Hacker News Reader

Comment by habosa | Hacker News Reader

So I understand the value of WhatsApp now that the network is absolutely enormous, but can anyone shed some light on how WhatsApp differentiated itself at first?

It seems like it's just basic user-to-user messaging over data, with a list-like interface that looks like every messaging app on my phone. How did they convince people that this particular proprietary solution was the best? Did they somehow remove friction in getting your friends to join? I feel like using Google Hangouts or any other proprietary messaging service is the same... I must be missing something.

View on HN

Zero signup = zero friction. You install the software, and your contacts who have WhatsApp immediately show up on your WhatsApp contact list.

It was basically a free SMS replacement at first.

Of course that came with a massive security hole, where your "behind the scenes" login password was MD5 of your phone's imei. That, as far as I understand, has changed now.

It's not really zero signup. WhatsApp does have a signup process that requires setting your name and confirming your phone number. An SMS message is involved too, which means that WhatsApp Messenger can only work on mobile devices connected to a mobile network and that can receive SMS messages.

This is the reason for why I stopped using it in favor of Facebook's messenger, because it doesn't work on the desktop or on iPads or other tablets that aren't capable of receiving SMS messages. Coupled with the fact that people can routinely use multiple phone numbers at the same time, or temporary phone numbers while traveling, it makes for a frustrating experience.

Facebook's acquisition makes no sense to me. All of my friends and acquaintances that were using WhatsApp have already switched to Facebook's messenger and/or Hangouts. If I open WhatsApp right now and send a message, it probably won't reach its target - for example WhatsApp is listing my wife as a user, yet she uninstalled it months ago. And I'm as far away from Silicon Valley's echo chamber as it gets.

But whatever, it's their money.

I'm trying to find an explanation for how WhatsApp's network is supposedly worth drastically more than Gmail / Yahoo / Hotmail webmail is. Just because users connect, doesn't mean you have a pot of gold. I believe this is a critical, flawed assumption that is being nearly universally made. Last generation's instant messaging apps were nearly worthless monetarily, and are still nearly worthless even today with tons of users. Why the assumption that today's mobile versions of instant messaging will be worth ... over a hundred billion dollars (apparently)?

I've got an alternate theory. Today's WhatsApps and Snapchats will turn out to be terrible businesses, that aren't worth anywhere near what's being speculated. Today's user (mobile based) obsession will be viewed as not all that different from yesterday's eyeballs (web based) obsession. What are the consequences of that scenario?

okay look at this way on mobile Facebook is essentially a message app spread across multiple apps...

Any message app that threatens to overtake Facebook is worth that amount to facebook

People do pay for WhatsApp - the article says $1/yr although I think I paid 69p for life (approx $1) for the iphone app. If they get 1bn people paying $1 then that's a decent income. I was reluctant to pay - I'm tight like that - but I had to because my friends were on it and wanted to communicate. Though I note people are moving to Viber to some extent which is similar but free.

1bn people * $1 is a decent income? Bearing in mind that is an optimistic figure and FB paid 16 times that...

As a daily WhatsApp User myself, here are the reasons why I prefer it over other similar messenger services:

1. It's the facebook of messengers (now it's just facebook...). In most of Europe an Africa there's a 90% chance , that your friend with a smartphone has also WhatsAp installed. Even the older generation (40+) uses it frequently. In Africa, they even have a song about it [1].

2. Cross-Platform: It's available on most common smartphone platforms and looks almost identical across these. There are no hassles of sending stuff (videos, locations) across these platforms. Changing your smartphone is not a problem as long as you keep the same number.

3. It feels snappy: In comparison to iMessage, FB Messenger it's fast and has no disturbing gimmicks. You see messages instantly and it feels like a chat when iMessages feels more like bloated sms...

4. It works in places with unreliable network like rural regions. iMessages fails here often, FB apps also need a stable connection to work properly.

5. A few years ago unlimited text plans were not as common as in the US. Because of this people looked for an alternative to paying ~19c per text (EU). WhatsApp was one of the most polished solutions with a low entry barrier.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaFkpVrC2sw

> In Africa, they even have a song about it

They also have a song about it in Germany. It's called "Whatsapper": http://youtu.be/Rxb2A4uASqc

I was wondering how they got to your first point.

Any idea why it's more reliable on spotty networks? I'm trying to think of what they could have done to make it better than any other app sending HTTP requests back and forth.

I am not a WhatsApp user but a number of my friends use it. I think what they did well are: (1) You automatically upload your contact list to their servers. If any of friends start to use WhatsApp you will see it on the list (2) Smart phones were gaining adoption in many Asian markets and their value proposition of cheap unlimited messaging plan resonated very well (3) They charged for their product after initial adoption so they don't have to be tied to VC money forever and avoided annoying users with ads.

The post mentioned that all WhatsApp's early competitors benefited through advertising, while WhatsApp dedicated to keep the UI clean, and earn revenues by charging users one dollar a year.

No. It's not $1/yr. it's $1. That's it. There is no recurring revenue stream. That's what makes this even more insane.

On Android at least it's $1 per year, I'm looking at the payment page right now that offers 1 year for $1, 3 for $2.67 and 5 for $3.71.

That said, I've been using it for years and have never paid a cent. Each time as the free year has about to run out, they've extended it.

My friends always tell me to use WhatsApp because "it's free SMS". No it isn't! It's just a new ICQ, or whatever.

At first I thought it were a service that integrated with normal SMS, that would communicate via SMS when you had no connection and via data when you had, and the message would always reach the target. That would have been a good app, I think.

WhatsApp equals Free SMS, plus you can create groups. That is what their value proposition was back then, that is what it is now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com