WhatsApp Going Entirely Free After Dropping Subscription Fees

[usamaah]

WhatsApp has a terrible web client. You must have your phone near you at all times and the phone must be connected to the Internet at all times otherwise it wouldn't work. You even need your phone to authorise the log in every time.

Facebook Messenger has all the Whatsapp features and more...and best of all you no longer need a Facebook account to use it...and you can actually use its web client without a phone next to you.

It's just surprising why Facebook has two services that does the same thing.

I know what you mean, it does that because the messages sync via cloud to each device in a group but the messages are stored in the device. That's why you need to keep your phone hooked to the internet.

It's why I prefer Telegram. But I have family in India that use WhatsApp so what are you going to do?

Facebook Messenger doesn't have native apps for desktop clients. I also just don't like Facebook. But yes it has the advantages you mention.
[doublepost=1453129274][/doublepost]

Spot on. It makes them MUCH more money by indexing your conversations and personal data than to charge a tiny monthly/yearly fee for the service. Google has shown this again and again. The information they get from Gmail by going through and indexing all your conversation, is worth far more money than charging $20/month for the service.

Can you please direct me to any evidence of WhatsApp monetizing our conversations?

 

[Manatlt]

Facebook Messenger doesn't have native apps for desktop clients. I also just don't like Facebook. But yes it has the advantages you mention.?

Official Facebook Messenger desktop client is in the works. Engadget mentioned it. Also there are currently a 3rd party client called Messenger for Desktop, that works brilliantly.

And Facebook owns Whatsapp, so you kind of contradicted yourself there. As I said you don't have to open up a Facebook account to use Messenger anymore.

 

[usamaah]

iMessage doesn't keep the messages in the cloud. That's why iMessage doesn't have a web client.

No, the reason there is no web client is because Apple uses it's Apple devices to verify it's you and this helps them be sure they are sending an encrypted message to you and you alone.

Of course they store in the cloud, how else are devices synced?

• Once your device has retrieved a message, that encrypted copy of the message is deleted from Apple’s servers. If you have multiple devices, another encrypted copy meant for another device might sit on their servers until it expires. Messages are stored for up to seven days.

 

[navaira]

It's just surprising why Facebook has two services that does the same thing.

It actually is. I find Whatsapp much better from usability point of view (also I have friends who do not have Facebook and have no wish of changing that state of affairs), and I find the web client very useful (my phone is always with me anyway). Messenger is uncomfortable to use, not to mention bizarre FB habit of deciding which conversations I want to see, which I do not, and what's "filtered". But yes, I sort of expect FB to phase out Whatsapp soon as indeed it makes no sense to have two apps. Also it would force some more people to get FB accounts.

 

[usamaah]

Official Facebook Messenger web client is in the works. Engadget mentioned it. Also there are currently a 3rd party client called Messenger for Desktop, that works brilliantly.

And Facebook owns Whatsapp, so you kind of contradicted yourself there. As I said you don't have to open up a Facebook account to use Messenger anymore.

I know Facebook owns WhatsApp, I explained I have family that use WhatsApp so I need it to communicate with said family. It's popular in India. I use Telegram and Hangouts with my friends here.

Glad to hear there's a third party client.

 

[9646829]

But why? I've never seen an option to pay for it, I'm in the UK too.

It was on Android, so no idea.

 

[Merkie]

All this will do is teach our kids that apps and services should be free. It's happening with the Chromebook in schools. Hopefully they figure out that its their personal information that's being sold and that's worth much more than the dollar a month they'd have to pay to use the service.

This is not true. Whatsapp has end-to-end encryption, so there's hardly any usable data. Furthermore, why sell data as a business model when there's far more money to earn in the business market? Even the OP makes mention of this (which you apparently did not read):

Starting this year, the company will begin testing tools that let users interact with businesses that they care about, which "could mean communicating with your bank about whether a recent transaction was fraudulent, or with an airline about a delayed flight."

