Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook To Buy WhatsApp

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the hitting-the-startup-lottery dept.

Facebook 199

Facebook has announced an agreement to buy WhatsApp, the mobile messaging platform used by over 450 million people. The deal involves $4 billion in cash and an additional $12 billion in Facebook stock. They say WhatsApp will remain independent; its headquarters won't move, and it will continue to exist separately from Facebook's Messenger app. Mark Zuckerberg indicated they will focus on growth: 'Over the next few years, we're going to work hard to help WhatsApp grow and connect the whole world. We also expect that WhatsApp will add to our efforts for Internet.org, our partnership to make basic internet services affordable for everyone.' On WhatsApp's blog, they say, "Here’s what will change for you, our users: nothing. WhatsApp will remain autonomous and operate independently."

cancel ×

199 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

soylentnews (-1, Offtopic)

melikamp (631205) | about 7 months ago | (#46290605)

In other news, soylentnews.org is up and running!

Re:soylentnews (1, Offtopic)

adolf (21054) | about 7 months ago | (#46290987)

In other news, soylentnews.org is up and running!

And 4-digit UIDs are still available!

Why Care (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46291345)

Why would I want to join a site where all of the other idiots that keep posting Beta messages over stories have gone to?

Good riddance, I say. Slashdot has been pretty good over the last week or so.

Good luck with your proto-Digg. You're gonna need it.

Re:Why Care (3, Interesting)

rroman (2627559) | about 7 months ago | (#46291587)

In this thread: http://meta.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org] it is pretty obvious, that not only the "fuck beta" people are pissed. In that thread there were many great comments and suggestions to Dice, what is bad with beta and how should they improve it. After zero effort to improve anything, some of the very skilled people stopped to complain and started to do something about it and other people joined them on Soylentnews. Nowadays, I can assure you, that there is almost no topic on Slashdot that doesn't have some "fuck beta" comments, on Soylentnews there are almost zero "fuck beta" comments and there is also pretty on topic discussion. Surely, it isn't perfect yet, but even today, Soylentnews has better discussion than /.

Re:Why Care (0, Offtopic)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 7 months ago | (#46291753)

In this thread: http://meta.slashdot.org/story [slashdot.org] ... it is pretty obvious, that not only the "fuck beta" people are pissed.

Yes, which Dice acknowledged, so it's pretty damn stupid to get worked up about it before the software comes OUT of Beta. There was a Beta, they have feedback - now the next step is changes based on Feedback.

Slashdot users of all people should understand the software lifecycle!

Yet instead we get moderated up ads for someone else's poor Slashdot clone? Screw that.

Re:Why Care (3, Informative)

daffmeister (602502) | about 7 months ago | (#46292303)

We gave them feedback in October, and they ignored it.

When the beta was re-revealed in January they hadn't even touched the biggest issue, that the comment system was fundamentally broken (not "it's got bugs" broken, but "the design is completely wrong" broken).

Consequently there was lots of gnashing of teeth that they _still_ didn't understand that this was the core feature, and everyone that had been paying attention gave up on any hope that they would address it.

Re:soylentnews (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 7 months ago | (#46292057)

In other news, soylentnews.org is up and running!

And it's a horrorshow - it takes the worst of Slashdot and the worst of Slashdot Beta, mixes them up and... the sum is worse than the parts.

Beta's not that bad (0, Offtopic)

DeTech (2589785) | about 7 months ago | (#46290613)

The only thing worse than beta is all these anti-beta's out there.

Yes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290881)

Agree 100%. Beta isn't that bad, I like the clean interface. What is the big deal, why do people shit themselves whenever a website changes? Maybe they are still using this - http://theindustry.cc/assets/2012/09/Google.jpg

Re:Yes! (-1, Offtopic)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#46291047)

Fine, support both classic and beta and ask users to choose which one they want as default. Betcha, over 90% would choose classic.

IMO, beta is crap and needs to scrapped. What is needed is enhancements to slashdot design, not a complete overhaul.

