304
What is an absurdity that has been normalized by society?
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
304 points (96.9% liked)
Asklemmy
55464 readers
331 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't get this sentiment. If anything happens to WhatsApp, they'll just switch to another IM. WhatsApp wasn't the first to come along, and won't be the last. How exactly does Meta have them by the balls?
it's a shame.
I know, I'm from those countries. Like I said, we used other IM apps before WhatsApp came along, and if something changes we can use a new app. WhatsApp currently leads the market due to the network effect, but it doesn't have us 'by the balls'.
(Though the most likely successor would be WeChat, which is arguably much much worse in many ways)
Yes, yes and yes. Yes I'm from one of those countries
I suppose that depends on your definition of by the balls. Like I said, it's not difficult for everybody to switch if they piss everyone off. On average people here have 2-3 IMs installed.
So many people use it, that the barrier to change to another application is high. They would need to fuck up on very large scale.
Yes, they currently have the market share, and network effect keeps them there. Nevertheless, my point was it's not a monopoly, so how does Meta have everybody 'by the balls"?
Network effect might as well be a monopoly until the network kills itself.
I take issue with the concept of one company owning an entire communications network in the first place. Federation is a step in the right direction but it's not enough yet.
I remember listening to a podcast that talked of how in the Philippines (I think it was), Facebook is the internet, because Meta/FB effectively subsidised the carriers into allowing FB access to not use up any data allowance. As a result, if all you do is go on FB, you don't pay a penny. If WhatsApp is included in this, then yeah, you're locked in with no real alternative.
Oh right. Not quite nowadays, they get subsidised from multiple companies, including Google (YouTube) and such. I hate to say this, but WeChat would probably be happy to jump in and grab some market share if Meta does something egregiously dumb
It's an issue of userbase.
WhatsApp can and will get away with a lot before it drives users to a mass exodus, when messaging should have just been an open protocol from the start.