WhatsApp Explores Ads in Chat App as Meta Seeks Revenue Boost

WhatsApp is exploring a new feature that would display adverts in the app for the first time, a move that has caused internal controversy, as parent company Meta seeks to monetise the world's most popular messaging service. From a report: Teams at Meta have been discussing whether to show ads in lists of conversations with contacts on the WhatsApp chat screen, but no final decisions have been made, according to three people familiar with the matter. However, the concept has been debated at a high level within the company, due to concerns it would alienate users, said a person with close knowledge of the discussions.

Two of these people said that Meta is also deliberating whether to charge a subscription fee to use the app ad-free, but many insiders are against the move. Before WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook for $19bn in 2014, its co-founder Brian Action had made "No ads! No games! No gimmicks!" a company mantra.

One way to fix it

[viperidaenz]

They're sick of not being able to monetize the worlds most popular chat app, so why not put ads in it, so it's no longer the most popular chat app.

Re:One way to fix it

[ShanghaiBill]

Given a choice between being most popular and making more money, most businesses would choose to make more money.

Making money is sorta the whole point of a business.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

What about the choice between being popular because/so people use your product, and being unpopular because/so people don't?

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Meh, people will still keep using it. I bet they can put tonnes of annoying, inappropriate ads, games, & gimmicks, & a few journalists & pundits will make disgruntled noises for a while, then everyone will just get used to seeing ads, ads for games & gimmicks, games, & gimmicks in their message feeds. They may not like it but how are they going to get all their contacts to agree to migrate to the same alternative platform?

I only hope some clever bunny can come up with a way to block/h

Signal is WhatsApp without ads

[Anonymous Cward]

Folks finally have a very good reason to switch over to it and this will be the make o break if ads do start appearing.

Re:

[Voice of satan]

I have heard of threema...

Re:

[viperidaenz]

Until there is an alternative that everyone already has.
The EU is pushing for interoperability. WhatsApp is already preparing for it.
Apple and iMessage will eventually cave, like they did with USB-C

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent EU decision to designate WhatsApp as a "gatekeeper". Their reaction was to open it up so people can make 3rd party clients, and presumably they expect those clients to not display their ads. Or deliver the user's contact list to them. Or any of the other hostile stuff that WhatsApp does.

Either way, expect to see a hacked version of the client on xdadevelopers, free from ads.

Re:

[drolli]

And now we know why google never really tried to force people into a own chat app. They could not find a way to monetize without being hated.

So sick of

[RitchCraft]

fucking marketers and advertising. I will go out of my to AVOID products that are pushed into my face. Marketing assholes have turned the Internet into a steaming pile of shit.

Re:

[nicubunu]

It might be the opposite: why not keep using WhatsApp if you can use it to send messages to people on facebook, google and so?

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

It might be the opposite: why not keep using WhatsApp if you can use it to send messages to people on facebook, google and so?

Indeed. I've used Viber, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, and other chat apps, and WhatsApp has a better UI than any of them.

If WhatsApp can interoperate, I have no reason to use the other apps ever again.

do it

[nicubunu]

I hope they do it and I hope it will be the last straw that convince people around to move to a different network

The word of the day

[Jeremi]

Is enshittification [wired.com]. Thanks Cory!

Surprised?

[TwistedGreen]

Well they started with a subscription model so it makes sense. But it's going to be hard to convince grandma to pay for a chat service. Ads are the only obvious revenue model for a free chat service like this, especially since grandma will probably click on them by accident because she thought it was something you sent her.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Ads are the only obvious revenue model for a free chat service like this

WhatsApp currently makes money selling user data and offering premium services to businesses.

Enshittification imminent

[bradley13]

That said, this is the inevitable fate of "free" services. Of course they want to make money from it. The surprise is that they have waited this long.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

They make money off it by integrating it with their social media, not a lot, but it's better than the nothing they will earn once it's dead.

Corporations takeover

[dddux]

I've been thinking about how corporations are pretty much in charge of your government (I'm in EU), which is highly beneficial for both, just not for the people, of course. WhatsApp should be a "public service App" like Open Source perhaps, untouchable by ad companies, but if they somehow need more money, they will make it happen. The question is how do you possibly prevent it? and is it possible to make another app very similar to WhatsApp but Open Source, which could takeover?

