But if you now have several millions of people who will not use Whatsapp at all, all the groups that they are in will need to migrate to the alternative (which is pretty much Signal/Telegram at this point). So those few million become few tens of millions. And once they migrate and start liking it, they may avoid Whatsapp as well, because it's far easier to just use one app, and then their groups need to migrate, and so on.

Edit 1: Added Telegram as an alternative.

A dedicated and stubborn minority can gradually impose their preferences on a majority who does not have a strong opinion on something. This why you'll order a cheese pizza if you're hanging out with friends and a single person in the group is a vegetarian.

In my own life there are many group chats that are now on signal because one stubborn 'ole grouch, namely me, insisted on it. Most people don't give too much thought to the chat app they use, so they kind of shrugged their shoulders and went along with it.

With messaging apps you can use both Whatsapp and Signal, so even if you convince a few people to convert, Whatsapp is unlikely to decline.

The important word in Taleb's thesis is 'stubborn', not minority. The change isn't gradual but 'fractal' with one person in the group being able to flip everyone else, and they going on an doing the same thing.

You can have both Whatsapp and Signal installed, but everyone in a conversation needs to have the same app. So why not both doesn't apply as neatly as you assert.

It's also a backup mechanism in case Signal fails (like it did when the exodus happened)

I view SMS as a fallback solution. It has plenty of benefits, i.e. no app required, works on every mobile phone ever made.

It’s just a question of how many people are extremely pro WhatsApp and will Facebook drive them away.

Done, nobody cares anymore, for real and features will come from Google :D We're so stuck on using 2 apps instead of 2 networks we forget mobile phone providers had to agree together to do SMS decades ago, and it went fine with dumbed down feature.

And let's be honest, the only killer feature that made me finally adopt whatsapp like 6 years ago was that it used the data plan that works on WIFI rather than the phone plan. We were all fine with SMSes before.

I had more issues with iMessage delivery then I ever had with SMS in my whole life. I dont even remember a single incident with SMS delivery. And I consider your "missing media" point an advantage. Sending stupid videos from phone to phone is a disease that I dont want to deal with.

Signal actually has a desktop app. It requires having installed signal on a phone before, and linking the accounts, but it doesn't depend on the phone after that I believe.

As for SMS, it works on pretty much any device and network, with the caveats that it's the first and lowest common denominator messaging service.

  >Signal actually has a desktop app.

So yeah, while saddening I don’t expect SMS to make much progress as its lifecycle is tied to the worst one in the industry.

XMPP had a better chance, but unfortunately chatting service is the bait for other purposes... so an interop standard has no chance to survive without regulation.

They based it on the decentralized protocol Jabber (or XMPP) and even open their servers to others. Meaning you could discuss with people using other servers than GTalk, just like email.

Google closed their servers to federalization, rebranded GTalk to Hangout and made bad decision after bad decision (but always in the direction of closing up instead of supporting open standards), lost the fight for messaging despite controlling the dominant mobile OS.

tl;dr I have no faith in Google to (1) do the right thing for open standards and (2) manage to get any sort of market share on messaging

rewording your sentence: Google stop volunteering time & resources on efforts that help others make money, and focused on only Google making money. I don't own any Google (AlphaBet) stocks, but if I was a shareholder, and someone would have told me that "we have a line item that is -50m on our statement, but hey, it is good for the competitors", I would like that line item gone.

I have faith in Google that they will try their best to make money. They may lose 1 here and make 50 there, but that -1 will be gone after a certain time. And this is a good business decision. Otherwise they would have one cash cow and 100 losers and they would be a break-even business, which is not a Business because Business = profit.

You just added a bunch of accounts and all you messages and conversations (SMS, Skype, Jabber, etc.) were in one unified place.

Its still effectively this way on modern SailfishOS but as new IM services are effectively app based silos with no public API this system needs, you are not really able to make use of it.

3 groups:

1. Uses Signal only

2. Uses both

3. Uses Whatsapp only

1 is the stubborn minority, 2 is slowly increasing, and 3 probably doesn't care enough to be considered stubborn, and definitely not minority.

At least that was my thought, this whole debacle reminded me immediately of the stubborn minority, so I'm very curious to see how it plays out.

1. Uses whatsapp out of momentum. Doesn't want to use anything else, but might if people really push them; i.e. open to transition to group 2.

2. Will use whatever. Some people in this group want to stop using whatsapp, but won't break contacts to do so. Some people in this group would prefer to stick with whatsapp to avoid the burden of a switch, but won't break contacts to do so. This is the vast majority of switchers.

