WhatsApp Is Booming in the U.S. | Hacker News Reader

WhatsApp Is Booming in the U.S.

bigtechnology.com

41 pointskantrowitz37 comments

> A record number of Americans took vacations in 2023, with many traveling abroad. Hot spots like Mexico City, Santorini, and the Amalfi Coast were overrun with American tourists, a product of stimulus cash crossed with a desire for revenge travel. Outside the States, these travelers learned that WhatsApp is a vital communication tool for people and businesses. [...]

I love how TFA is written in the style of a history book entry about spanish people discovering potatoes and bringing them into Europe in the 1500s.

I love it when mainstream Americans discover how other countries/cultures work. Always a fun read.

Glad to see that americans finally get end-to-end encrypted messaging between iPhone and android users, something that the entire world has had since 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/technology/whatsapp-messa...

We've had encrypted messaging longer than that; TextSecure launched in 2011.

I think they meant in the context of mass adoption.

I never heard of TextSecure.

> I never heard of TextSecure.

Signal before it rebranded.

Don't know what your definition of "world" is, but people in China (that's 1.3b people) don't have access to WhatsApp, and the "default" chat app WeChat is monitored by the police at all time. So maybe you want to be a bit more accurate with wording.

The US had that option as well, we just chose not to use it as the default standard like some other counties.

For me, I had iMessage which is end-to-end encrypted, and I can count on one hand the number of texts I send to non-iPhone users in a year. There was no value to changing, and no need to try and convince everyone I know to switch to a different messaging service.

And with Facebook owning WhatsApp, even with end-to-end encryption, there are trust issues there. I had WhatsApp on my phone from a trip to India. About a dozen of my friends in the US showed up in there, but we never used it to talk. Once Facebook bought it, I deleted the app, and nothing of value was lost.

If I really wanted secure messaging with someone I talk to often on Android, I’d opt for Signal over WhatsApp.

The ability to have end-to-end encrypted chats with people using different operating systems is something valuable and companies that offer that are more trustworthy then companies that don't.

> WhatsApp’s U.S. rise didn’t happen by accident, though. It was part luck, timing, and strategy

WhatsApp's rise in general was a matter of luck and timing. Intl ppl needing to communicate with family (like in India) and those countries having terrible texting and WhatsApp duping them into thinking it was like texting because it uses phone numbers for account IDs, despite many other internet-based IM services being around namely FB messenger and Google. There was no need for it many areas of the west especially in North America where texting network is widespread and cheap and IM services already commonplace and covering the other needs like groups etc. WhatsApp only managed to slowly edge up due to social pressure from some of those users that started needing it for intl use, and laziness. Maybe a bit of FB-exodus from younger age categories too but the irony there being WhatsApp still owned by Meta.

It'll always just be another internet based messaging service that's nothing notable to me and the fact that it uses phone numbers as IDs is ridiculous and a red flag/deterrent.

Another annoying side effect of its "success" is founders thinking and being treating like they are some internet visionaries that can weigh in on any new trend or whatever, when they just got lucky making a run-of-the-mill IM chat app.

There were many other chat apps on Android which were phone number based (Viber, Line (which even used to pay if you used it) not to mention hangouts which every android user had. Whatsapp won because the product was too simple, and the non tech users preferred it very very strongly. Obviously the founders got incredibly luckly being at the right place at the right time, but they had plenty competition and won by executing better and making the right product decisions.

Yeah viber, line.... Don't you see, big in more places where they were convinced it was "texting". No one was using those in the west/north America... Unless they needed to communicate with foreign family.

Hangouts doesn't use phone numbers. And WhatsApp not any simpler than hangouts, Messenger or iMessage. Which everyone would continue to use because that covers the majority of "accounts" or ecosystems that ppl were in. WhatsApp wasn't a thing other than pressure to connect with technically illiterate family aunty's and uncles in far away places that were told it was "texting". Meh

Using phone numbers for user ID means Whatsapp just had a better user interface. People know their friends' phone numbers. So you can easily message everyone in your contacts via whatsapp. No one wants to ask someone what their user id is before messaging them.

