhatsApp or Facebook now.

  36. Not all are jewish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates and Paul Allen are not jewish.

    1. Re:Not all are jewish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, Steve Jobs wasn't jewish either. But you mentioned some of the guys who basically created the entire PC and software industry from scratch in the 70s. Lobbies (jewish or not) weren't interested in this business 40 years ago, because nobody could imagine how successful and relevant for society it would become.

      The poster was talking about modern social networks, which were born when the internet had already become the greatest mass-media that society has ever known. And it is "at least" extremely strange that the biggest ones are mostly owned by jewish people.

      I clearly remember when, at the end of the 90s, major anchormen of major newscasts used to show the Google logo and say: "Oh, and now let's see what "the internet" says about this story!". Google was mostly unknown at that time. It should also be noted that many social apps (Whatsapp, Snapchat) come pre-installed on millions of smartphones, a fact that obviously harms competition.

      Obviously one can play cinderella, deny that lobbies exist and believe that we live in a fair society, if that makes him feel better. Unfortunately, that's exactly why modern society is wrecked as it is.

  37. Huh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad that I don't use WhatsApp.

  38. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The user base is not that significant (at least waay off $4bn worth), considering the free period and the fact that is doesn't bring nothing new/hard to clone to the table (eg. Viber has more features). On the other hand, Facebook is buying some pretty good expertise on how to handle live chat systems with Erlang at a global level. This alone may be worth the money.

    1. Re: Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A chat client requires "expertise"?

  39. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All my friends moved off Google chat because the service was so atrocious, messages frequently got 'lost' (never delivered to recipient) and the inability to share multimedia was a PITA.

    They all use WhatsApp or Facebook now.

    Normal people still use email.

  40. Re:soylentnews by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    In other news, soylentnews.org is up and running!

    And it's a horrorshow - it takes the worst of Slashdot and the worst of Slashdot Beta, mixes them up and... the sum is worse than the parts.

  41. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not like IM was invented yesterday you know? Some of us have better things to do than figure out what's the irrelevant app of the day.

    I've never heard of it either and I'm not that old, maybe it's only popular in certain regions? One of those third world fads?

  42. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old people still use email.

    FTFY

  43. Re:For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Jews started successful Internet companies, and you didn't. Hmmmm....so Jews are smarter than you, is that what you're saying?

  44. Who's going to short FB stock tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put your money where your mouth is?

  45. Re:Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch no by Camembert · · Score: 1

    I currently live in Asia. Whatsapp is very, very popular over here.
    A good number of my European contacts are also using it.
    I don't know how popular it is in the USA.
    I find it a very useful piece of software, one of the most used apps on my iphone.

  46. Somewhere in an office in Seongnam by Zanadou · · Score: 2

    Somewhere in an office in Seongnam, several members of the KakaoTalk team just crapped their pants.

  47. DMV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just like the DMV? They have every eligible driver's face/name/addy/gender... Why doesn't facebook buy that database, too?

    It's worse.
    Prior to social networks we had some solace knowing that many third-world countries do not keep good computer records and have close to null snooping because people just weren't into e-commerce / had language barriers / found no real way to get their daily news online instead of local TV and papers.

    Enter FB tagging and its inconvenient side-effect of transcending borders when you take your camera overseas. Those unfortunate enough to know you are thus entered into the DB even if they never had the desire to come live in the USA with a DMV ID card + associated NSA snooping. Kinda reminds me of how while Friendster started as a US business, within a couple years it was like 40% filipino users.

    1. Re:DMV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda reminds me of how while Friendster started as a US business, within a couple years it was like 40% filipino users.

      Most of eBay and its PayPal subsidiary is now an Indian company. The hiring there involves familial prerequisites kept off the record due to obvious legalities and public relations. Give it time for the official change to separate itself from the U.S.

  48. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will force my Mom to open a Facebook account.
    Game over :(

  49. That is ridiculous by vikingpower · · Score: 5, Interesting

    $19,000,000,000 for an app that does not make money and has 32 employees. IMHO it shows that Facebook is slowly panicking.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:That is ridiculous by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Spending 19B on something in panicing? I wish I had the means to panic!

  50. Re:Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch no by brit74 · · Score: 1

    Here's a map (which is about a year old, to be fair): http://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/w...

    You'll note that WhatsApp doesn't have a whole lot of usage in the US. It's quite popular in Europe and the South America.

  51. Re:soylentnews by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I already have one, but thanks just the same.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  52. Re:Really? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is not like IM was invented yesterday you know? Some of us have better things to do than figure out what's the irrelevant app of the day.