 

[Manatlt]

It actually is. I find Whatsapp much better from usability point of view (also I have friends who do not have Facebook and have no wish of changing that state of affairs), and I find the web client very useful (my phone is always with me anyway). Messenger is uncomfortable to use, not to mention bizarre FB habit of deciding which conversations I want to see, which I do not, and what's "filtered". But yes, I sort of expect FB to phase out Whatsapp soon as indeed it makes no sense to have two apps. Also it would force some more people to get FB accounts.

You need to expand on "usability" because they are both very similar looking except Facebook's native colours are blue and Whatsapp is green. The functionalities are almost the same.

Facebook Messenger also has a web client? (And a desktop and OSX client in the works) So you can't use that as an advantage over Messenger.

(And when I mean web client, I mean a proper standalone one, not the one on the Facebook website)

Your friends do not need a Facebook account anymore to use it. They opened it up almost a year ago and the sign up process is the exactly the same as Whatsapp. However if you have a Facebook account, you can use that also to log in.

Also the filtered stuff never happens on Messenger. It's like Whatsapp, the most recent chats are on top. You can delete chats or archive them as well. Maybe it filtered stuff years ago, but after the reboot of Messenger none of that happens.

 

[navaira]

I have found out that Facebook messages can be filtered by accident because someone posted that on my wall and I went and checked and I had 27 or so messages from strangers.

Usability... Messenger pops up that annoying circle thing on my screen. When I have no time to respond, I move the circle around while doing other things, then remove it, then forget there were any messages. Whatsapp just waits patiently displaying a (2) type notification. (I'm on Android, maybe this is different in iOS.)

I didn't know it's possible to use Messenger without a FB account. I guess my non-FB friends don't know that either

 

[Nuvi]

So... We are no longer clients but actual products which WhatsApp is selling to their real clients. Funny, when WhatsApp was privately owned company they had a mission statement in which they promised never to betray their clients and start selling them like cattle.

 

[Abazigal]

WhatsApp has a terrible web client. You must have your phone near you at all times and the phone must be connected to the Internet at all times otherwise it wouldn't work. You even need your phone to authorise the log in every time.

Facebook Messenger has all the Whatsapp features and more...and best of all you no longer need a Facebook account to use it...and you can actually use its web client without a phone next to you.

It's just surprising why Facebook has two services that does the same thing.

I read that messenger is more popular in the US, while whatsapp is more popular in the rest of the world where unlimited SMS is far from the norm. So between these two services, Facebook is able to reach out to the majority of users around the world.

 

[MH01]

I've used it for years and never got charged.

Does not matter what platform or app you use, someone has access to that data. Be smart about what you send.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Can you please direct me to any evidence of WhatsApp monetizing our conversations?

Facebook bought WhatsApp long ago. Indexing the content and monetizing it is how they make their money on Facebook and certainly how they do with WhatsApp too. They didn't pay $19 billion for WhatsApp just to run a truly free service. They're making their money on it the same way they do Facebook and Google does. It's a HUGE source of user data that can be used to better market to people and the reason they paid so much for it.

You can see in the legal terms that you surrender that information to them for marketing and other purposes, by using the service: https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/

 

[Manatlt]

So... We are no longer clients but actual products which WhatsApp is selling to their real clients. Funny, when WhatsApp was privately owned company they had a mission statement in which they promised never to betray their clients and start selling them like cattle.

That promise was broken the moment Facebook bought them to be fair.

I read that messenger is more popular in the US, while whatsapp is more popular in the rest of the world where unlimited SMS is far from the norm. So between these two services, Facebook is able to reach out to the majority of users around the world.

I really think though it's best to merge both services instead of having two that does almost the exact same thing.

Messenger's web client is even superior to Whatsapp's web client for example. You can perform video calls and audio on it for example, while you can't with Whatsapp's.

 

[Manatlt]

No, the reason there is no web client is because Apple uses it's Apple devices to verify it's you and this helps them be sure they are sending an encrypted message to you and you alone.

Of course they store in the cloud, how else are devices synced?

• Once your device has retrieved a message, that encrypted copy of the message is deleted from Apple’s servers. If you have multiple devices, another encrypted copy meant for another device might sit on their servers until it expires. Messages are stored for up to seven days.

