
WhatsApp will no longer charge subscription fees - yulunli
https://blog.whatsapp.com/615/Making-WhatsApp-free-and-more-useful
======
diezge
I remember being prompted for a small payment once or twice but still ended up
being able to use the app regardless? strange

------
gberger
Telegram has its Bot API which, among many other things, makes it possible for
any organization or individual to create applications that "allow you to use
[Telegram] to communicate with businesses and organizations that you want to
hear from".

Telegram offers this for free.

------
lwf
Facebook's already doing similar things in their Messenger app with some
narrowly-defined usecases, such as ordering an Uber:

[https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/introducing-
transportat...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/12/introducing-
transportation-on-messenger/)

------
CodeGlitch
I'm just going to stick to Email :) I'm old enough to see all these messaging
applications come and go (ICQ, MSN Messanger anyone?). I'd rather see a
company try and improve email's flaws then try and force new protocols and
undefined encryption down our throats.

Yes I sound grumpy, but that's because all my family are on WhatsApp and I
don't want to be :)

------
fgandiya
For the 5 years I've been using WhatsApp, I've never been charged anything. I
always get a "trial extension", even after changing numbers many times and
changing countries 3 times.

I don't know if this happens frequently, or I'm just lucky

------
trekking101
I was in the audience and he gave a pretty clear hint that commerce (a la
tencent) would be the path forward for monetization

------
LeoNatan25
When a business becomes "free" with no clear indication what the monetization
model is, my "spider" senses are tingling. Time to abandon ship.

------
firloop
Worth reading of course is the post (pre FB acquisition) on why they don't
sell ads: [https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-
ads](https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads)

~~~
cvwright
And for those who didn't read the link, the punchline at the end of that post
is:

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

The (implied) alternative here is advertising; the author just spent the
previous 8 paragraphs discussing all the unpleasantness and creepiness that
that entails.

------
sz4kerto
Not that I have met anyone who paid for Whatsapp, ever. :)

~~~
JTon
I paid 99c for Whatsapp on iOS years back. This was before IAP and I believe
it was the only way to get it on the platform.

------
ptx
When I very recently started using WhatsApp, the client displayed a link to a
blog post[0] they wrote about why charging subscription fees was important and
a good thing:

"At every company that sells ads, a significant portion of their engineering
team spends their day tuning data mining, writing better code to collect all
your personal data, upgrading the servers that hold all the data and making
sure it's all being logged and collated and sliced and packaged and shipped
out... And at the end of the day the result of it all is a slightly different
advertising banner in your browser or on your mobile screen.

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

...

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

Given that this new blog post carefully talks about not introducing "third-
party ads", presumably first-party ads are still on the table? Which would
make this new model the alternative that they warned us about earlier.

[0] [https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-
ads](https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads)

~~~
StavrosK
I'm not sure how true that ever was. I've been using WhatsApp for years and
never paid anything. They'd always just extend the subscription. None of my
friends ever paid anything either (most of the people who use WhatsApp here
don't even have a CC on file at Google Play).

------
XorNot
I don't think I ever paid fees for Whatsapp, and I'm not sure how or why. But
this also seems too late. Facebook own them, my family started using Facebook,
and with Messenger as a separate app I more or less lost any incentive to use
it.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
I think only new sign ups after the fee introduction paid the fee.

~~~
currysausage
When I signed up for WhatsApp in 2012, the iOS app cost 0.79 € (I believe it
was a promotion, usually 1.79 €) and gave me a free lifetime license. I think
the Android app already asked for a yearly fee after one year at that time, at
least in theory.

------
mintplant
> Starting this year, we will test tools that allow you to use WhatsApp to
> communicate with businesses and organizations that you want to hear from.
> That could mean communicating with your bank about whether a recent
> transaction was fraudulent, or with an airline about a delayed flight.

Sounds a lot like what WeChat has been doing in China with their Official
Accounts.

Best explanation I could find quickly:
[http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2016/01/13/ecommerce/welcome-t...](http://knowledge.ckgsb.edu.cn/2016/01/13/ecommerce/welcome-
to-the-wechat-galaxy/)

Instead of, say, downloading the Uber app to get a ride, you'd open up WeChat
and message its app account.

~~~
lindig
This. A messaging app like WhatsApp could become a platform. I'm not sure how
the "apps" in this world would look like but I would find it great if text
interactions (like on IRC, in the shell, or a text adventure) would have a
comeback. Forget most of HTML/CSS and get back to basics ;-) In reality, some
graphical UI will probably be necessary.

~~~
mintplant
I just wish we had a good way to do this without locking it all into a single
proprietary platform.

~~~
paublyrne
Text messages?

------
ronnier
I don't like that WhatsApp is tied to my phone number.

