It surprises me that ad companies build their businesses around audiences who cannot afford $1/year for a useful service.

I'm not suggested that people in poorer economies should be deprived of targeted advertising. It's just surprising they wield such influence. I guess they make it up in volume.

>It surprises me that ad companies build their businesses around audiences who cannot afford $1/year for a useful service.

They're planning for the future. Those people will be the major consumers of the world. The companies that can gain market share in emerging economies now will reap the rewards.

https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/sites/know4pol/files/o...

> audiences who cannot afford $1/year for a useful service

Not being able to afford and not being willing to pay are separate.

Not really, if the amount of disposable income is the deciding factor.

> if the amount of disposable income is the deciding factor

That's a big if, though. I wouldn't pay $1/year for WhatsApp messaging as a consumer. But I have a lot of disposable income. When you have a free substitute, these signals get mixed up.

There are massive variations in what people get from it and what they'll pay.

I live in South Africa and I'd pay $50 a year. Throw in a few paid-only features and I'd be quite happy.

All my friends use it. We use it at work for many teams. Video call with family in Australia. Audio with friends in Toronto or Chicago via Bluetooth while driving. That feels like magic. Better quality audio then the cellphone network and just works.

I have Skype, messenger, telegram, had Viber, tried WeChat. Barely use any. WhatsApp is like SMS, focused on my phone contacts, but has groups, audio, video, photos. That's all I want.

Here's an article discussing a local cell data bundle. It's still $1-3 per month. Poor people are willing to pay that because of the better value compared to SMS and voice call costs.

https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/technology/mtn-hikes-u...

A lot of advertising is aimed at low income, low educated people because some products you still have to buy even if you are poor.

Thousands of corporations have survived without having to worry about markets that don't have disposable income. You don't see Apple hurting because they aren't successful in the poorest areas in the world.

It may sound cruel, but is it crueler than saying "Since you can't afford to pay, just give us access to your emails and private messages"?

Apple is a luxury good. You also don't see Gucci or Prada or Moet-Chandon unhappy because they can't be purchased in the poorest areas of the world.

Facebook has a different business model and a different mission than those companies.

Applications like WhatsApp noticeably improve the standard of living for people in WhatsApp, as they allow them to communicate with people far easier, cheaper, and faster than otherwise would have been possible.

It really is more cruel to say that because you, in a first world country, can pay 1 dollar much easier than they can pay 1 dollar, you should decide that they're not allowed to pay with their data if they desire.

If someone can't afford to pay $1 per year for something that allows them to communicate faster and cheaper then they are so fucked it's not even funny.

We're talking mind-boggling levels of poverty. How are they able to even pay for a phone and mobile subscription? Where do they live? How do they eat?

It sounds to me like a made-up sad story used as an excuse for rich corporations. If there are people that poor out there, Facebook could charge the rest of the world while offering the service for free to those that really can't afford it.

Not sure where in the world you live but if the medium income for Malawi is $250 dollars and the medium income where you live is $25,000 convert 1 dollar to $100. Would you pay $100 dollars a year for whatsapp? I wouldn't. For those living in the valley making 250,000 a year that translates to $1,000 dollars. To me that sounds like flushing your money away. The best phones are under 1,000.

I get your point, but the cost of the phone and mobile data to actually use whatsapp has a lower limit as well.

Even if you use whatsapp on a $50 phone (which you use for say 5 years) with a $3/month plan (which seems incredibly cheap), you have amortised costs of $46 per year. Increasing it to $47 to get whatsapp does not seem as unreasonable as you suggest.

Malawi is also an _extremely_ poor country, for reference Bangladesh have ≈ 5% smartphone usage with a GDP of ≈ 4000 USD per capita (PPP) while the GDP of Malawi is ≈ 1000 USD (PPP) per capita.

I would argue that not paying (but having the means to actually use whatsapp!) is more of a choice, or lack of payment infrastructure, rather than not having the disposable income to spend 1 USD per year for the service.

Why are countries where people can't pay $1 per year at all relevant to a discussion on software products?

If India and Malawi and whatever other country can't pay for WhatsApp, they don't get it or Facebook makes it free just for them. Or they find a way to make the ones that can pay do so.

What's the big deal?

It's cruel because WhatsApp is already there and people rely on it. Also worth noting, second point applies to Facebook but WhatsApp is encrypted.

WhatsApp was encrypted before the acquisition. And I am 100% confident that is why they want to find a way to monetize it directly. Not having access to data is not something they are used to.

You don't see them telling the FB Messenger team: "Hey, you need to make money."

> WhatsApp was encrypted before the acquisition.

WhatsApp was acquired February 2014 and end-to-end encrypted April 2016.

> And I am 100% confident that is why they want to find a way to monetize it directly. Not having access to data is not something they are used to.

I agree.

> You don't see them telling the FB Messenger team: "Hey, you need to make money."

I mean, I'm sure they have. Messenger has ads.