Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Whatsapp Will Become Free, Companies Can Pay To Reach Users (nytimes.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the here's-your-exciting-daily-offers dept.

speedplane writes: The popular messaging service Whatsapp will soon become free (they previously charged $0.99 per year after the first). The troubling news is that to compensate for the lost revenue, companies will now be able to pay to contact users directly. "[Whatsapp founder] Mr. Koum said that his team was still experimenting with how such services could work, and that many companies were already using the messaging service, particularly in developing countries, to connect with mobile-savvy customers." If this smells like advertising, Whatsapp vehemently disagrees. A portion of their statement reads: "...people might wonder how we plan to keep WhatsApp running without subscription fees and if today's announcement means we're introducing third-party ads. The answer is no."

92 comments

  1. Telegram by ickleberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Companies can pay to reach users" - well that's going to send a lot of users reaching for Telegram and other apps. Do these big corporate f*cks never learn, it's all fun and games when the company is young and full of hipsters giving away this hip new product for free but when the corporate magnates come in and try to milk their userbase for what it's worth it's usually game over.

    1. Re:Telegram by WiPEOUT · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.

      https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

    2. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like facebook! That thing is so toasted now that the hipsters don't think it's cool anymore.

      There is a hell of a lot more money going to the Walmarts of the world than to the hipster botiques. I'd say the big corporate f*cks have nailed it on the head.

    3. Re:Telegram by mlts · · Score: 1

      I would actually purport that isn't the case. Facebook, for example. It is used instead of E-mail, NNTP, news websites, discussion forums, chat sites, meeting scheduling, appointments, and many other items. People are too interconnected with it to leave it. In fact, not having a FB ID can be a negative in general, just because FB is used for so much.

      People won't be leaving FB like they bailed MySpace. There is just too much tying them to that social network. Heck, there are a number of websites use FB for authentication now... no FB account, no access.

      I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though.

    4. Re:Telegram by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a few startups which I think have succeeded in actually improving the situation compared to before. Take github for example. It bases on an open standard (git), and its reachable with a web browser. Together with the fact that it doesn't really require any data from you when setting up an account, unlike facebook or google, and that its ad-free, its in fact a real improvement over sourceforge.net (sorry dice) with svn. Yes, part of the improvement is linus' fault (git), but still github has done alot in order to improve and simplify user experience, compared to sf.net. That combined with the different business model gives a better product for open source software, and a great product for closed source software as well (where sf.net has no offerings afaik).

      Stackoverflow is similar. Its greatest achievement is in my eyes to replace phpbb and its friends with forum software that puts the best and working answer into the foreground, eliminating spam that would (like the "me too or thanks" stuff) make it harder to find the answer. Yes, many people see it as the temple of cargo cult programming, and the community is great but still large parts of it seem to like boost, but it is a real actual help with common problems with software, and many smart people like Mark Adler answer questions there, their answers being smart as well. Its basically a community maintained FAQ page.

      But whatsapp is an example of worsening the situation. It replaces an open (SMS/xmpp/e-mail) protocol by something proprietary. Also, its actively tried to stop the spread of alternative implementations, that connect to their service. If a company maintains such a close control of their product, it can abuse it in the future much easier, because the open environment around it has a much harder time spawning a fork.

      Both stackoverflow and github have found ways how to make money without fucking their users, and controlling their product tightly, and they live great from the money. And the cool thing is that they already serve as source of inspiration for people who make similarly great products (take travis CI for example), and stackoverflow is actively trying to get out of the "developer" niche, I hope they will be successful and become a reference in non-technical fields as well.

    5. Re:Telegram by mlts · · Score: 2

      The EFF is one party which gets my respect. Signal looks interesting. It reminds me of the old standby app on Android, called TextSecure, which not just was a decent app for texting, but stashed the messages somewhere encrypted, as a secondary layer of protection. I wish the iOS version had a PIN or the ability to use the fingerprint scanner, just for additional security for messages on the app.

