Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

[choof]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

there's probably more money in keeping sms and data separate

[Frenegade]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

You lame kids and having yr faces as bookmarks. Am I understanding this correctly? Meh, who cares? NotSureAtAll

[choof]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

who fucen smells o it's u Frenegade

[Frenegade]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

Couldn't be bothered

[ilikexd]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

You lame kids and having yr faces as bookmarks. Am I understanding this correctly? Meh, who cares? NotSureAtAll

what the f

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

WhatsApp is used massively. I don't use it very often myself, but almost anyone I know that has a phone does. You can send free data (whenever you have wifi) instead of having to send an SMS. WhatsApp was the first app to become big enough for it to be useful in that sense, and thus it only went bigger and bigger.

At this point I will feel surprised if you say you have a phone that can handle wifi, but you don't have WhatsApp.

[Pseudo Enigma]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

I've never even heard of this before today. Then again I don't own a phone lol

I wonder why Facebook would want it so badly. It seems like eBuddy for phones...

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

Everyone in italy has whatsapp. i see no reason to pay for sms messages when you can use it, especially when each message will cost you much much less even if you only use 4G internet from your telephone provider instead of wifi. I've never used sms messages in over two months, except for a couple people who still don't have a smartphone. As long as facebook doesn't sabotage or turn it to crap, i'm very fine with it being integrated.

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

My case is pretty much identical to Mollo's. My phone isn't anything high-end and uses 3G instead of 4G, but even then, since a WhatsApp message is probably a few kB at the most, it's still way more efficient.

Texts are usually something like 5 cents here which would be like a few hundred bucks per MB, lol.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

Yeah, and on top of that you can't send images so easily with traditional sms, nor you can send voice clips for cheap. I think it's a great tool. sms messaging was a scam for the consumer all along, it costed nothing for the operator as it worked on unused data packets and still was sold at a really high price considered its worth. I'm glad it's being replaced by better and cheaper alternatives.

[Kekeb]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

I wonder why Facebook would want it so badly. It seems like eBuddy for phones...

Likely because their messenger app is stagnant on mobiles. Why bother building up a user base for your services when you can just buy one. Not to mention this keeps people vested in facebook. It would be silly to not expect some kind of whatsapp/fb chat integration.

[popsicle_3000]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

so i've used what's app for 3 years. a lot of people use it.

how is it worth 16billion? it costs 1$ for the app (or did when i bought it). Where is its value?

[Snowcrafta]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

It's like skype for phones.

I don't get what the whine is about for the SMS charges, I wasn't aware limited texts per month was still even an option

[Pseudo Enigma]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

Likely because their messenger app is stagnant on mobiles. Why bother building up a user base for your services when you can just buy one. Not to mention this keeps people vested in facebook. It would be silly to not expect some kind of whatsapp/fb chat integration.

didn't the article in the OP say that it would remain independent from Facebook? Did I read it wrong? I interpreted that as Facebook would own them, get money from them etc. but not change anything about the way it is run. "No ads, no games, no gimmicks."

[Kekeb]

Re: Facebook / WhatApp nonsense

didn't the article in the OP say that it would remain independent from Facebook? Did I read it wrong? I interpreted that as Facebook would own them, get money from them etc. but not change anything about the way it is run. "No ads, no games, no gimmicks."

Using an intentionally ambiguous word like 'gimmick' is reassuring. Facebook is definitely getting something valuable to them, and the only thing that makes sense is integration.

EDIT: That, or maybe the data.