    I've never heard of it either and I'm not that old, maybe it's only popular in certain regions? One of those third world fads?

    I get the impression that it is popular in *cough* certain countries *cough* where the telcos freely rape their customers over text messages and mobile data.

    Where I live (Sweden), I get unlimited texting and nearly unlimited (5GB/mo) data for about 50 bucks a month. Since this is a very typical plan from a very typical Scandinavian carrier (Telenor), I am not surprised that I've neither seen nor heard of this app before.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  53. Re:For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I know a Jew on the other side of town who has a much nicer house than mine. Therefore, all Jews are rich, greedy criminals who are out to get me."

    That's some logic for ya. (I guess.)

  54. Re:Really? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2

    You spend 50$ a month? And you say that other countries' telcos are raping their customers? Here in Italy I pay 6 EUR a month and I have 120 minutes of calling, 120 SMS, and 2GB data. Not unlimited, but quite enough (for me). And even before I had a flat plan I did not pay all that much!

  55. WOW by vatz · · Score: 1

    19 billion for an instant messaging app!! surely didn't see this coming.

  56. Shameful by korbulon · · Score: 1

    Honestly, there should be a viable, easy-to-use alternative to Facebook which respects your privacy and doesn't have shady dealings with a government and isn't run by a functionally retarded man-child. But if there is one, well I don't know about it. And if I don't know about it, then 95% of people don't know about it.

    Same with WhatsApp. It's very useful, but this isn't advanced AI here: it's pretty clear what it does and how it does it. Where is the good, user-friendly, open-source alternative?

    I'm also pissed here because I actually liked WhatsApp as an app and respected their "mission statement" - was even willing to pay for it in exchange for (what I thought) was a little privacy. But in the end they turned out to be whores, to Facebook of all companies, for whom I have a particularly acute contempt.

    1. Re:Shameful by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Honestly, there should be a viable, easy-to-use alternative to Facebook which respects your privacy and doesn't have shady dealings with a government and isn't run by a functionally retarded man-child. But if there is one, well I don't know about it. And if I don't know about it, then 95% of people don't know about it.

      I concurs, but sadly, most people don't, and that's why we don't have such an alternative. :(

  57. Re:soylentnews by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    My Soylent UID is even lower than my Slashdot one :-)

    Soylent looks great TBH. I can actually see myself switching over if Slashdot's owners are determined to ruin all that is good about their web site with a crappy "modern looking" redesign.

  58. Bye bye WhatsApp by Idetuxs · · Score: 1

    Hello, Telegram. https://telegram.org/

    Make sure your friends know about this app, It needs critical mass, nobody is using it.

  59. Re:For those who don't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were a lobbyist, I would LOVE the entire population to be made of idiots like you. One points out a statistical anomaly, and you react whining about jealousy. Perfect!

  60. Alternatives? by heteromonomer · · Score: 1

    Can anyone suggest alternatives? Free or paid, but equivalent functionality?

    1. Re:Alternatives? by guillebot · · Score: 2

      Telegram.org We already did the switch in several big groups. Dunno what I'm going to do with smaller one-to-one relations. Hope they switch also.

    2. Re:Alternatives? by Idetuxs · · Score: 1

      +1

      Mod up please.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      With that name one can think it's an actual telegram service, e.g. you can send an electronic message that's delivered by mail or courier on the last mile.

  61. They are not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wth? Does someone actually have to pay for incoming texts? So basically someone could just bleed you dry by texting you a lot? Why would anyone sign a contract like that?

  62. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ever heard of irc?

  63. It's not that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Text messages are not more expensive, but whatsapp is just really handy. You can form groups, and it's basically like any chatroom after that. Every phone has their own text message app, whatsapp is the same on everything.

  64. You must be really old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you remember being young? I sure know I was better than anyone. Better and wiser and cooler than anyone over 30 for sure. I wouldn't have had my mom listening in on my conversations. The kids these days won't either. So when mom invades facebook the conversation moves elsewhere.

  65. telegram for mr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as alternative stop.
    we would like to inform you stop.
    that there is a new more secure solution out there stop.
    it's open it's free it's stop.
    Telegram.

  66. Price for DB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not quite sure that the a single phone number info worth ~$9 cash and ~$26 in stock. This seems to be quite high and this is the only valuable information FB is getting from this deal.

    1. Re:Price for DB by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      They're not only stealing a few hundreds million phone numbers, they steal the phone directories or at least subsets of them.