      Personally, my ideal app would be one that piggybacks of of existing protocols, but uses OpenPGP for its endpoint encryption. This way, it provides a standard for adding keys, it would be compatible with a ton of existing code, OpenPGP is a known, secure quantity with decades of debugging behind it, and it would make having to worry about transport encryption less of an issue. Messages could be stored with a NNTP-like protocol (where one server would store, forward, then expire when the server's disk space hit a high water mark), or a more direct protocol could be used. Since there are so many transport protocols to choose from, separating the endpoint encryption from the protocol would allow for a lot of flexibility.

    6. Re:Telegram by UnsignedInt32 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Signal looks interesting. It reminds me of the old standby app on Android, called TextSecure, which not just was a decent app for texting, but stashed the messages somewhere encrypted, as a secondary layer of protection.

      Naturally, because Signal is the successor of TextSecure. They have merged functionalities of TextSecure and RedPhone into one, and that's Signal, to make it consistent with their iOS offering.

    7. Re:Telegram by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      It could be ads.

      But it could also become a service provider.
      A lot of companies are trying to connect with users for legitimate purposes. There's a lot of money to made and saved.

      As the article points out, companies could pay a fee to Whatsapp to use the chat feature. Instead of paying to use SMS.

      It saves the companies a lot of money rather than trying to build out their own infrastructure and have customers download custom applications.

      If they could make it 'secure' there is even more money to be made. I know my bank has started to use secure email in various forms.

    8. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how they go about implementing it. LINE for example, is another messaging app that is very successful in southeast asia, and they have numerous business accounts that users can subscribe to for access to coupons, or news about their favourite artists, etc. Personally I dislike the app since it's bloated as hell, but virtually everyone I know in Japan and half the people I know in HK uses it, and the existence of business accounts are seen as a benefit and not a drawback. Key point is whether users can opt out/unsubscribe from messages they are not interested in and what incentive they give for people to subscribe.

    9. Re: Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: AOL

    10. Re:Telegram by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      why would they need to.

      fyi 80% of small businesses in some countries in asia are reachable by LINE, similar to whatsapp. point is, why would the company need to pay anyways.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lulz. Signal looks like a trojan to me. Ever noticed how in very early versions you could use it without handing out all your contacts, and then, suddenly, in an update, you were forced to betray your friends and become a rat? Signal is a metadata crawler. Don't believe how they use encrypted bloom filters or shit. Read their blogs. Search the googlez. Go look the codez. They use plain hashed phone numbers. Easily checkable with a rainbow table of all phone numbers. Boom, you got your metadata. Noticed how you cannot easily set your own Signal server in the app? Do you really think that the Open Source server code you can see is the one that is actually used? With no mods? Haaaahahahaaaaa

    12. Re:Telegram by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Signal shares one of Whatsapp's big drawbacks: it uses phone numbers as addresses, so it only works on devices that have a phone number assigned. There is a desktop version, but "Signal Desktop links with your Android device". I want a messaging service that works everywhere, not just on mobile phones. Looks like I'm sticking with email for a while longer.

    13. Re:Telegram by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      OpenPGP is a known, secure quantity with decades of debugging behind it

      Weren't some law enforcement groups bragging about their ability to read PGP messages? Like last week?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re: Telegram by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Why would you install yet another chat system?
      There is Jabber/XMPP, yet it stopped being supported by Google and Facebook. Now people are using the proprietary Google and Facebook apps instead.
      You use the software that connects you to people. Everyone's on Facebook. It won.

    15. Re:Telegram by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.

      https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...

      Which is excellent but what if you want to communicate with someone who doesn't have an iphone?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    16. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Blackberry PGP, which is one program that is unofficial. The PGP protocol isn't an issue... it was a shitty implementation which caused this.

    17. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or any other messaging service, such as Jabber, Google Talk, etc. that came before the current generation of crapware IM clients.
      IM seems to be going backwards.