BTW, today's google homepage seems to be just an enhancement of its 1998 design, not a complete redesign like beta. Google homepage just uses modern sanserif typefaces today (instead of serif fonts in 1998). The page layout is the same as 1998. The logo is the same but improved using photoshop. The ugly green background table at the bottom is gone -- that's the only change.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291537)

I see beta's copied from classic because post width has been widened so there's less wasted space to the right side of a post. How about some more constructive criticism:
  • Grey boxes -- these boxes surround every post. For deeply nested comments, a single comment is surrounded by half-a-dozen grey lines. It's ugly as hell and distracting. Get rid of it!
  • Frame at the top -- The frame at the top of the page should be eliminated. It serves no useful purpose, slows down page scrolling, and most importantly, reduces number of comments viewable on a screen.
  • Green-grey comment header -- All classic /. post titles are shown in teal-green background. This provides a nice visual separation between different posts. Beta does not distinguish between title and comment body much. Beta should retain classic's teal background for titles and grey background for secondary information like poster name and time.
  • Parent link needs to be brought back for obvious reasons
  • Username under post: Beta lists username under post using a bright green color and that's very distracting. The username should be non-bold, in a smaller font than the comment font and use a darker shade of teal. "Anonymous coward" should be displayed in grey font color, not teal.

Re:Beta's not that bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291185)

The only thing worse than beta is all these anti-beta's out there.

Instead of whining uselessly you should be studying English.

An apostrophe doesn't make a singular noun plural.

Where did all of you idiots who persist with misusing the apostrophe
get your "education" ? A Cracker Jack box ?

Re:Beta's not that bad (1)

DeTech (2589785) | about 7 months ago | (#46291341)

AC's be hatin'. the pain, the pain.

Re:Beta's not that bad (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 7 months ago | (#46291189)

Keep your beta.
Just don't take away my Classic.

D1 for life.

Oh Good (5, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 7 months ago | (#46290641)

We also expect that WhatsApp will add to our efforts for Internet.org, our partnership to make basic internet services affordable for everyone

Yet another attempt to control the Internet.

They're coming. And they will not stop until they own it or destroy it.

The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls. We lose it and we're looking at 1000 years of darkness.

Re:Oh Good (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 7 months ago | (#46291123)

Join the Resistance! Enlightened seeks to enslave us to the .... wait this isn't an Ingress thread is it?

Re:Oh Good (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 months ago | (#46292287)

The Internet is humanity's last chance, boys and girls.

Yep, Skype's gone, and now WhatsApp will be ruined.

Are there any open and demonstrably secure voice/video chat/IM etc applications in the pipeline that anyone's aware of?

Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290643)

$16 billion for a messaging app? The end is nigh...

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (4, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 7 months ago | (#46290743)

No, $16B ($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?) for:

the mobile messaging platform used by over 450 million people

( plus underlying tech, as simple as it is )

And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (3, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 7 months ago | (#46291079)

And this promise that nothing's going to change? Laughable. If nothing else it will receive facebook branding (subtle, such as color changes) pretty quickly, and the only reason to build it out further is so that they can reap even further benefits (read: more users) over to facebook at a later point.

"Independent"? Nothing will change? LOL. They are in for a big surprise if they actually believe Facebook's line of bullshit. And here's a short piece of one of their blog entries:

http://blog.whatsapp.com/index... [whatsapp.com]

Why We Don't Sell Ads

When people ask us why we charge for WhatsApp, we say “Have you considered the alternative?”

At WhatsApp, our engineers spend all their time fixing bugs, adding new features and ironing out all the little intricacies in our task of bringing rich, affordable, reliable messaging to every phone in the world. That’s our product and that’s our passion. Your data isn’t even in the picture. We are simply not interested in any of it.

Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.

Now that Facebook has spent $4 Billion Dollars (the $12 Billion in funny money is irrelevant) these guys are in for a rude awakening.

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291953)

I wonder how this will affect me.
As far as I know microsoft has some kind of deal with them to offer whatsapp for free on windows phone.

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 7 months ago | (#46291385)

($4B, really, who's counting fb stock?)

Brian Acton and Jan Koum. [forbes.com]

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291997)

Can't believe it has that many users and I've never heard of it.

Re:Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (2)

snookiex (1814614) | about 7 months ago | (#46290823)

The user base is significant (and the private information that comes with it) but I agree that there's a tech bubble many times bigger than the 98's. I wonder how much will the big investors get out of it before it bursts.

Re: Bubble bursting in 3, 2, 1 ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290855)

When I see user numbers like that, I assume it includes everyone who ever looked at it and then the multiple troll accounts the real users use.

Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291825)

The user base is not that significant (at least waay off $4bn worth), considering the free period and the fact that is doesn't bring nothing new/hard to clone to the table (eg. Viber has more features). On the other hand, Facebook is buying some pretty good expertise on how to handle live chat systems with Erlang at a global level. This alone may be worth the money.

Re: Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291937)

A chat client requires "expertise"?

so (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290649)

That's pronounced what-a-sap, right?

Next up... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290657)

449.99 million people ditched WhatsApp.

Ooh Lookie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290665)

beta. slashdot.org is back on my screen again.

Buh bye.

sudo sh -c 'echo "127.0.0.1 slashdot.org" >> /etc/hosts'

will continue to exist (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#46290683)

Not for long.

Former Prime Minister Emerges as Figure in Hacking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290689)

t blair are you still there? http://news.yahoo.com/hacking-trial-blair-offered-advise-murdoch-130059279--finance.html

Uninstalls whatsapp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290697)

Uninstalls whatsapp -___- (fucking facebook fucking with my reality all the fucking time)

Ok.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290699)

WhatsApp is dead... WhatsNext?

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290715)

Billions for a goddamn chat app? It might be the trend of times, but this is nothing short of ridiculous.

Even my government's never-finishing (and never-properly-working) IT projects seem cheap by comparison.

Like ping ball games (4, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 7 months ago | (#46290755)

Remember where the scores on pinball machines were sane then one day I saw the ST TNG pinball and the score was like in the millions. Was like WTF? The pricing on some of these virtual companies is the same.

Re:Like ping ball games (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46290959)

Virtual companies, virtual currency, virtual value...

And if they make me have a Facebook account... (5, Insightful)

mfearby (1653) | about 7 months ago | (#46290769)

... UNINSTALL! I refuse to have a Facebook account and if Whatsapp starts making it mandatory to have one, then I'll go back to plain old SMS.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290963)

No, but they will surely collect your data.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (5, Insightful)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about 7 months ago | (#46291235)

Too late, you already have a Facebook account, everyone on the internet does.

You just don't know the password yet.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291367)

Thanks to biometric face reading techniques this is true. Any photo of you that is on there has enough biometric data for them to uniquely identify you and who you hang out with. And people can even tag your name to the photo if you don't have an account, so they get a name to match with the biometric data. Then they can know who your friends are and family. are, the places where you go and probably some other stuff. All this because someone took some photos of you and posted them.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292193)

Just like the DMV? They have every eligible driver's face/name/addy/gender... Why doesn't facebook buy that database, too?

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (1)

JanneM (7445) | about 7 months ago | (#46291693)

Or move to LINE. That one has almost as many users as WhatsApp already.

Which leads me to wonder: is Facebook going to play money-bag whack-a-mole with every new social network that shows up? That's going to get expensive really fast.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 7 months ago | (#46291867)

Yes, that is exactly what is going on. That's the only way to put anything like these supposed values on companies that don't produce revenue.

Re:And if they make me have a Facebook account... (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 7 months ago | (#46291853)

If you've used WhatsApp, you already have one.

sixteen billion??? (2)

sdinfoserv (1793266) | about 7 months ago | (#46290777)

$16B!! Are they nucking futs? It feels to me – as someone who worked through InetBubbleBurst 1.0 - like FB is flailing at something, anything, using the huge cash cache it’s currently sitting on in a feeble and misdirected attempt at non-relevance. Just proof that huge dollars huge brains.

Re:sixteen billion??? (4, Insightful)

gordo3000 (785698) | about 7 months ago | (#46290879)

nah, seems more like they are throwing cash at every company that mimics in a superior manner any piece of fb people used to use. Chat and images are the big two,
the problem is, any new company can come along and start the same service, at which point fb will have to buy them as well. this was the story with instagram, they then tried to buy snapchat, and now bought whatsapp.

Facebook's Next Defensive Purchase... (1)

raftpeople (844215) | about 7 months ago | (#46291353)

The new and exciting "Smoke Signal" app. 1 puff signals "danger", 2 puffs for the "all clear" and of course 3 puffs for "party at my place".

