Unpopular opinion here: Instagram ads are unobtrusive and easy to skip quickly.
Being unwilling to pay for a platform and simultaneously being unwilling to be shown any advertisements is unsustainable.
In the US, Facebook's revenue is $25 per user per quarter. That's $100 a year. Are you willing to pay the same or more than that just for access to their products?
YouTube Premium actually is a great example of how much that pricing ends up being: $11.99 a month.
> Instagram was ad-free for quite some time. Now every third or fourth post is a big, unmissable ad. Same thing in stories.
Stopped using Instagram because even the "organic" posts are ads or product placement of some sort. It seems like every time someone hits 10k subs or more, their content becomes >50% ads.
I follow primarily friends, family, and a few hobbyists in my chosen hobbies (model trains, space/rockets, etc.). It's been no trouble to curate - more than one "sponsored" post probably means I unfollow you, as do memes. The end result (barring their ads) is a really nice feed of pictures that are either cool or interesting to me personally.
Family and Friends post boring stuff for the most part. I was on Instagram for other things like photography, interior design and memes. The first 2 categories will obviously have "sponsor content", but when meme pages started shilling products, it was over for me.
I remember when I read that article. It was a great idea. When they sold WhatsApp to Facebook however, I realized that this is potentially the fate of any for-profit business.
Hey Brian, great to see you on here. Any updates or thoughts as to where Signal is these days? I would love to switch over to it as my primary messenger, but the majority of my non-tech friends haven't heard of it before.
I am assuming that one of the reasons they won't let users pay to opt out of ads might be because paying users are the most valuable for advertisers. They wouldn't let their most valuable target pool out of the advertiser's hands.
That's already happening. Facebook has had a form of Whatsapp ads and targeting available on the ads dashboard for a while now. All the same ad targeting options as any other FB product/ ad placement.
WhatsApp is my primary messaging app, time to switch over to something else. It can go fuck itself sideways if FB starts adding ads.
Some years ago there was the option of paying, which was removed around 2016. I understand that not everybody cares about this, but PLEASE give me the option not to see ads. There's enough bullshit advertising in my life already
Not affiliated in any way, but you should give Signal a try.
The hardest part with any IM service is going to be convincing your friends to join though. I wish someone came up with a good way to overcome this "critical mass" problem.
I've told the important people in my life that if they want to message me, they will need do it through Signal. It takes 2 minutes to set up, I show them how, and tell them that I won't reply to any SMS.
Many switched, including the least technical people I know. A few did not. It's really not hard; you just have to draw a line in the sand.
As a result of everyone I know using Signal, it fundamentally doesn't matter to me if the "mainstream" switches. We're already all on board.
And then you end up in that situation when they didn't actually switch, but rather made you a favor and caved in to your self-centric demands and stubborness. Like with a tantrum-prone child. They still use WhatsApp between themselves, because that's what their dentist, car mechanic and a favourite sushi takeout use. They will also more eagerly reply to IMs if they are not sent through your preferred chat system. So in the end you technically made them do your thing, but the victory is hollow.
The problem is when one friend demands Signal, another WhatsApp, another Matrix, another Telegram, another Threema. These are all closed platforms and having loads of different apps installed which perform similar functions，to satisfy various people's dogmatic views is annoying.
Matrix is not a closed platform, and in fact the only one of the projects you mentioned that even makes an attempt to work together with other chat protocols and networks. It is explicitly open, not locked in to any single service provider, and making an explicit effort to not limit you to chat with only other Matrix users (despite how much Signal or WhatsApp works towards the opposite).
An average person will have pages of apps installed, but that would actually use only what's on the first page. So they have a choice of bumping something off their precious FP to fit my special app or just keep it where it lands after installation, on the back pages. And if it ends up there, out of rotation, it won't see much voluntary use.
If you really want to make a difference please try to make people to migrate to something open. Quicksy[^1], DeltaChat[^2], something. But not another, essentially closed platform.
I agree. However email metadata isn't secure, so that's a nonstarter. I'm rooting for Matrix but thusfar Riot's UX to get an encrypted conversation going leaves a lot to be desired. No way are the non-technical people I know going to be able to do that. Signal "just works" with secure defaults, so that's the best we've got for now.
> I've told the important people in my life that if they want to message me, they will need do it through Signal. It takes 2 minutes to set up, I show them how, and tell them that I won't reply to any SMS.