    18. Re:Telegram by crunchy_one · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies are trying to connect with users for legitimate purposes. There's a lot of money to made and saved.

      Quite right. That would be "Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top, and Spam."

    19. Re:Telegram by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Do these big corporate f*cks never learn, it's all fun and games when the company is young and full of hipsters giving away this hip new product for free but when the corporate magnates come in and try to milk their userbase for what it's worth it's usually game over.

      You seem to be missing the point: by this time, the founders have cashed out massive amounts of money from their overly inflated stock and the fact that they never had a viable business model in the first place is irrelevant. The idea and the user base is FAR more valuable than a business model.

      They were always going to milk their user base, and anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

      Me, I don't give a crap what happens to WhatsApp. I don't even know what it's for, but it has reached the level of popularity where it generates spam pretending to be from it ... which tells me it's just another hipster app I don't use but whose existence has started to bleed over into generating phishing spam.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signal is on both iOS and Android.

    21. Re:Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have been effected with the Wikipedia-culture.
      I often find highly insightful questions and answers there, rated very highly, which are marked "bad, but exist for historical reasons".

      Also, ask a trivial question in bad Engrish, you get tons of answers from people trying to score points. Ask a question that is well-written, shows your own attempts (as suggested by their guidelines), etc. but requires some effort to answer, nobody will care.

    22. Re: Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signal uploads phone numbers to function and is only usable on one device and only with an inserted sim card.
      Xmpp is the way to go. Push is on its way.

    23. Re: Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The 'Conversations' app works great for me and valuable friends. They even implemented OMEMO, which is coming to other clients as well as a more usable alternative to OTR. There's a field in vcards that let's you put xmpp addresses so they synchronize and clients can access them easily.

  2. Of course it's not ad by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a content delivery option for those who wish to support What's App by leveraging their assets to ensure reliable delivery to the subset of mobile-savvy users which may provide reciprocal interaction to the content initiator.

    If you're interested, you can contact them to discuss the operational synergies available and plan a one-time or ongoing messaging strategy.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Of course it's not ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dammit, I have mod points but there's no "+1 fuck you" option.

    2. Re:Of course it's not ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo!

  3. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am the first person to respond to this thread. thought that would never happen.

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

      I am the first person to respond to this thread. thought that would never happen.

      Try again.

  4. He's right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its not adverts, it Spam

    There's a world of difference.

    1. Re:He's right... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I believe the relevant Venn diagram displays a lot of overlap.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  5. I'd rather pay $2/yr to not be reached by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or rather, I'll just not use the app.

  6. That sort of thing would be okay if by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...the company offered paid users who don't want their personal details exploited in a way that they didn't initially sign for the option of closing their accounts before the change of business plan. Otherwise, it's a crass bait-and-switch.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:That sort of thing would be okay if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why do people keep calling it a messaging app when it clearly isn't? It's spying and malware. It's criminal. I have never used it and never will, but I sincerely hope that some of the managers get killed.

  7. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's wait and see.

    The first time I will actually receive one of those messages, I'm out.
    And I am taking my greater family and general periphery with me (the IT guy privilege -_-).

  8. It's a feature by IMightB · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never ssaw this coming after the FaceBook Acquisition.

    Nobody expects the Facebook Acquisition

  9. Absolutely not advertising by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    Advertising is what you encounter as a byproduct of doing other things.

    Companies "reaching out to you" to send you messages directly has another name already - spam.

    BTW this practice is supposed to be against Apple's app terms of service, and they do block some apps based on this - but I've seen some apps (recently Regal Cinemas) sending blatant promotional advertising over push. Really annoying and the quickest way an app can find itself in the rubbish bin.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Absolutely not advertising by mlts · · Score: 1

      Android also had this problem. A few years ago, there was AirPush, which eventually forced Google into putting in a mechanism to disable apps from making notifications due to the spam.