3. Die hard whatsapp users. Simply refuse to switch to another app, because it's a hassle, and/or because they begrudge other people making a mountain out of a molehill and asking them to do anything. Might oppose yet-another-app; or might actually want to stick to whatsapp because they actually like the simplicity of the network effect.

4. Die hard non-whatsapp (likely signal?) users. Refuse to use whatsapp, likely due to privacy concerns or distrust of facebook.

I don't think most people trying to switch away from whatsapp are in 4. Anecdotally, I people I know asking to switch are clearly in 2, and are largely losing to those in 3. Only 1 person I know claims to be in 4, but I'm not really sure that'll stick if the exodus doesn't keep momentum. Because of the existance of the bulk of humanity which barely cares about this, and some of which will get annoyed at the suggestion - I suspect group 3 is much, much larger than 4, and that suggests this exodus will fall flat. The only real chance here is that since this is all about closed groups that network effects aren't so huge, so a considerable exodus without actual terminal velocity is possible.

To me the biggest question, does 2 grow bigger than 3? When X% of people have Telegram, Whatsapp and Signal installed, then it becomes a non-issue to have Signal only sticklers.

> The only real chance here is that since this is all about closed groups that network effects aren't so huge, so a considerable exodus without actual terminal velocity is possible.

This is my experience so far. I think you're right that the network effect is very fragmented and micro. In my case the few active groups that I value have migrated, the rest don't care and could email me or sms me and I've seen sufficient migration to Signal, signalling that moving from 1 to 4 might be viable.

I think the stubborn minority may indeed be small, but you havent given the intolerant minority the time ineeds to grow.

The guy nagging people with Linux ten years ago.

Anyway.

This is something I want to highlight. I know we’re not all product managers but as people working in tech we should be able to take different perspectives and understand that what matters to us doesn’t matter at all for the 99% of the people outside our tech world.

Also, human have limited amount of attention --- if Telegram/Signal cannot make it to the critical mass soon then average users who had been convinced to try the alternatives might eventually revert back to WhatsApp because maintaining multiple chatting channels can be quite annoying at times, especially considering majority of their contacts might still be on WhatsApp and it is just easier to post there.

So now with that amount of people switching trying out Telegram, could mean that at least 2-3 people on a non-tech social circle might be using Telegram which might end up convincing the whole group to switch because of features (polls? utility bots?) or any other benefit they might find.

I have no issue using telegram or signal, it’s just that the default choice is becoming/became whatsapp.

Cant stand Zuckerberg, but he does have an eye for products that can really explode in growth.

The fact that the acquisition happened has more to do with regulators being asleep than Zuckerberg being awake.

As far as I can recall, the EU regulators believed Facebook's lies about not being able to link WhatsApp and Facebook accounts, which Facebook promptly ignored a few years later. They were fined €110m ($134m) [0]. The maximum fine would have been $276m at the time. Still cheap IMO.

This quote reads like a joke now:

> Today’s decision sends a clear signal to companies that they must comply with all aspects of EU merger rules, including the obligation to provide correct information

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fi...

I don't envision a whole continent to change to something else unless WhatsApp dies.

It also depends on your level of seniority in that group. If you are a junior member, they likely won't switch, but if you have the social clout, you might be able to get them to switch.

For the same reason, Facebook was initially open to only Harvard, then to a few other ivies, until it opened to all colleges in the USA and Canada. If your high school friend who made it to the the highly esteemed college uses the service you are more likely to switch than if it were the reverse situation. Later these people get into important positions of society and if you want to network with them, you too can use FB.

Oh the irony of a knee jerk reaction fleeing an end-to-end encrypted messaging service to a messaging service that only offers opt-in encryption that more often than not doesn't get used. There was never any proposal to remove encryption anywhere, only add a new feature that, by the very nature of it, didn't lend itself to practical end-to-end encryption.

Here we have an exodus driven by *privacy* concerns surrounding the new policy. Users fled from WhatsApp to other services with the intent of keeping their conversations more private. The subset of those who switched to Telegram made their conversations strictly *less* private, achieving the opposite of their goals.

There is something wrong with that.

That's not strictly true. Users fled whatsapp to keep their messages away from Facebook. It could be a concern for privacy or a concern for not letting Facebook (specifically) monetize their conversations.

There's "I'm plotting criminal activities or planning to overthrow my government" messaging which requires secure encryption.

And there's "I don't particularly want to be followed round the intarwebs by adverts for piles ointment, because I mentioned my itchy arse in a message to someone" which requires respect for your privacy.