I've done the opposite: there's no way I'm going to install a messaging app, and everyone I care to interact with knows they need to either use SMS or email to reach me. Everyone's been perfectly fine with that.
WhatsApp itself started as an obscure chat application. They nailed the simple SMS-like experience without high SMS fees, and that was enough for mainstream users. No reason people won't jump ship when WhatsApp loses that core experience.
It's still going to remain the same. Whatsapp is too big to fail, perhaps people in the US just don't comprehend how big of a user base Whatsapp has around the world.
> WhatsApp itself started as an obscure chat application
It actually started as a one-line status app, a bit like finger for the mobile era. Hence the name.
It was only when they discovered that users were interactively chatting by changing their status lines in response to each other that WhatsApp pivoted to full chat.
A good example of adapting to improvised user behaviour.
Also not affiliated, just an user -- but Telegram has a lot of momentum going for it. It's possibly more of a substitute for Facebook than Whatsapp at this point, but in chat form, with a rich bot ecosystem and great UX.
I'm really hoping that Chat over IMAP picks up. I use Delta Chat every now and then with some journalists who have it installed, and it just makes so much sense. We already have everyone's mail ID's anyway. Or at least I thought so. In countries like India, a large number of people have skipped email and gone to phone based services. So for Chat over IMAP to succeed over here it would need to have phone number based matching cos people do not use their mail ID's at all. Everything gets done over whatsapp.
My wife and I tried Signal in the past and ran into situations where messages were lost or sometimes delayed by hours, some showing up well after other messages were, making conversations occasionally very frustrating.
Messaging apps are definitely one of those situations where I expect things to work all of the time, not just most of the time.
Feature wise telegram is definitely the best challenger right now. Signal is good but not as good. I wish it was better because of privacy. I like telegram too much now.
Companies pay to initiate conversations with them. I assure you these ads exist and are purchased in the same place as any other FB ads using the same targeting FB has for any other ad placement.
I remember this pretty clearly. I always liked the $0.99 per year model because it was pure and simple. However, it was a three way decision with Mark for it, Jan somewhat on the fence, and me against. The primary argument being that payment was artificially hindering growth. Frankly, our growth was just fine at the time. History tells us how the decision landed.
Just for clarity, you liked the $0.99 model, but you were against it at the time because it would hinder growth, or you were against the idea of adding advertising once WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook?
Economies of scale would make it profitable considering WhatsApp doesn’t even have to host anything, just relay messages, and since it’s a private platform there are no moderation expenses either.
You guys really should take what you learned building WhatsApp and start over.
Make it subscription based, with a low bar of entry ($10 or so per month), don't do ads, don't do data harvesting (unless required by law enforcement) and/or "science" (for profit), guarantee freedom of speech (as long as said speech is protected by law, ofcourse) -- in other words: don't become Zuck -- and you will outcompete Facebook come 2025.
There is a small handful of things will pay more than $10/month for: my mortgage, car, and utilities. We cancelled Amazon prime when it hit that, and will cancel Netflix when it hits that. I will not pay for text messaging; I'll happily continue using Android messaging instead.
First installed WhatsApp in 2010. It was $2.99 on the Blackberry App Store. I remember feeling miffed because the iOS/Android version was free. Seems ridiculous now, in light of everything that happened since.
Good, that will maybe drive more people to alternate platforms. The only reason I have it installed at all is that my non techie friends insist on using it for whatever reason. It's not like I have a shortage of similarly capable chat & call apps installed on my phone.
E.g. Signal is pretty much there in terms of capabilities to take over. All that's needed is a gentle nudge. Some ads should help for that.
It's always funny to remember that the smartest people currently alive are probably in some FAANG office figuring out how to monetize online platforms through whatever means possible.
even more funny that in many cases they are stopped only by the law, and also in most cases they can only do some form of advertisement; if they could sell your soul for statistically significant conversion uplift, many people wont even think twice.
I was parroting a classic quote [0], but you are right: my statement was needlessly cynical. To rephrase, I'd say an enormous proportion of the smartest humans alive are involved in zero-sum redistribution games that offer no socially useful outcomes. The costs of being poor and the rewards of being wealthy are each so enormous in our world that I can't blame them.
Without entering into an argument over the definition of smart, I understand what you're getting at. The top graduates of the top schools empty into finance, big law, medicine, and now big tech. Though it gives me some hope that startups are starting to get their share of talent too, now that companies like YC or VFA are basically throwing money at it.