      I just wonder how long it will be until the advertising bubble bursts, especially if the economy tanks and people are not spending money on gewgaws. Even with apps gathering "god mode" data, there is a limit on how much stuff that can be slurped down and sold. Especially with both malvertising becoming a constant issue , and the general pushback against ads that demand interaction for 30 seconds, demand someone take a survey, demand access to FB and E-mail, and if on a phone, demand an app be downloaded, or any/all of the above. Since stock prices are based on "growth" not actual earnings, when a market hits saturation, it hits the wall, hard. Just like companies did in the first dot.com era.

      What will companies like Whatsapp do after that? Join the list of dead companies on the successor of fuckedcompany.com? Charge for their product to end users? Even Google is pushing their way to get territory that isn't ad related so they survive if that bubble pops. People will say that the Internet will grind to a halt without ads that require full screen access... but the Internet existed for decades without that. The economy may move from ads to clearinghouses, but the Internet won't disappear because AdChoices isn't getting their telemetry data from an ever expanding pool each quarter.

  10. Anyone paid? by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    I've heard about this US$0.99/year after the first year.

    I'm a WhatsApp user for several years now. I never paid anything for it, nor did it bug me for payment.

    Even if everyone would pay that $0.99 fee, I can't imagine the service to be financially viable. It's just too cheap. Also makes me wonder who paid WhatsApp's bills over the past years.

    1. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They data mined you.

    2. Re:Anyone paid? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Also makes me wonder who paid WhatsApp's bills over the past years.

      The cofounders made some money ($650k total) from being an early part of Yahoo. Enough to self-fund.from 2k9 to 2k11. Then they got 7M from VC in 2k11, and as they spent that they got more (totally 57M in the end) from the VC group. At that point, they sold out to FB for 20B, and for the last 2 years FB has been deficit spending. It's all an investment in having a userbase to either flip to FB/Google/Other Marketing Company (initially) or to advetise to (by FB).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid. And I thought it was a good deal.

    4. Re:Anyone paid? by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Also makes me wonder who paid WhatsApp's bills over the past years.

      Facebook -- they purchased WhatsApp for $19 Billion in 2014.

    5. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just write 2k9 to 2k11? It's easier to read and understand, and only 1 character longer.

    6. Re:Anyone paid? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Their Google Play page says it has between 1 billion and 5 billion installations (do they publish to other planets too???), so even if this number was 10 times the real installation base, and a small part of them paid 0.99$, I would say it's very financially viable!

    7. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard about this US$0.99/year after the first year.

      I'm a WhatsApp user for several years now. I never paid anything for it, nor did it bug me for payment.

      It is free to use on iOS (no usage fee at any time - but at one time, it was 0.99 to download on iOS). It is pay "for-use" but free to download under Android/Google Play store. Not sure about the Windows store.

    8. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming you meant 2009-2011?

    9. Re:Anyone paid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the advantage of writing 2k11 instead of 2011? It's the same number of characters, breaks searches for 2011, and could be construed as meaning 2048 + 11 (though I'd write 2K11 in that case - no, actually I wouldn't ever). And although I'm a software engineer, 2k9 looks like a resistor value to me at first glance.

    10. Re:Anyone paid? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Where is the advantage of writing 2k11 instead of 2011?

      There isn't really one, I suppose. I'm trying to isolate the part I care about (the years, not century) in a more dismissive way than 2009-2011 says. I should have said '09-'11 I think.

      Mostly cause when I read 2009-2011, half my numeric processing is devoted to "Still the 21st century!" And I don't know if it really causes a difference, but how long ago Jesus was born isn't really that relevant to my daily life.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  11. Refunds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do i get my money back then? Paid upto 2019. By changing the whole business plan regarding fees doesn't it mean whatapp wasn't worth it to start with.

  12. Snowden a "luminary"??? by cbraescu1 · · Score: 0

    a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden

    I understand that one's hero is another one's traitor, and that's fine by me.

    But to call Snowden "a luminary" takes a special kind of stupid...

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
    1. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you've never read a dictionary.