I ended up (reluctantly) installing WhatsApp last year because a bunch of regulars in my meetup group wanted to use it to chat and organize their own gatherings outside the meetup. Putting aside the fact that it's owned by Meta and can't be trusted to the same degree as other E2E messaging apps, WhatsApp is actually pretty decent. It does one thing extremely well. Unlike Meta's other apps, I don't mind having WhatsApp installed.

> > Meta

The real world runs on Meta, that's where real people are, all other social media are more about abstraction and keep updated on societal issue and gossip as opposed to actionable stuff like Facebook marketplace and Facebook jobs.

I love how people hate Meta, and then end up praising React, React Native, Folley, ReasonML, Python GIL removal,....

How they think the salaries of those engineers are coming from?

I thought it was pretty concerning how dependent we are on Facebooks open source tech. But I'm unsure what could be done about it.

Not use anything created by Facebook money, would be a first step, for those that hate them.

So what? Meta does employ many talented engineers and they do create valuable open source software. Is it not good that we can praise that and still hate other practices they use?

Those practices are what make those open source projects possible.

No money, no open source projects.

This logic is absurd.

The people responsible for the opioid crisis also donated a lot of money to philanthropy. If people told us “no shady opioid practices, no philanthropy” we would all assume they were being absurd. Because that statement is absurd as the one you made saying that without Meta’s shady practices we wouldn’t have those open source projects.

Also Meta’s open source projects do have a benefit to Meta. If they didn’t, Meta would never open source them. It’s part of Meta’s business strategy.

The absurd is attacking Facebook, while enjoying the open source products payed with "dirty money" from their business practices.

Turns out free beer tastes really good, regardless how it was produced back in the farm.

I should not be surprised, it is hardly different from enjoying products that people know are coming from sweet shops, but hey they are so cool.

A lot of products have an immoral part in the supply chain. Do you propose that people abstain from all of them?

If they are true to their beliefs, that is to be expected.

Except it is very different. If you use react you are not contributing to the sweatshop, while if you buy sweatshop items you are.

I think what you are saying is that it would be immoral to make generic medicine based based on q design that was originally invented by a big pahrma company because you are supporting the exploitation fo sick people, which is honestly compeletly absurd

I hate Meta, and that also colors my view of React and other such projects they have. I have 0 interest in developing in React due to where it comes from. I also don’t want to use Go, despite team members raving about it, because it comes from Google.

My distrust of these companies pushes me to distrust the development tools and languages they release as well.

WhatsApp was installed on about 41% of smartphones in 2022,[1] so this 9% growth takes them to about 45%.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311229/whatsapp-usage-m...

I feel like any American with friends or family abroad has been using WhatsApp since before the Facebook acquisition. That's the perception I got from my bubble at least.

Cool but WhatsApp is a subpar messaging app. Telegram is so much better there is just no comparison.

Unfortunately you have the network effect and having your contacts on one or another.

I'm considering setting up a matrix bridge (telegram, whatsapp, signal, slack, discord) but telegram has so many quality of life improvements over the matrix client it feels like a downgrade.

I wish I could just drop WhatsApp

I just did.

Only time will tell.

I had a girlfriend through WhatsApp for a little bit. It didn't work out.

Don't suppose anyone uses a (working) WhatsApp CLI client that supports Vim keybindings...?

WhatsApp does not offer any sort of integration/API for personal use.

Yet. On March 6 WhatsApp will need to be compliant with the Digital Markets Act, which includes an interoperability requirement. We'll see what they hash out between Meta and the EU Commission.

Woah, I wasn't aware of that. I may finally be able to build a SMS <-> WhatsApp bridge and switch to my dumbphone.

To save those reading comments first a click: “booming” == 9% growth, according to the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com