Re:sixteen billion??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291805)

$16B!! Are they nucking futs? It feels to me – as someone who worked through InetBubbleBurst 1.0 - like FB is flailing at something, anything, using the huge cash cache it’s currently sitting on in a feeble and misdirected attempt at non-relevance. Just proof that huge dollars huge brains.

Jan Koum of WhatsApp and Mark Zuckerberg are good friends and well networked with one another. The excessively large payout is being done in juggling "stock" money. This, suspiciously feels .. well ... legitimate with a bit of shadiness.

This is news for nulls (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 7 months ago | (#46290811)

That's why the many millions and billions. We rather need news that financially measures in micro-mills.
I'm serious.

Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch now (0)

netsavior (627338) | about 7 months ago | (#46290819)

I have never heard of "WhatsApp" ...450 million users?

Really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290859)

You've never heard of it? Are you still using your carrier's txt plan? Lolz

Re:Really? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 7 months ago | (#46290947)

It is not like IM was invented yesterday you know? Some of us have better things to do than figure out what's the irrelevant app of the day.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291001)

Yeah! Better things! Like posting on Slashdot, amirite guys?!

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292063)

It is not like IM was invented yesterday you know? Some of us have better things to do than figure out what's the irrelevant app of the day.

I've never heard of it either and I'm not that old, maybe it's only popular in certain regions? One of those third world fads?

Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz (4, Insightful)

Phil Urich (841393) | about 7 months ago | (#46291007)

You've never heard of it? Are you still using your carrier's txt plan? Lolz

Why wouldn't I? I can text anyone anywhere in the world for free, and I don't have to worry about whether we're using the same service and if they actually still check that service or blah blah blah. And services like WhatsApp are tied to phone numbers anyways, so WhatsApp users are just a subset of people with numbers I could text to.

Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291983)

Seriously? For free?
I have to pay for all international texts and calls. I also get "only" 40 texts per month.
I never get close to using that, but I prefer whatsapp because you can actually have group conversations, and it's free even internationally.

Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 7 months ago | (#46292211)

I have a smartphone on the cheapest plan I could find ($29/m). The plan has pathetically small downloads (200mb) but even then I get 400 free txt messages with no additional fee for international.

I thought that almost free SMS was as standard part of contracts the world over now. Even pre-paid services here often include about 200 free messages.

Re:Does your carrier charge you for txt? Lolz (1)

zurmikopa (460568) | about 7 months ago | (#46292159)

Free for you, but probably not for some of the people you're texting. In a reasonable world everyone's incoming texts would be free, but we do not live in such a world.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291171)

You're still using texts and have a carrier? What was it like having some of your classmates catch polio?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291419)

Nope! I'm using my google chat that i've had for years. Not using their client, mind. Beejive on iOS. The best part is, I can move from phone to computer.

People who tie themselves to a single-client chat implementation deserve whatever happens to them.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291633)

All my friends moved off Google chat because the service was so atrocious, messages frequently got 'lost' (never delivered to recipient) and the inability to share multimedia was a PITA.

They all use WhatsApp or Facebook now.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292033)

All my friends moved off Google chat because the service was so atrocious, messages frequently got 'lost' (never delivered to recipient) and the inability to share multimedia was a PITA.

They all use WhatsApp or Facebook now.

Normal people still use email.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292281)

Old people still use email.

FTFY

Re:Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290929)

Well, instead of making this pointless post you could've searched for it in the interwebs. That is, if you really didn't know it in first place.

You also must not be a regular reader of /. as there were a couple of headlines about security issues and other things.

Re:Wow, I guess I am super old and out of touch no (1)

Camembert (2891457) | about 7 months ago | (#46292533)

I currently live in Asia. Whatsapp is very, very popular over here.
A good number of my European contacts are also using it.
I don't know how popular it is in the USA.
I find it a very useful piece of software, one of the most used apps on my iphone.

There you go (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#46290835)

Time to delete my WhatsApp app.

Received so many SPAM phishing emails from this si (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290849)

For a while I got so much SPAM Phishing mail from this site. Really think its a bad service and Facebook wants it for its data mining I guess.

Messaging? (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 7 months ago | (#46290863)

I read the web site, and I still don't understand what this web site is all about. Is it really just yet another messaging platform designed to get around SMS messaging charges? Am I missing something obvious?