    2. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a traitor to the US government and a hero standing up for the US Constitution.

      By any reading of any English dictionary, he is also a luminary.

      Those who prefer a less free world than that afforded by the Constitution would disagree that he is a hero, of course. They would use arguments about him putting at risk the lives of traitors to the Constitution, which he may have done - but this is the lesser of two evils.

    3. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Snowden is just one among several people who are considered heroes by the open source community. Some of the others include:

      • Aaron Swartz
      • Lennart Poettering
      • Miguel de Icaza
      • Hans Reiser
    4. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, a luminary can be a synonym for hero, or very famous person for something they have done in a field, say human rights. Perhaps you should get a dictionary before using your special kind of stupid

    5. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Aaron Swartz

      Yes. Definitely.

      Lennart Poettering

      No.

      Miguel de Icaza

      No.

      Hans Reiser

      No.

      Next? None? Then fuck off.

    6. Re: Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot Anonymous Coward you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big slice of troll - Lennart Poettering....

      haaaaa

    8. Re:Snowden a "luminary"??? by JazzLad · · Score: 2

      a person who inspires or influences others, especially one prominent in a particular sphere.

      Seems to fit ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  13. Whatsapp will give you a free reach a round! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad that means they are already fucking you in the ass....

  14. diaspora* is the answer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The diaspora* social network is the answer!

    LOL, I'm just kidding.

  15. Only LUDDITES pay for apps using money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern app appers app for apps using OTHER apps, not LUDDITE money!

    Apps!

  16. Not 3rd party, 1st party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won't be 3rd party ads, they will come directly from companies advertising to you.
    Much better, eh?

  17. $16 Billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook paid $16 billion dollars for the company.

    http://sequoiacapital.tumblr.com/post/77211282835/four-numbers-that-explain-why-facebook-acquired

    There had to be a catch.

  18. It's always been free for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have no clue why, but I never spent money on Whatsapp, despite having been using it for several years. Every year there's a message saying that my subscription has been extended until February of next year. It beats as to why that happens.

    1. Re:It's always been free for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android or iOS ? It is free to use on iOS once downloaded (initial 0.99 to download)

    2. Re:It's always been free for me by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Same for me. It has always been free. Used it for over 3 or 4 years and never had to pay a dime, and I don't even get those messages about extending.

  19. Why not do both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck are companies always so binary about things like this?
    DO EVERY FUNDING METHOD IMAGINABLE.

    Paid service, premium service, in-app purchases for expansions to it (non-abusive, preferably!), third party ads.
    By eliminating any of those, you are losing money and pissing off all those other groups.

    He is right, this isn't advertising, it is SPAM.

  20. Fuck that.. by jcr · · Score: 0

    First time I get spammed on WhatsApp, I'm deleting it. Fuck you, Zuck.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Fuck that.. by Malc · · Score: 1

      There are already spammers on WhatsApp - I've had a couple of such messages in the past few months. Expect it to get worse.

  21. I wondered why Twitter didn't do this. by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    Although, my idea for a business model was that you give people some fixed amount of user-messages per month.

    Say 10,000 ... so if you have 10 followers, you can send 1k messages/month for free ... if you have 1k followers, you can send 10 messages per month for free.

    If you're someone who has lots of followers (eg, a company), if you send lots of messages per month, then you pay for it.

    Obviously, they'd have to play around with the numbers to figure out what works well. Maybe you always get one free message per month (or week, or whatever). Maybe private messages cost 5x or 10x more than public messages ... or 100x more only if they're not following you and didn't message you first.

    This would also mean that the people who pay for fake followers would have to pay Twitter for having so many if they end up spamming all of their followers. (as they'd be sending messages to their fake followers, too, which would increase their cost of sending messages).

    I had thought about also making a way for people to donate their free messages to people they like, but then realized that wouldn't work as people would be farming fake accounts just to pass the credits to others.

