Privacy groups ask FTC to block Facebook-WhatsApp deal
thegeekyglobe.com
thegeekyglobe.com
FB would be drooling over all the messages, pics & videos on Whatsapp. For person-to-person communication, I prefer a paid app over an ad-supported free one. If I wanted the latter, there are no shortage of options. I wonder how Whatsapp spells out the usage of personal data in their ToS.
That's not to say they can't change it in future, but I'm sure if they do there will be a massive exodus from the network.
And to further clarify on your comment - whatsapp is a paid for app, not advert supported. They only charge the iPhone users, however. Cost of the app is $1 for iPhone. Suspect android users would never touch it, as they don't have payment details set up on Google Play's store.
That pricing model you are talking about is old. They now make the first year free & charge $1/year after that for all platforms.
Suspect getting users to pay $1 is going to be a real pain, not for the cost, but for the convenience factor.
Not sure if anyone I know has not had to pay after a year
followed by
"If the recipient is not online, the undelivered message is held in WhatsApp’s server until it can be delivered. If the message is undelivered for thirty (30) days, the undelivered message is deleted from our servers. Once a message has been delivered, it no longer resides on our servers. The contents of any delivered messages are not kept or retained by WhatsApp — the only records of the content of any delivered messages reside directly on the sender’s and recipient’s mobile devices (and which may be deleted at the user’s option)."
This gets mentioned a lot. I don't quite understand the logic. Say WhatsApp cost users $3.99, when Facebook buys them for 5 billion $3.99s what difference does it make? Facebook gets 3990 messages, a list of people you know, groups and whatever else. They can now add those to their vast collection of stuff they know about you, Facebook profile or not.
What do the $3.99 payment or the 'one weird trick to improve your health' ads have to do with any of this? I don't get it.
In this case, however, you paid for the Whatsapp app, but with Facebook acquiring Whatsapp you'll also pay with your personal data.
This meme needs to die. It implies a dividing line where none exists. There is absolutely no reason why you can't end up being both a paying user of a product and have data about you sold on, aggregated etc. If a company can find a way to get paid twice, why wouldn't they do so?
- Paid without ads : Whatsapp till now. Ideal for personal privacy
- Paid with ads : Bad for users. If whatsapp was doing this, it won't stay hidden for long. The breadcrumbs of your data will lead to whatsapp's door.
- Free without ads : Bad for company
- Free with ads : Facebook. Bad for some, good for others.
Point being, respectable companies that are in for the long run will probably have a clearly defined business plan i.e. sell the product to the user or sell ads to the user. If it's doing both, it becomes evident.
No, it is false and that's why it needs to die. It prevents a wider discussion about business models and leads to (imho) ridiculously oversimplified views that are restricted to advertising and only within the product in question. In the worst case, people may use the heuristic that paying for something somehow gives you a voice (it doesn't) or prevents a company from productizing you (it doesn't).
For example, consider the following cases:
- Google Apps: I may be paying an annual/monthly fee for using Google's services but does that mean they will stop mining all my data and trying to show me 'relevant' ads elsewhere on the internet? Just because they have a new revenue stream doesn't mean their other revenue models stop working.
- Credit cards companies: I'm probably paying fees and interest for my card but that data is still sold on to others for various purposes, including reference agencies and perhaps aggregate info on spending habits. I've seen at least a couple of stories on HN about companies willing to sell such data.
- Tom Tom: I pay for a navigation device which also provides me with traffic data. Data from my journey is also sent back to Tom Tom, aggregated and licensed on to external companies who want access to it. Note that I've already paid for a product, may be paying an additional subscription for traffic data and yet every journey I make is also a revenue generator for them.
It's only big companies that can afford to pursue multiple revenue streams this way but people are woefully naive if they think a well-resourced company won't explore all the ways they could increase their income.
Here's my reformulation of that meme: You are both the customer and the product.
The reality is nuanced and the 'free app, you are the product' only overlaps with it only occasionally. (a) Showing you ads isn't the most worrying type of data collection (b) Not showing you ads or charging for something doesn't mean data is not being collected about you in a worrying way.