~~~
pkd
FWIW, this was my biggest gripe with it too. I did not start using WhatsApp
till 2014 while all of my friends had already switched a couple of years back.
I was happy with Facebook messenger, but i was forced to switch to be in the
loop. Although since Facebook messenger also needs your number to verify the
phone, if I remember correctly, it hardly matters.

I have recently made the switch to Signal[1], and made my partner switch too.
It's been a blessing.

[1] [https://whispersystems.org/](https://whispersystems.org/)

~~~
mynewtb
Sadly signal uses your number too.

~~~
pkd
Yes. But I'd rather give it to moxie than anybody else.

~~~
mynewtb
Your name and number are already in all major databases if you have any
friends with smartphones.

I am just annoyed that I cannot choose and control my 'identity' but instead
am bound to the provider's number.

------
defenestration
Paid business services for customer interaction, sound like a plausible
business model for WhatsApp. However, I get the feeling this is only part of
the story. I assume that data mined by WhatsApp are probably more valuable to
Facebook.

~~~
51Cards
I would agree. I think their user base has hit some tipping point which
ensures other revenue streams. That's the only reason I can think they would
throw the fees... out the window.

(nice user name)

~~~
Pharaoh2
So I know internal figures from facebook regarding whatsapp. A large majority
of our users are never actually charged a subscription fee.

The app is facing stiff competition in some markets against apps that don't
have any subscription model. Even though whatsapp won't actually charge those
users the presence of a subscription feature seems to be causing a growth
hinderance.

Not sure how it will compete in these markets now given the entrenched nature
of social platforms and how hard it is to convince people to switch but that
remains to be seen.

Also, until recently whatsapp/facebook couldn't actually read any message sent
by users to other users/groups because of the end to end encryption in place.
Not sure why they would change that just to get a data mined revenue source,
metadata is quite sufficient for that. Even with NSLs on fb in place, the
impossibility of of us to read the messages in whatsapp is sufficient reason
to deny a NSL request.

Zuck doesn't really interfere with whatsapp, but like with some other things
this seems like a bid to increase DAUs and retention instead of any new source
of revenue.

~~~
StavrosK
> until recently whatsapp/facebook couldn't actually read any message sent by
> users to other users/groups because of the end to end encryption in place

Does that mean they can now?

~~~
Pharaoh2
Your question would have been answered if you had read the paragraph.

That statement is based on my latest information, which is a few months dated,
that they couldn't. Things could have changed but it's unlikely.

~~~
StavrosK
The paragraph doesn't say anything one way or another.

------
ENTP
I, for one, shudder at the thought of Facebook getting my banking messages.
Telegram has been a great alternative although it's not perfect.

~~~
mcpherrinm
I'd be much more nervous about Telegram getting that data.

~~~
ultramancool
It's a toss up:

\- WhatsApp uses reputable cryptography from reputable sources, but combines
it with a UI so much designed for ease of use that it throws out the
possibility of real security

\- Telegram uses extremely questionable cryptography to begin with from people
who probably shouldn't be designing cryptosystems

If you want real security, go use Signal or better, OTR where socialist
millionaire's is still an option for key verification.

~~~
sayhar
> OTR where socialist millionaire's is still an option for key verification.

Can you explain the socialist millionaire comment? I don't get it.

~~~
0xdada
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_millionaires)

------
secfirstmd
Signal is also free and based on a business model that doesn't require
eventually being able to interfere with your privacy and mine your data.

[https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/signal-private-
messenger/id8...](https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/signal-private-
messenger/id874139669?mt=8)

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcri...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.thoughtcrime.securesms&hl=en)

~~~
hendzen
What business model _is_ Signal based on?

~~~
defenestration
From their description in the iTunes store: 'Pay Nothing - Signal is supported
by a team of dedicated developers, community donations, and grants. There are
no advertisements, and it doesn't cost anything to use.'

~~~
staunch
So it's a project, not a business.

~~~
oliwarner
You say that as if is has less value for not being a business.

When ideals are involved (strong encryption, privacy, ad-free), being run as a
lean, open-source project is worth much more than being owned by a megacorp
like Facebook.

~~~
staunch
> _You say that as if is has less value for not being a business._

No, I did not :-P

------
Animats
That's too bad. If you're paying, you're the customer. If you're not paying,
you're the product.

~~~
refrigerator
People seem to say this all the time, but assuming it's true, what's
inherently wrong with "being the product"?

~~~
riquito
> what's inherently wrong with "being the product"?

Products are sold

~~~
psykovsky
Humans love being slaves...