    This would mean that companies, celebrities, government agencies, and narcissists who won't shut up would end up subsidizing the rest of the population. And as the lists are maintained by twitter, you don't run into the problems with spamming lists that you can't get off of, no matter how much you complain.

    (eg, those @#!@% IEEE Big Data asshats, sending from multiple places, and I've been told that by the postmaster at Drexel that they dealt with it ... yet still got more spam through them)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  22. Thats a textbook example by Z80a · · Score: 2

    Of "If you're not paying for a product, you are the product".

    1. Re:Thats a textbook example by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well we found the guy who believes that a company can only have one business direction and that cash is the only viable payment option.

      I'm still trying to pin an age on you guys. You can't be at the get off my lawn age because if you were you'd remember a system called bartering which was exchanging non-monetary things of value.

  23. It would be useful for me by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    For some time now one of my clients asks if I would be able to access whatsapp using a custom information system to pass government services alerts for general population (Example: I like to alert all whatsapp users on my list about a important goverment event related to them, generated on my system)

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  24. So is the 'free' optional? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    I can forsee that a lot of people would rather still pay the $.99 per year and not deal with this new 'business model.' Will that be an option?

    (who am I kidding?)

  25. "Messaging service"? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Why the hell are people using a "messaging app"? Don't most peoples' phones have messaging built in? Mine certainly does.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:"Messaging service"? by xvan · · Score: 4, Informative

      1) SMS are still not free in lot's of the world, and obscenely expensive in comparison to the data fees.
      2) e-mail is SOooo 90's, lot's of people not even check it any more.
      3) Default messaging apps (Google’s and Apple's ) are still not interoperable, some people never generate / are aware of generating an ID for those.
      4) Facebook is not universal, not all facebook users use facebook on the phone, and there is people actively avoiding it for multiple reasons.
      5) Whatsapp is free , just works TM and filled the niche first.

    2. Re:"Messaging service"? by feufeu · · Score: 1

      xvan beat me to this.

      I suggest you have a look at Threema ( https://threema.ch/en ). It's a paid alternative. It's encrypted.

    3. Re:"Messaging service"? by xlsior · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why the hell are people using a "messaging app"? Don't most peoples' phones have messaging built in? Mine certainly does.

      WhatsApp started offering free messaging at a time when most mobile companies around the world would still charge for each and every SMS sent (and received). They were in the right place at the right time in the early days of the smartphone, and where able to get a critical mass of users to the point that in many countries they ARE the default text messaging platform.

      Keep in mind that some carriers would still charge for international text messages, even if they would be free within your own country -- WhatsApp never charged for those either.

      In the US free text messages is/was much more common and they never captured a huge portion of the messaging market there, but on a global scale they currently have about a billion active users a month, which is not that far behind the marketshare of Facebook itself.

    4. Re:"Messaging service"? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      SMS doesn't have features like status, message read confirmation etc, plus Messaging Apps use data which is mostly free (if you find some free wi-fi - quite common), whereas SMS uses the cellular network and is expensive is a lot of places (not ideal for teens and young/poor people).

    5. Re:"Messaging service"? by Malc · · Score: 1

      SMS does have delivery notification support, but it seems to be enabled erratically by providers. Read receipts are annoying, and does anybody actively update their status? Another irritating thing with WhatsApp is that I can't even hit send on a message when I'm offline (e.g. underground on the Tube or overseas with data roaming off).

      My biggest problem with the default messaging app on my phone (iMessage) is that 1) it's Apple only, and 2) I apparently can't control when it falls back to SMS if the recipient is offline.

    6. Re:"Messaging service"? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Read receipts are annoying,

      WhatsApp puts a small tick on the message to show it's been delivered, and another different coloured tick if the user has opened it. How is this annoying? What's annoying is when you SMS someone and you have no idea if they've even received it...

      and does anybody actively update their status?

      You don't have to touch it. A lot of apps merely signal whether you are actively using the app at the time, or the last time you were online. No effort required.