1. There are tons and tons of ways to send messages to people last I checked. Why is this one worth "$16B"?

2. Who still pays for SMS messages? I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills. Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290925)

I've had unlimited texting plans for the better part of a decade, and they're cheaper than most people's cable TV bills

If the amount you are paying for SMS is greater than 0 (plan or no), you have been doing it wrong. Try something like Google Voice for zero charge for SMS.

Re:Messaging? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46290981)

Well, people in Europe still suffer from text messages costing money if sent across borders. Anachronistic with a culture that thrives more and more on international communication, but that needs some sort of fix.

And WA was that fix. Dunno what I'll use now.

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291049)

Google voice, google hangouts, e-mail, FB messaging, skype. So many alternatives...

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291527)

I still can't imagine that paying for mobile Internet access is cheaper than SMS costs...

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291995)

And yet, it is. Actually it's almost the same, but with internet I also get to check email and porn etc.

Re:Messaging? (4, Informative)

grantek (979387) | about 7 months ago | (#46291031)

It's Jabber, but without the hassle of account creation. Username is automatically set up as your phone number, and password is your IMEI or something.

So it's about as secure as SMS, but also as practical for technophobes. It's free of charge and allows much more data than SMS (file transfer of pics etc.), which is why people use it.

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291151)

It's only free for the first year, IIRC. Then it's $0.99 a year. Still pretty cheap.

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291051)

Lots of people in other countries use it because it costs money in those countries to send text messages and make calls. It's very popular in Latin America. Nearly everyone I know here (In Honduras) uses it as their main way of communicating. Like texting it's more private than facebook. The company I work for has a broadcast channel that they use for organising logistics in different parts of the country.

It will be a crying shame if this goes to Facebook. I will recommend that the company moves over to Telegram

 

Re:Messaging? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291053)

>> Am I missing something obvious?

The fact that it is installed and used by close to 400M people - it gives access to closed groups of people that Facebook would not ordinarily be able to graph.

Re:Messaging? (2, Informative)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 7 months ago | (#46291711)

After you remove the massive overlap between these claimed 450 million and FaceBook's claimed 1.3 billion or so accounts, and even wider database of identities, you can map the remaining 37 people ;)

Re:Messaging? (5, Informative)

mwissel (869864) | about 7 months ago | (#46291063)

No, it's more than yet another SMS replacement.

It can do cross-mobile-platform IM, group chats, file sharing (video and audio mostly) and as of recent push to talk communication. Also, the phone number is your user account - everyone of your phone contacts will show up in your WA contact list if they use it. Many agree it is the tidies and simplest messenger for mobile platforms around.

On the downside there is their shitty data protection and blatant security faults in the past. On Android, you can't switch off presence and reading confirmations which is quite unfortunate if your boss or knows your phone number - they will always be able to check when you were last on.

As much as I'd love to dispose WhatsApp, I have given up any attempt to do so. Once you registered, you can't unregister (or rather, the function does nothing) and people will continue to send you things. I resigned and tell everyone to not send any sensible information over this service and I use a modded Android app (WhatsApp+ ... you can find the project page on Google+) which allows me to hide my online status.

Re: Messaging? (1)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46291251)

International sms costs money and lots if people have friends and family around the world

And kids are using thesr apps for privacy reasons

Re:Messaging? (1)

mathfeel (937008) | about 7 months ago | (#46291907)

I use WhatsApp. Two reasons. One, the message seamlessly integrates with insert photos, audio, and video. Traditional SMS does not support those media well. Two, it is very popular out of the US. I have a lot of personal contacts from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Europe. It is nice to have everyone on the same platform. I have no idea about how much international SMS costs.
Recently (last two years), I have noticed that most of the messaging activities between my contacts and I have be gradually shifting from Whatsapp to, ironically, Facebook messenger. I paid 3 years license a few years back. It looks like I will not be renewing.

Re:Messaging? (1)

pop ebp (2314184) | about 7 months ago | (#46292519)

Are text messages significantly expensive outside of the US?

I live in Hong Kong, and most carriers charge HK$0.6 (about US$0.08) for each text message between different carriers. I have once been charged HK$200 (US$25) a month just for sending those. So yes, the lower cost was a big reason of WhatsApp's success (at least here).

Grats to the Whatsapp guys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290889)

Good job cashing out while you can! Devs, owners, its time to go on and make that new thing you've been really wanting to do. Or do something philanthropic.

