WhatsApp Explores Ads in Chat App as Meta Seeks Revenue Boost – Slashdot
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
They’re sick of not being able to monetize the worlds most popular chat app, so why not put ads in it, so it’s no longer the most popular chat app.
Given a choice between being most popular and making more money, most businesses would choose to make more money.
Making money is sorta the whole point of a business.
What about the choice between being popular because/so people use your product, and being unpopular because/so people don’t?
I have heard of threema…
Until there is an alternative that everyone already has.
The EU is pushing for interoperability. WhatsApp is already preparing for it.
Apple and iMessage will eventually cave, like they did with USB-C
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent EU decision to designate WhatsApp as a “gatekeeper”. Their reaction was to open it up so people can make 3rd party clients, and presumably they expect those clients to not display their ads. Or deliver the user’s contact list to them. Or any of the other hostile stuff that WhatsApp does.
Either way, expect to see a hacked version of the client on xdadevelopers, free from ads.
And now we know why google never really tried to force people into a own chat app. They could not find a way to monetize without being hated.
fucking marketers and advertising. I will go out of my to AVOID products that are pushed into my face. Marketing assholes have turned the Internet into a steaming pile of shit.
It might be the opposite: why not keep using WhatsApp if you can use it to send messages to people on facebook, google and so?
It might be the opposite: why not keep using WhatsApp if you can use it to send messages to people on facebook, google and so?
It might be the opposite: why not keep using WhatsApp if you can use it to send messages to people on facebook, google and so?
Indeed. I’ve used Viber, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, and other chat apps, and WhatsApp has a better UI than any of them.
If WhatsApp can interoperate, I have no reason to use the other apps ever again.
I hope they do it and I hope it will be the last straw that convince people around to move to a different network
Is enshittification [wired.com]. Thanks Cory!
Well they started with a subscription model so it makes sense. But it’s going to be hard to convince grandma to pay for a chat service. Ads are the only obvious revenue model for a free chat service like this, especially since grandma will probably click on them by accident because she thought it was something you sent her.
Ads are the only obvious revenue model for a free chat service like this
Ads are the only obvious revenue model for a free chat service like this
WhatsApp currently makes money selling user data and offering premium services to businesses.
They make money off it by integrating it with their social media, not a lot, but it’s better than the nothing they will earn once it’s dead.
I’ve been thinking about how corporations are pretty much in charge of your government (I’m in EU), which is highly beneficial for both, just not for the people, of course. WhatsApp should be a “public service App” like Open Source perhaps, untouchable by ad companies, but if they somehow need more money, they will make it happen. The question is how do you possibly prevent it? and is it possible to make another app very similar to WhatsApp but Open Source, which could takeover?
There’s one: Signal. It’s AGPL. It’s on Flathub.
Correcting myself: The part about it being on Flathub is not relevant.
Of course, Signal! Thanks. I’ve been looking into WhatsApp alternatives for Linux some time ago, and SIgnal is the first I stumbled upon. Also Telegram and Element. I liked the element best because it uses Matrix decentralised protocol, but people like Telegram and Signal more, probably because they’re more user friendly and more widespread. Well, even more people should be aware of their existence and vote by ditching WhatsApp in favour of any other messenger app. See how things went for Facebook. It’s a s
Thanks for the Element recommendation
Here we see one of the reasons why a proper consumer electronic ecosystem (ie. Apple) is a natural monopoly, it’s not about service bundling, it’s about monetization. Social media attracts a stupid type of investor, a properly marketed ecosystem (Apple) can shout down those idiots because of their image. Meta has an image of selling their customers and has very little leverage against the idiots.
Apple also has far more synergy from iMessage than Meta can gain from WhatsApp too. Some is better than none of c
PS. the topic is slightly inaccurate, there is room for social mefia services. Apple won’t touch that because of the reputational risk. Messaging though, they will own that.
Apple gets more benefit from iMessage than Meta can get from WhatsApp because Apple makes devices and uses software as added value. Meta sells ads and uses software as a lure.
I have a philosophical problem with Signal. I just searched right now so maybe I have not found the right explanations and you can clarify if you are knowledgable.
Signal:
1) is not in Debian, you need to add a repository https://www.linuxcapable.com/h… [linuxcapable.com]
2) Is not in gentoo in source form, you need the binary package (why?)
3) is not on f-droid
I found the instructions on how to build the desktop version https://github.com/signalapp/S… [github.com] but not for Android. There is a self-proclaimed “unofficial Signal wiki” h [miraheze.org]
I’m not sure you are better off with any other service peddling the same flawed concept for $10/year instead.
Quite honestly, I have never clicked on an ad on purpose. If ever, it was a “miss-click”. How on earth is advertising still making anyone any money? I get that Whatsapp would get money for adding someone’s product to ads but I’m lost as to how this would make the seller any money if people don’t click on them?
Internet ads are incredibly inexpensive to deliver, only a tiny percentage of people have to click and an even tinier percentage actually buy something to make them cost-effective.
Printed flyers still work on that principle, and they’re exponentially more expensive.
Quite honestly, I have never clicked on an ad on purpose. If ever, it was a “miss-click”. How on earth is advertising still making anyone any money?
Quite honestly, I have never clicked on an ad on purpose. If ever, it was a “miss-click”. How on earth is advertising still making anyone any money?
Have you ever clicked on a television commercial or an ad in a printed magazine? Yet these ads still exist. Merely showing them to you gets into your head – whether you like it or not. Also, just because you don’t click doesn’t mean that others do the same.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
NASA Names Chief of UFO Research; Panel Sees No Alien Evidence
For the First Time, Research Reveals Crows Use Statistical Logic
“The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected.” — The Unix Programmer’s Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972