      Another irritating thing with WhatsApp is that I can't even hit send on a message when I'm offline (e.g. underground on the Tube or overseas with data roaming off).

      Well if you could hit send on *any* messaging app or SMS, without service the result is the same.

      My biggest problem with the default messaging app on my phone (iMessage) is that 1) it's Apple only, and 2) I apparently can't control when it falls back to SMS if the recipient is offline.

      I gave up on Apple a long time ago. Too many things you can't do with your own device.

    7. Re:"Messaging service"? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Another irritating thing with WhatsApp is that I can't even hit send on a message when I'm offline (e.g. underground on the Tube or overseas with data roaming off).

      Well if you could hit send on *any* messaging app or SMS, without service the result is the same.

      No it's not. If I hit send on an email when I'm offline, I don't have to think about it again because the phone will send it as soon as it's back online. With WhatsApp I have to remember to go back to the app and hit send when I realise I'm back online, which could be sometime later. It's easy to forget to do this.

    8. Re:"Messaging service"? by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      I for one consider the fact that SMSs are not free a good thing rather than a bad thing. In other words, if someone sends me something, it has to be worth the few cents it costs him.

      I for one do not want to be connected ("on the line" for those that have seen The Internship) 24/7. I switch on my data/wifi only when I want to send something, do a little surfing, check e-mail, waste time on /. I can not stand constant attention-grabbing interruptions, it kills my productivity dead.

      So whenever someone asks we "Are you on Whatsapp?" I tell them no, and I'll never be. Send me an e-mail when you get around to it (incidentally it's much more platform-independent and interoperable than Whatsapp, and it's been around a lot longer than Whatsapp or Skype or Yahoo IM or or or a hundred other apps that Whatsapp hasn't really improved on either), and I'll read it when I get around to it and respond when I get around to it. It's going to arrive at the same time than that Whatsapp. If you need to contact me more urgently than that, you can always phone or SMS. At a slight cost.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    9. Re:"Messaging service"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason you assume that the contact will only benefit the initiator (or "sender"), so it's ok to him to bear the cost. Seriously? Besides, restricting yourself to e-mail only is a good way to kill off those "useful friends" contacts... whatever floats your boat I guess.

    10. Re:"Messaging service"? by I4ko · · Score: 1

      I prefer (wechat) you insensitive clod. It is much better than mugcatalog and whatapp and viber and all the ilk. And ./ does not support Chinese characters in 2015

    11. Re:"Messaging service"? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      That's because WhatsApp is an instant messaging service, and email isn't (even if people try and pretend it is). It defeats the purpose of instant messaging if you don't want your message to be instant.
      But this isn't the point. the question was why use any other type of messaging app when you have SMS. As you have demonstrated, other apps (like email) have other features that SMS doesn't have.

    12. Re:"Messaging service"? by Malc · · Score: 1

      The only two benefits of WhatsApp are that it's free for overseas communications and that it is cross platform, although even then its desktop support is shit. The rest of the time I just find it irritating. In fact WeChat works better, but then the only people I know who use that live in Shanghai.

      Funny I landed in Moscow a couple of weeks ago and watched the lady in front of me obsessively go through at least half a dozen apps as soon as we landed. Fragmentation of communication methods is annoying, and really what's the difference between all these app devs who seem to be insistent on re-inventing the wheel? It's not benefiting us as users.

  26. Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatsapp will become gratis, not free.

    1. Re:Correction by Spacelord · · Score: 1

      A word can have different meanings. One of the most common meanings of the word free is gratis.

    2. Re:Correction by I4ko · · Score: 1

      As it has always been. I've never met a single person who had to pay for whatsapp.

  27. Whisper Signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See also https://whispersystems.org/

    "Use anything by Open Whisper Systems."
    - Edward Snowden, Whistleblower and privacy advocate

    "I am regularly impressed with the thought and care put into both the security and the usability of this app. It's my first choice for an encrypted conversation."
    - Bruce Schneier, internationally renowned security technologist