Whatsapp's business model was neither selling ads or selling apps. It was sell Whatsapp. The "product" was the company, especially the data and the employees (If you're getting paid in stock, you are the product!). If that hadn't worked out they may have gone to plan B or plan C, but IMO that just makes the point that the data is in their hands and their business model can change. They might go into liquidation and have the data auctioned.
If Whatsapp is indeed worth all that money it's worth it for the data it has and can collect. That makes me uneasy.
There's overlap between being a customer & being the product. But the range is so wide that there's no harm in simplifying it by saying FB makes you the product & Whatsapp (pre-acquisition) is the product.
This meme needs to die in a fire as it is actively harmful for understanding economic interactions in the real world.
In a fair business transaction both sides understand the implications of said transaction. In this type, one is vastly more aware of what is being collected and how it may be used than the other.
It's like being tricked/coerced into giving up the mineral rights to your property because you don't understand the value. Or domain name squatting.
Oh, I know. "It's just business." So that makes it ok.
The meme serves to dispel the notion that free-of-charge services don't cost you anything.
This notion is a deception relied on businesses that monetize personal data to fool consumers into undervaluing the data they provide.
We need to cut losses get Richard Dawkins to rename memes. Actually a beautiful case in point irony to it.
Its as much a self-replicating unit of behavior as posting a cat picture is.
It remains to be seen how much influence the Ad folks in Apple will have over the rest of the iOS/iPhone ecosystem. In the short term, I doubt there's much to worry about but in the long term, and if iAds become a significant revenue driver, who knows.
That's, frankly, a popular internet-age meme that is complete bullshit.
For example, readers have paid some amount for many newspapers approximately since newspapers became a thing. Nevertheless, for most of that history, the main business of newspapers, from which the majority of their revenue comes -- even for the ones that have paid circulation -- is selling reader eyeballs to advertisers.
With banks, depositors are customers of "we'll store your money safely and/or provide you interest on it" services that banks provide. They are also, by the same act, suppliers of the "we'll give you cash now in exchange for money in the future" that banks provide to borrowers.
Paying for a good or service may make you a customer of that good or service, but it is not, and never has been, exclusive of you also being a supplier of another good or service that the same company is selling to someone else.
Aside from confusing "suppliers of product" with "product", the ridiculously simplistic meme invents an exclusivity between being a customer and being a supplier which has never been a real feature of business. The two roles often coexist, now and for as long as economic interactions have existed.
For example:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/09/google-on-chrome-...
http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthewing/2012/10/10/united-ma...
And here is an interesting paper about retroactive lawmaking by the government:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Weie...
Looking at http://www.whatsapp.com/legal/, it appears that WhatsApp falls into the "we can change our terms without letting you know" category, and I don't see anything about their data retention policy :-(
That doesn't mean that they won't. Perhaps they will just do it behind the curtains, offering better Facebook Friend links.
"In the Event of Merger, Sale, or Bankruptcy"
You already gave them the right to share the information. (IANAL)
The message he wrote, was a message he had to write to keep customers using WhatsApp
WhatsApp has nearly twice the active users as Twitter, and many more than Skype, LinkedIn, Instagram, and even Angry Birds.
Not only that, WhatsApp has a user:employee ratio of over 8,000,000:1. That is quite remarkable, over 8x the users per employee than Youtube.
There is much more value in WhatsApp for FB than just eyeballs.
Facebook owning it means Google, Apple, Microsoft etc don't. Facebook likes that.
Lets remember that as a board member he has a fiduciary duty to FBs shareholders, and that means making sound ($) decisions.
I'm not saying that he would. Or that he could convince enough of the Board that this is the case. But he could.
Facebook are unable to collect data from the service without changing the ToS, which will likely cause a user exodus.
It's going to put such a huge unrecoverable dent in Facebook's finances that it will be a significant long term disadvantage to them.
If you are a privacy advocate, wait until the deal completes and then jump ship and bring your friends with you.
How many people are even aware of what the ToS says? I don't recall a mass exodus from Google when they merged their privacy policies so I don't expect to see it here (for similar reasons - where would they go?).
Edit: > "... then jump ship and bring your friends with you."
You make it sound like this is easy. It isn't. That's why networks have value and are hard to build.
Exactly. Facebook sure isn't paying $19 billion for the ability to shuffle words around from phone to phone.
Passing it to the government is another matter...