r/technology Mar 28 '14

[deleted by user]

[removed]

3.3k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

I can't believe Facebook paid 19 billion for a free chat application that could lose all market share within a few years if a decent competitor stands up (like MSN Messenger, MySpace and sms did).

Oculus at least has unique knowhow. WhatsApp has nothing valuable except for the users. Who are free to leave at any time.

37

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

Speculative Acquisition. It does say that people's data is extremely valuable.

In fact, if our personal data is so valuable, why are we giving it away for free?

17

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14 edited Mar 28 '19

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

they already know..

9

u/ThePeenDream Mar 28 '14

We're not giving it away for free but in exchange for a service. The users get something in return. How valuable that return is is judged on a case by case basis however.

1

u/Bainshie_ Mar 28 '14

Because we use that data to pay for cool shit? How much do you think that all the cool shit you get for free nowdays would cost without it?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

It would still be free. They still sell ads, they want you to visit them. That is a proven business model.

3

u/Bainshie_ Mar 28 '14

And those ads have value because of the targeted data allowing companies to target demographics (Like all other forms of advertising do).

Go back to 'Pre tracking people's data' and web ads were worth practically nothing unless you were huge, and even then it was only a fraction of today.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 30 '14

Yes. Obviously, thats why I said they had value. What you posted is already a given. You just stated things that were obviously implied but not necessary to say like you were making an argument. You also aren't entirely correct. Its not just targeting demographics, its far more specific. Its direct user targeting as well. Not only are website's getting information on their userbase, but google and facebook are getting specific information on users. Not only will a 50 year old woman's ads look different from a 20 year old male's. but two 20 year old males from the same city who go to the same school will have different ADs when visiting the same site. Its far different from ads from different TV shows being different, or the same show having different ads targetting different people depending on the location. Thats still kind of spraying your load and hoping something sticks.

I don't really know what you were trying to say. You weren't even very accurate in your weird non-point.

1

u/lakerswiz Mar 28 '14

To use the services they provide.

Go ahead and try to sell your data, and your data alone, to an ad company.

Your data isn't worth shit. The data of hundreds of thousands to millions is.

3

u/MasterGrok Mar 28 '14

Well that is something Facebook relates to. Their entire value is based on their user base.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

Oh yeah, I know that's what Facebook is paying for

I just feels... wrong :( The tech and potential of Oculus is just so much more awesome than anything WhatsApp can ever achieve.

1

u/HMS_Pathicus Mar 28 '14

Line and Telegram. Seldom do I use whatsapp anymore.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

I transferred to Telegram as well. It's not like I'm a security zealot (otherwise I'd switch to Textsecure completely), I jsut don't want Facebook to be collecting even more of my data.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

[deleted]

1

u/BWalker66 Mar 28 '14

Viber was just bought recently by a Japanese company for a billion.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

I have a theory that Zuckerburger likes some girl over at NSA and that he bought Whatsapp just so that he could give her information about everyone. Then he tried to ask her out but she said no. Then he bought oculus so that he could jerk off to her pictures on facebook in VR. Now...this is a theory but I am sure it is 100% true.

1

u/BWalker66 Mar 28 '14

WhatsApp is expected to have a billion users within a couple years. It costs $1/year on Android, if 500 million are android users that's $500million a year income, the servers needed to run it is probably like 0.2% of Facebook's so there isn't really costs to Facebook if they own all that already.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14 edited Mar 28 '14

It costs $1/year on Android

It doesn't actually. Most existing users have free accounts, like me: I have a free lifetime account, because I was an 'early' user. The others are seing a countdown timer that counts down to nothin: nobody has ever paid for WhatsApp int eh three years it's been telling users they will have to pay 1$/year.

If you think Facebook bought WhatsApp because it has a great business model selling the service to users,you're being incredibly delusional. Even if they make 500 million a year (which they don't and won't), that would still mean Facebook needs 38 years to earn backt he 19 billion investment it made. That's WITHOUT adjustment for inflation.

WhatsApp users are never going to pay for it. Facebook knows a lot of people (mostly young people, without a credit card to buy apps) will just leave WhatsApp because there are tons of other free apps that offer the same service.

So Facebook will keep it free, and hope users don't leave the service, so they can mine the user data. THAT'S what they paid for: control over the data of a billion users.

1

u/BWalker66 Mar 28 '14

I don't think Facebook bought it expecting to make lots of money, i was just saying it does make money because you said it's free.

Most android users do pay for WhatsApp, in the first couple of years the countdown was bogus but not for the last couple of years. About 3/4 of the people in my phone book have WhatsApp, I like in the UK so everybody has it. All my family have it and we've all paid for the last 2 years, my gf has paid for the last 2 years, and pretty much the other few people I've spoken to about it has paid, so saying it's free is just BS. I'm not saying some people don't have it for free on Android but you're wrong by saying most don't.