You're not fooling anyone. We know you're going to ditch the moment Facebook makes doing what you're doing now annoying. Why stick around when they just handed you piles of 'fuck you' money?

Darn Facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290901)

I try soo hard to stay away from that privacy disaster and yet they keep finding ways to invade my life somehow... Does anyone have any data messaging app for ios/droid that also allows for encryption?

Genuine Question, re: App deletion numbers.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46290945)

..anybody know if these (number of deletions per app) are available anywhere?

for sure, FB and TheCompanyFormerlyKnownAsWhatsApp won't be publishing these particular numbers anytime soon, but, I guarantee you, next 24 Hours will probably be a record for number of single-app removals.

Mark sees a future without Facebook (1)

Anarchy24 (964386) | about 7 months ago | (#46291033)

Younger people ( say 35 ) have been fleeing Facebook in droves, because it's been around a while, and not "cool" when your PARENTS have joined, friended you, friended your friends, and then gossip more to you about what they're doing than you know yourself. Because they're old and have no life. I deal with this every day. Needless to say, Mark is keeping 'Whatsapp' separate because he knows that Facebook will be toast within the next 10 years and he doesn't want to drag this investment down by attaching it to an ailing brand. Wise move.

Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291141)

If I were him, though, I'd additionally push some of that extra cash into buying up one or two stable, unglamorous businesses. Just because you had luck on your side with your original business, it doesn't mean you have to rely on lucky guesses (i.e., predicting the next fad) for all of your investments.

Re:Mark sees a future without Facebook (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 7 months ago | (#46291735)

Spoken like a true "Younger people" who, for some reason that escapes me, think they have a life somehow more noteworthy than every other living thing on the planet.

As for the business strategy, maybe you are right, or maybe the "separation" is to give at least the appearance of competition in that space or the non-appearance of an all-seeing eye.

WhatsApp Security (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291127)

Is that software even secure as of today? Last time I was reading, it used reverse IMEI as it's password for message encryption, and there has been software to imitate another user, exploiting this flaw.

Might try another IM app, if I'll ever need one (IRC is all I need). ::B

LMBO (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about 7 months ago | (#46291199)

When is fuckedcompany.com coming back?

Or is it just too sad to see that the internet is basically ran by 1/1000th of the amount of manpower in the 90's with 1000X the power/capacity?

Re:LMBO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291393)

At this point, FuckedCompany.com would only have one entry in the Dot Bomb 2.0 Deadpool: Facebook. Because they keep buying up all the dot bombs out there...everything will be under one roof when the whole thing collapses.

Good. I'll be the first to yell "Headshot" too.

For those who don't know... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291285)

....Facebook's CEO and founder is jewish, just like (most of) the founders of Whatsapp, Snapchat, and obviously Google. The IT industry is becoming just like finance and media.

Have fun trying to persuade yourself that we live in a meritocratic world and who doesn't agree is just a paranoid loser.

Not all are jewish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291717)

Bill Gates and Paul Allen are not jewish.

Re:For those who don't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292315)

So Jews started successful Internet companies, and you didn't. Hmmmm....so Jews are smarter than you, is that what you're saying?

They want your thoughts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291315)

Not having a Facebook account is no guarantee that Facebook will not contain data on you. If your idiot friends use Facebook and all of their contacts are harvested or they tag you in their photos, Facebook will eventually fill in the dots for human word of mouth. That's what Facebook ultimately wants to be able to do, map human communication paths. That's the gold they mine. Right now, we have an environment with the phone companies monitoring SMS messages and keeping that data gold (with the exception of government agencies). A messaging app that ties into all of their other products, and allows mining that data is just another way for Facebook to fill in the blanks and their pockets. I don't like it, but its a good move for suckerburg to continue to fill his pockets.

The good thing, at least... (3, Interesting)

mousse-man (632412) | about 7 months ago | (#46291317)

will be that WHEN the bubble blows, only shareholders will be left to hold the bag, not taxpayers (except maybe through bad investment into their retirement funds).

Re:The good thing, at least... (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 7 months ago | (#46291903)

Don't be so sure, it depends on how close FB's ties in Washington are.

Huh, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46291777)

Glad that I don't use WhatsApp.

Who's going to short FB stock tomorrow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46292521)

Put your money where your mouth is?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>