I reckon most of us are happy enough with the latter in daily use. And, when we do need to plot an overthrow of the government, we can always flick the big "secret chat" switch. I think Telegram just about gets the balance right; sacrificing some default secrecy for ease of use, seamless sync across all your devices and 'fun' things which are likely to lead to wider adoption --whilst also allowing you to switch on the more secure stuff, as and when you need it.

> Specifically, users had 30 days after first seeing the 2016 privacy policy notice to opt out of “shar[ing] my WhatsApp account information with Facebook to improve my Facebook ads and product experiences.” The emphasis is ours; it meant that WhatsApp users were able to opt out of seeing visible changes to Facebook ads or Facebook friend recommendations, but could not opt out of the data collection and sharing itself.

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/its-business-usual-wha...

Whatever flaws Telegram got, it seems less impactful than getting mined by facebook and the practical design failings of Signal.

I can see some benefit with Signal being open source.

I think this may have been resolved now. However the issue remains that you cannot delete signal contacts and legacy groups, which means anyone who gets a hold on your phone number (without a pin) or phone, or account access to third party involved, got evidence for communication between you and a possible incriminating entity.

> Contacts must be blocked in order to be removed from your Signal Contact List. To learn how to block someone, click here.

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319011-Ma...

You either have the contact in your contact list, or block list... I hope that's obviously supporting my claim.

Some of these meta data leaks may have been changed and are a result of my old account, however Signal lost my trust. (And lost sympathy over Moxy Marlinspike's opinions and presentation over time, e.g. the hangover/drunk "centralization: good" CCC talk, the F-droid drama, ...)

Well me too and... Even before this recent WhatsApp fiasco I noticed that some parents are using Telegram at the school where my kid goes. Out of 24 kids in my kid's class, there are 3 families which I know for sure have Telegram (I don't have contact with all of the parents so I don't know).

And I think Telegram is reporting more than, what, 500M users by now? If it's true, it's definitely a sizeable dent in WhatsApp's market share. It may not be 2B+, but 500M is quite something.

The thing is: users are not loyal at all. Telegram or Signal or others are a click or two away: it's neither hard to find/install nor to use.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see a bigger shift some day once more people begin to realize that "WhatsApp = FB" (many don't like FB but have no idea WhatsApp belongs to FB).

Users aren't loyal, true, and installing another app is easy, but getting your friends and family to switch often is not.

In my case, I was one of those people really not wanting to use WhatsApp but being forced by group pressure.

But now that I can even just vaguely reference the ToS issue with WhatsApp, I find people are willing to at least try and install Signal.

When you start WhatsApp the splash screen says "WhatsApp from Facebook" so I would be surprised if people really didn't know that the two companies were related. Instagram is the same, it says "Instagram from Facebook".

WhatsApp: https://i.imgur.com/JS20lGJ.png

Instagram: https://i.imgur.com/1SWybdu.png

I live in Mexico, most things happen through WhatsApp.

I was surprised by how many of my non-technical friends migrated to Signal and Telegram. Non-techies were sharing fake information about the new policy. The word around was that the new policy would allow facebook to spy on all your messages and photos. This scared off a lot of people and many of my friends at least download Signal or Telegram.

It's purely anecdotal of course, but I never expected this type of reaction to happen so massively and so fast.

I'd not be surprised if a lot of people got "FB (evil!) wants to read everything or they will close your account". Given how often I have received "share this message 10 times or WhatsApp will delete your account" from relatives, I think it also plays into this fear of losing access to your contacts. And it was all over the mainstream news, with the alternatives readily available (and their own shortcomings often not described).

But I take the bet they are moving to Telegram in a month or two when Signal's shortcomings hit them (mainly chat history and some sync issues).

Perception does matter a lot, and that’s why I used the 1% figure. It means one percent of WhatsApp users are investigating a competitor (not even deleting their account in WhatsApp, but I guess few did) and here people seem to see it as a clear tipping point to which I disagree - raw numbers don’t mean much if you have nothing to compare with.

There are also other examples, but I consider this level of advertising by them to be very desperate.

Did millions of users uninstall WhatsApp? I don't think so. The most downloaded app figures by App Annie shows exactly what it says, which app was downloaded the most during that period. So as long as WhatsApp stays in the phone and if it receives a single message from hundreds of contacts a user has; WhatsApp didn't loose that user.

So the correct title IMO is 'Signal, Telegram gained millions of users'.

Most people probably can't remember the exact moment that Skype was no longer relevant.

> Most people probably can't remember the exact moment that Skype was no longer relevant.