Back to this, isn't Whatsapp the same except doesn't perform copies? (Because it has no multiple device support)

The sent message needs to be stored somewhere if the person's device is switched off or has no internet. Whatsapp stores messages in the cloud too the same way as iMessage if you want to go through that route.

 

[69Mustang]

Facebook bought WhatsApp long ago. Indexing the content and monetizing it is how they make their money on Facebook and certainly how they do with WhatsApp too. They didn't pay $19 billion for WhatsApp just to run a truly free service. They're making their money on it the same way they do Facebook and Google does. It's a HUGE source of user data that can be used to better market to people and the reason they paid so much for it.

You can see in the legal terms that you surrender that information to them for marketing and other purposes, by using the service: https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/

You didn't read that TOS did you? It doesn't support your assertions. The privacy policy actually contradicts your assertions. To be fair it seems to not have been updated since 2012. Things may have changed. But as evidence, it doesn't help bolster your point at all.

 

[springsup]

No, the reason there is no web client is because Apple uses it's Apple devices to verify it's you and this helps them be sure they are sending an encrypted message to you and you alone.

Of course they store in the cloud, how else are devices synced?

• Once your device has retrieved a message, that encrypted copy of the message is deleted from Apple’s servers. If you have multiple devices, another encrypted copy meant for another device might sit on their servers until it expires. Messages are stored for up to seven days.

That snippet disproves your point. When you send an iMessage to somebody, it actually sends X messages which are uniquely encrypted for each of the receiver's devices (so each of their iPhones, iPads, Macs, Apple Watches). That's how your devices appear to be in sync.

Those messages may get temporarily stored while waiting for delivery (maybe your device is turned off), but they're always unreadable from any other device, including by Apple or by any web client.

However, iCloud Backup (a separate service) will backup your message history. When you set up a new iPhone and sign in to iMessage, if you didn't restore from a backup (I.e. choose "setup as new device" during first boot or disabling iCloud backup), you have no message history synced from the cloud. Only new messages show there.

 

[usamaah]

Back to this, isn't Whatsapp the same except doesn't perform copies? (Because it has no multiple device support)

The sent message needs to be stored somewhere if the person's device is switched off or has no internet. Whatsapp stores messages in the cloud too the same way as iMessage if you want to go through that route.

That's my point. You touted lack of cloud storage as a feature of iMessage, I thought? I was pointing out that there is some storage in the cloud. WhatsApp does too, but they only sync with one device, the phone, and then the message is destroyed. That's why you need the phone to access the web client, since the messages are on the phone. With iMessage you can turn your iPad on a week later, your phone could be dead and messages will sync and come through. Certainly convenient but the byproduct is there is still some retained storage in the cloud because it's hooked to all your devices. EDIT: and again since Apple cannot do its encryption model with a web client, it doesn't offer a web client. WhatsApp web client messages are secure because it's just reading from the phone. You can revoke privilege to the browser from the phone at any time.
[doublepost=1453132369][/doublepost]

That snippet disproves your point. When you send an iMessage to somebody, it actually sends X messages which are uniquely encrypted for each of the receiver's devices (so each of their iPhones, iPads, Macs, Apple Watches). That's how your devices appear to be in sync.

Those messages may get temporarily stored while waiting for delivery (maybe your device is turned off), but they're always unreadable from any other device, including by Apple or by any web client.

However, iCloud Backup (a separate service) will backup your message history. When you set up a new iPhone and sign in to iMessage, if you didn't restore from a backup (I.e. choose "setup as new device" during first boot or disabling iCloud backup), you have no message history synced from the cloud. Only new messages show there.

I never claimed they'd be readable, only that there are messages stored in a cloud. Not like iCloud backup, I get that. I know that once the message has been sent if you delete it you cannot retrieve from that device.

 

[Manatlt]

That's my point. You touted lack of cloud storage as a feature of iMessage, I thought? I was pointing out that there is some storage in the cloud. WhatsApp does too, but they only sync with one device, the phone, and then the message is destroyed. That's why you need the phone to access the web client, since the messages are on the phone. With iMessage you can turn your iPad on a week later, your phone could be dead and messages will sync and come through. Certainly convenient but the byproduct is there is still some retained storage in the cloud because it's hooked to all your devices.