> the smartest people currently alive are probably in some FAANG office
I doubt this is actually true. Very smart people work in FAANG offices, sure, but "the smartest currently alive" is a very, very high bar. Such people have much better options than working with FAANG.
The real cancer is SV companies growing to an enormous scale without ever figuring out how to get people to pay for it. Once the price ceiling is $0, there is no other way to monetize except by destroying the experience with increasingly intrusive advertising.
95 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadThere's no reason to believe it'll stop here.
Instagram was ad-free for quite some time. Now every third or fourth post is a big, unmissable ad. Same thing in stories.
Being unwilling to pay for a platform and simultaneously being unwilling to be shown any advertisements is unsustainable.
In the US, Facebook's revenue is $25 per user per quarter. That's $100 a year. Are you willing to pay the same or more than that just for access to their products?
YouTube Premium actually is a great example of how much that pricing ends up being: $11.99 a month.
Stopped using Instagram because even the "organic" posts are ads or product placement of some sort. It seems like every time someone hits 10k subs or more, their content becomes >50% ads.
When they announce the intention to put more ads into the app, do people cheer?
https://web.archive.org/web/20120619170843/http://blog.whats...
No need to worry about profitability, just get big enough to sell then let whoever buys add the ads.
Some years ago there was the option of paying, which was removed around 2016. I understand that not everybody cares about this, but PLEASE give me the option not to see ads. There's enough bullshit advertising in my life already
[] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/18/whatsapp-...
The hardest part with any IM service is going to be convincing your friends to join though. I wish someone came up with a good way to overcome this "critical mass" problem.
Many switched, including the least technical people I know. A few did not. It's really not hard; you just have to draw a line in the sand.
As a result of everyone I know using Signal, it fundamentally doesn't matter to me if the "mainstream" switches. We're already all on board.
Ask me how I know.
Installing an app is more than a 2 minute commitment. You also have to be OK with that app running on your device.
An average person will have pages of apps installed, but that would actually use only what's on the first page. So they have a choice of bumping something off their precious FP to fit my special app or just keep it where it lands after installation, on the back pages. And if it ends up there, out of rotation, it won't see much voluntary use.
How do you handle dumb/feature phone users?
All of these have a very important aspect in common: you can choose your application you want to access the network with. I'm tired of needing to use The Official®©™ App, and Signal is no exception. It's also a single entity thus being a single point of failure.
If you really want to make a difference please try to make people to migrate to something open. Quicksy[^1], DeltaChat[^2], something. But not another, essentially closed platform.
[^1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=im.quicksy.cli...
[^2]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=chat.delta
I've done the opposite: there's no way I'm going to install a messaging app, and everyone I care to interact with knows they need to either use SMS or email to reach me. Everyone's been perfectly fine with that.
People do migrate when the platform is FUBAR.
There's not that much friction in changing to (or simply adopting a second) chat app - especially one which uses your phone number as an identifier.
It actually started as a one-line status app, a bit like finger for the mobile era. Hence the name.
It was only when they discovered that users were interactively chatting by changing their status lines in response to each other that WhatsApp pivoted to full chat.
A good example of adapting to improvised user behaviour.
Messaging apps are definitely one of those situations where I expect things to work all of the time, not just most of the time.
I used it with a group of friends but one of them often didn't receive our replies.
For me personally, this will be the moment to draw a line and just tell people to text me instead, or use another service...
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
(Cue "I haven't used any new feature since e2e encryption")
Make it subscription based, with a low bar of entry ($10 or so per month), don't do ads, don't do data harvesting (unless required by law enforcement) and/or "science" (for profit), guarantee freedom of speech (as long as said speech is protected by law, ofcourse) -- in other words: don't become Zuck -- and you will outcompete Facebook come 2025.
E.g. Signal is pretty much there in terms of capabilities to take over. All that's needed is a gentle nudge. Some ads should help for that.
[0] https://www.fastcompany.com/3008436/why-data-god-jeffrey-ham...
I doubt this is actually true. Very smart people work in FAANG offices, sure, but "the smartest currently alive" is a very, very high bar. Such people have much better options than working with FAANG.
Someone at Facebook is proud of their smartness and will probably get a title like Senior Manager for messaging advertising.
The trouble with switching IM is that everyone needs to switch as well.
They believe they can earn more from ads than they can from paying subscribers.
Given that last year they agreed not to share data https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/14/17120446/whatsapp-user-da...