When smartphones became the go-to compute device for many. Yes Skype was made available to smartphones too, but like many other 'mobile first' applications which replaced traditional desktop software Skype was pushed down by the chat apps.

But I suppose it's also fair to say that Signal is now a good example of a 'privacy first' app, a new category that WhatsApp equally don't seem too interested in.

I think the analogy still holds both ways: exact uninstalls are not important once the communication starts moving elsewhere, and 'mobile first' and 'privacy first' are categories that companies ignore at the cost of losing millions of users.

Although it's become much less relevant for IM purposes, it's still my to-go application for ad-hoc video calls with friends and family. Mostly because (a) it has an actively maintained desktop client, (b) it is offered as a standalone service, (c) it is home-user friendly (won't splash you with meeting and calendar buttons like zoom).

(a) its actively maintained (b) unsure about requirements of "standalone service", but its stand alone as its only a chat service (c) its just a messaging client, no calendar/meeting kind of stuff

Other than that I've had good success with web-focused services like Google Meet and Jit.si. There isn't a desktop app but to an extent that's been a win. All you need to do is email/text a link to your chosen friends and its all in their browser using web standards (or semi-standards, no plugins at least for modern FF/Chrome/Edge). No accounts, assuming they have a modern browser there's no software to install, just click and go.

As for the definition of a standalone service: One that doesn't tightly integrate with other offerings/ecosystems. Skype is kind of ok because other than connecting with your MS account, it doesn't promote other offerings. Also Microsoft's business model is not based on collecting and selling your data, at least not in the same extent as Google/FB.

Web-focused services work ok if you're comfortable with the web. But for parents, grandparents etc., I feel that a standalone client with a simple interface is more foolproof.

What do you mean? Skype is being used more now than this time last year. It has just been renamed. The first few versions of Teams would even call themselves "Skype" when connecting to PulseAudio.

Say what you want about Microsoft, but they are the (Forefront?) experts at re-re-re-branding.

-- Sent from my MS Passport.NET account.

Agree - WhatsApp didn't lose the user. whatsApp lost the usage. That's still a loss. Not a total loss but a loss never the less

This is the first time I have seen about dozen new Signal contacts; but the question is how many of those dozen contacts are initiating messages through Signal and receiving messages in Signal from the newly signed-up users?

I have sandboxed WhatsApp in a separate machine and receive its messages through email[1] and I still receive WhatsApp messages from the aforementioned contacts.

Things would have changed if WhatsApp locked out the profiles(incl. me) who didn't accept the T&C on Feb 8; but now with that gone I don't think there's really going to be any change.

[1]https://abishekmuthian.com/send-and-receive-whatsapp-message...

I didn't totally delete my Facebook account either, but as I haven't posted in years and don't have the apps installed, I don't think I contribute much more to their bottom line than someone without account.

Since the term change, I’d say maybe 10-20% of the contacts on my phone have installed signal. It notifies you of new contacts. I don’t know if they’re chatting, and no one has actually used it to message me, but the group I’m seeing is far beyond some technical niche.

Whether it dents whatsapp is another question.

Some anecdotal evidence from my end is that with the change of terms nontechnical friends are much more open to use other messengers if I say I don't want to use WhatsApp. Previously I was sort of regarded as the guys who was making a fuzz out of nothing, now people just say OK let's try. I suspect this is because it made it to mainstream media, so there is more general awareness.

It seems also that the people moving now are more the nontechnical audience. For example my partner who is completely nontechnical and using what others are using, just told me last week that suddenly all her acquaintances are popping up on signal.

HN can't represent all of the 50 million new users to Signal.

I don't think that this is an apt comparison. The functionality of IM is virtually unchanged for the past 20 years or so, and can easily be replicated. This makes jumping between different IM much more frictionless than switching a search engine.

“Let’s assume they fully moved and stopped using WhatsApp (very unlikely)” why is this “very unlikely”, I’ve uninstalled WhatsApp, I will never install WhatsApp again, ever. I guess I’m part of the “very unlikely” group.

But this is different. If all your friends use WhatsApp, you have no choice but to use WhatsApp. An chat network where you are the only one is useless.

I’ve had a ton of non-tech people show up on Signal suddenly. I asked one of them why everyone is signing up, and he said because he doesn’t trsut WhatsApp.

For most of those, I didn't even have to initiate it, it was proposed by a less techy member than me.

I'm not saying this will happen soon, but it happened in the past several times with products with a strong network effect.

Think about AIM, MSN, Friendster, MySpace...