You grouped iMessage along with Hangouts and Telegram in your post as if they all perform the same thing which is permanently store the messages in the cloud until the user wants to delete them.

iMessage doesn't work the same way as Telegram nor Hangouts but works almost the same way as Whatsapp.

 

[usamaah]

Facebook bought WhatsApp long ago. Indexing the content and monetizing it is how they make their money on Facebook and certainly how they do with WhatsApp too. They didn't pay $19 billion for WhatsApp just to run a truly free service. They're making their money on it the same way they do Facebook and Google does. It's a HUGE source of user data that can be used to better market to people and the reason they paid so much for it.

You can see in the legal terms that you surrender that information to them for marketing and other purposes, by using the service: https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/

I looked at the link. It doesn't say that anywhere. It does say that they're not responsible for any advertising you come across while using their service. In fact it states.. (See attached screenshot)
[doublepost=1453132928][/doublepost]

You grouped iMessage along with Hangouts and Telegram in your post as if they all perform the same thing which is permanently store the messages in the cloud until the user wants to delete them.

iMessage doesn't work the same way as Telegram nor Hangouts but works almost the same way as Whatsapp.

Ah I see.

Yes no I didn't mean to imply that. WhatsApp and iMessage argubly have a more secure model since Telegram and Hangouts have permanent storage. Telegram states the messages are stored in encrypted form but still it's a liability. I'm willing to risk that for the cross platform advantage. It's why Hangouts is my least favorite of the ones I use. Also because it's nowhere near as rich as the other 3.

 

[BuffaloTF]

The WhatsApp fee was easy enough to avoid... But it was most definitely a worldwide fee equivalent to 1 USD. If you swapped devices enough, turning it off one device and activating it on another was enough to get another free year.

But as far as all this goes, this is just another step towards merging the 2 platforms. There won't be 2 forever. There might not even be 2 for all of 2016.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

You didn't read that TOS did you? It doesn't support your assertions. The privacy policy actually contradicts your assertions. To be fair it seems to not have been updated since 2012. Things may have changed. But as evidence, it doesn't help bolster your point at all.

Wat? Their TOS isn't going to outright state "We index your data to sell better information to advertisers." Instead it just states what rights they have and they made it clear that they can use your information for marketing and other activities.

 

[nutmac]

I thought I'd never say this, but I frankly find Facebook Messenger to be superior to WhatsApp. And as other poster said, I think privacy will no go out the window anyway.

 

[kingtj]

And what's wrong with teaching kids that apps or services often become free to use when they serve an over-saturated marketplace?

As long as I've owned a personal computer, I've had the option of using freeware software on them. Charging money to use a program means the developer believes it has so much more value than the free alternatives, it's worth paying for. Unfortunately, that's not always reality ... so people pay too much for things they could have accomplished cheaper.

All this will do is teach our kids that apps and services should be free. It's happening with the Chromebook in schools. Hopefully they figure out that its their personal information that's being sold and that's worth much more than the dollar a month they'd have to pay to use the service.

 

[69Mustang]

Wat? Their TOS isn't going to outright state "We index your data to sell better information to advertisers." Instead it just states what rights they have and they made it clear that they can use your information for marketing and other activities.

Again, you didn't read the evidence you submitted. It directly contradicts the assertion you are still making without any discernible proof. As for their info not stating outright "We index your data to better sell to advertisers", you're wrong there as well (please read your own evidence). They tell you exactly what they do with your data, which is classified as personal and non-personal. The same classifications used by Apple and Google. Btw, both Apple and Google expressly tell you they index your data to better use, not sell, aggregated and anonymous data for advertising purposes. Same as Whatsapp. I can back up my claims with evidence from Apple, Google, and use your evidence from Whatsapp. All you've done is throw out disparaging supposition with no evidence of truthfulness to it. I don't use Whatsapp so I have no skin in the game. But if I make an accusation, I will at least attempt to be accurate.