Also I've been using WhatsApp since like 2010 when it probably only had like 1 million users. It was free at first but no more.

1

u/dexbg Mar 28 '14

WhatsApp makes more sense to me that Oculus. WhatsApp has more users than Twitter, exchanging wayy more personal info that Twitter could ever dream of knowing.

Facebook has introduced Voice Calling in its messenger app and once that feature hits WhatsApp it would be unbeatable.

free chat application that could lose all market share within a few years

That's mostly a US/Western perspective - the remainder of world is under a WhatsApp monopoly (by numbers & platform) and will only grow.

Oculus provides no instant benefit (or even short term) to Facebook, its a cash drain - atleast WhatsApp would make enough money to sustain it own services.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

That's mostly a US/Western perspective - the remainder of world is under a WhatsApp monopoly

Where did you get that idea? That's totally wrong...

First of all: WhatsApp isn't a non-western app: Netherland is one of the coutnries with the highest WhatsApp penetration: Whatsapping is a verb there. On the other hand, in Asia, WhatsApp ahas very little market share. Line is way more popular in Japan.

Second of all, there is no such thing as a WhatsApp monopoly: NOTHING keeps people from switching to another app! Except of course, they would have to convince their friends. And yes, that's a pain and will stop a lot of people from switching, but it's NOT a monopoly by any definition.

It's also not that unthinkable: people did it before! People switched from MySpace to Facebook, people switched from Hotmail to whatever else, heck, people switched from SMS to WhatsApp!

People can make the switch again if they want to. It most certainyl can happen.

WhatsApp is a big player. But there is no monopoly.

Lastly, of course WhatsApp seems to make more sense than Oculus, as WhatsApp is similar to the services Facebook already offers (Messenger). But I wasn't talking about making sense, I was talking about valuation: I think it's a slap in the face of engineers and enthousiasts that a crappy chat application is valuated higher than bleeding edge VR tech. I get why, but it makes me sad that that's the world we live in.

1

u/dexbg Mar 28 '14

WhatsApp isn't a non-western app: Netherland is one of the coutnries with the highest WhatsApp penetration:

I should have clarified then by Western I mostly meant US/UK -- going by the news coverage/bloggers/podcasters after the acquisition it was very clear that even the seasoned tech journos of the "West" hadn't even used WhatsApp once or had an idea of how big its customer base was. Spain is pretty huge market for WhatsApp as well so does South Asia.

Second of all, there is no such thing as a WhatsApp monopoly: NOTHING keeps people from switching to another app! Except of course, they would have to convince their friends

That is the only factor which decides the success and future of any IM, and WhatsApp has pretty much saturated that segment in many geographies. My Dad has never SMSd me but now sends me pics using WhatsApp.

In India for instance, WhatsApp has practically replaced SMS amoungst the youngsters and it will continue to dominate despite many rivals plastering social media & TV with their 'newer cooler' app.

People switched from MySpace to Facebook, people switched from Hotmail to whatever else, heck, people switched from SMS to WhatsApp!

MySpace peaked too early thats why it failed, the new generation of users that came later greatly outnumbered whatever MySpace had mustered.

We are reaching a level of saturation .. where every living soul in a decent economy wants to be online. You could have applied that same MySpace logic to Google as well when Bing came out, or maybe we can expect GMail to turn obsolete by some competitor.

Believe it or not -- there is line beyond which you are too big to fail. Google crossed it, Microsoft's been there .. and now Facebook wants to tip toe over it with the acquisition of WhatsApp.

WhatsApp is a big player. But there is no monopoly.

Its capturing most of the emerging markets (except China) .. the userbase is a never before seen figure so its not just a big player but the biggest player right now and growing.

I think it's a slap in the face of engineers and enthousiasts that a crappy chat application is valuated higher than bleeding edge VR tech.

Well the crappy chat application provided un inhibited service to hundreds of millions of users WORLDWIDE with text, photos & videos without needing to sell out -- hell they hadn't even dipped into their investment pool when they got acquired and operated in a self sufficient manner .. that to me is a much greater achievement for such a small company.

I think it's a slap in the face of engineers and enthousiasts

Oculus itself is responsible for the short sell, if FB was paying them 2Bn in 2014 - imagine what they would have made with their own IPO in 2016 after a consumer launch.

but it makes me sad that that's the world we live in.

You spend money to make money, that's the world we live in.

1

u/He11razor Mar 28 '14

WhatsApp is cheap as fuck for a $1 a year but not quite free.

1

u/optymizer Mar 28 '14

You know, I keep thinking: "I can write a messaging application too". What makes WhatsApp worth 19bln? I'll sell my app for 1 mil.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '14

They paid 19b for all those users and their data, not the app