(no title)
baktubi | 4 years ago
When you say, “Now the app does dating…” I think the right move is to scrap the project because that’s a colossal fuckup. Unless you have Microsoft cash to have multiple colossal fuckups in a row, don’t add another dating app to your messaging app. Ergo, less is more.
WhatsApp probably started with passion and a solid vision. The Zuckerberg gave them an offer they couldn’t refuse. Anyone will take 19 billion for a basket full of Indian users.
Another thing WhatsApp did well is they targeted ALL phones. They didn’t abandon their users like the fang-bangers (sorry been watching True Blood— FAANG is an annoying acronym so they are hereby fang-bangers).
ChicagoBoy11|4 years ago
That was clearly the killer "feature." Whatsapp is synonymous with communication on the developing world because of this. I remember when I was introduced to it fairly early on in Brazil and someone claiming that yeah, anyone no matter the OS could get on it. I couldn't believe it, to be honest, it felt like what iMessage was starting to look like... but for everyone? I can't imagine what it would've been like to support so many things, but clearly it was a lot of sweat that paid off extremely handsomely.
netcan|4 years ago
I'm not saying that philosophy is bad, just that reality is complicated.
"Scrap the project and move on" works in some contexts, not others. The way startups/products actually work, often, is evolutionary. If your texting idea didn't work, but you see a chance to pivot into something... are you really going to just fire everyone and tell investors "sorry?"
That said, the "one thing well" philosophy really does have big engineering advantages. You can't have everything. I'm just raising the "retrospectives" warning.
In any case, the "$1 per year" was never a real business model. They never even got around to actually charging it... because anything that limits the usership of a messaging app will sink it. It's the opposite of "support everything" strategy that made them successful.
"Sell to Zuck" was always the plan.
baktubi|4 years ago
* Pivoting would leverage existing technology built in the process of initial concept. Which to me is the equivalent of scrapping the initial idea (while salvaging the generally-useful IP/technology).
* Adding a bunch of tangential features to a product to increase revenue is a colossal fuckup scenario (maybe the language is a bit over dramatic).
For instance, Google is great at search; gmail is cool; docs was innovative (albeit limited); and then… https://killedbygoogle.com/
Unfortunately, after seeing this time and time again it’s tough for me to get behind mainstream tech. I loved the old Microsoft/Nokia phones; and the Zune. You can tell a lot or love went into the design/engineering but then projects just get axed by corporate interests.
Meanwhile, you can by a mechanical device or appliance from 1950s and it’ll still work just fine.
1f60c|4 years ago