Re: Corporations takeover

[Flavianoep]

There's one: Signal. It's AGPL. It's on Flathub.

Re:

[Flavianoep]

Correcting myself: The part about it being on Flathub is not relevant.

Re:

[dddux]

Of course, Signal! Thanks. I've been looking into WhatsApp alternatives for Linux some time ago, and SIgnal is the first I stumbled upon. Also Telegram and Element. I liked the element best because it uses Matrix decentralised protocol, but people like Telegram and Signal more, probably because they're more user friendly and more widespread. Well, even more people should be aware of their existence and vote by ditching WhatsApp in favour of any other messenger app. See how things went for Facebook. It's a s

Re:

[BeaverCleaver]

Thanks for the Element recommendation :-)

Re:

[dddux]

You're welcome!

In a perfect world more people would choose Element, but everyone with at least 10+ years of computer tech power user or pro user level experience, knows that people just choose OSes and Apps according to convenience, fancy looks, popularity, availability, and simple subjective perceived ease of use. Not so much according to stability, efficiency and speed, safety etc., things that are of real knowledgeable personal computer power user's primary concerns, or at least part of those.

It's probab

No room for non ecosystem services

[Pinky's Brain]

Here we see one of the reasons why a proper consumer electronic ecosystem (ie. Apple) is a natural monopoly, it's not about service bundling, it's about monetization. Social media attracts a stupid type of investor, a properly marketed ecosystem (Apple) can shout down those idiots because of their image. Meta has an image of selling their customers and has very little leverage against the idiots.

Apple also has far more synergy from iMessage than Meta can gain from WhatsApp too. Some is better than none of c

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

PS. the topic is slightly inaccurate, there is room for social mefia services. Apple won't touch that because of the reputational risk. Messaging though, they will own that.

Identity providers will always win

[Anonymous Cward]

There wonâ(TM)t be a need for expensive dedicated servers to middleman payloads in the near future, as we wonâ(TM)t have CGNAT getting in the way of directly sending/receiving messages, only the authentication and key sharing would need to be centralised. In that scenario, IdPs like Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft all stand to gain handsomely long term, as messaging will eventually become âoefreeâ for them to maintain off the back of core infrastructure they already need for other purp

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Apple gets more benefit from iMessage than Meta can get from WhatsApp because Apple makes devices and uses software as added value. Meta sells ads and uses software as a lure.

Just another reason

[ukoda]

This is just another reason to use Signal.

Re:Just another reason

[test321]

I have a philosophical problem with Signal. I just searched right now so maybe I have not found the right explanations and you can clarify if you are knowledgable.

Signal:
1) is not in Debian, you need to add a repository https://www.linuxcapable.com/h... [linuxcapable.com]
2) Is not in gentoo in source form, you need the binary package (why?)
3) is not on f-droid

I found the instructions on how to build the desktop version https://github.com/signalapp/S... [github.com] but not for Android. There is a self-proclaimed "unofficial Signal wiki" https://signal.miraheze.org/wi... [miraheze.org]
How can I trust an open source (security) application that does what it can to avoid being build by third parties (distributions), wants you to trust a binary?

Re:

[ukoda]

Well Debian based Mint has it in their repos as a Flathub, but I prefer normal installs so have installed from Signal. Trust comes from having the source code freely available, in this case at https://github.com/signalapp [github.com]. The library repo has decent build instructions but the desktop app does not. I would note the some Linux desktop apps are horrible to build from scratch, notably Firefox.

I have been using Signal for years now and so far no alarm bells about how they operate. If you can think of a m

I'd rather way a fair amount

[apcyberax]

I remember before Facebook bought WhatsApp that you could pay about $1/£0.60/year for the service. I used to pay. I would rather support a service i use at a fair price to keep it running and ad free. But what people think there Apps are worth is way to much. WhatsApp is not worth £10/year. This is shown in other apps. LastPass is dying because why pay $48/year for something when you can get another service that does the same for $10/year. Will this be the the thing that pushes everyone over t

Re:

[martin-boundary]

LastPass is dying because they convinced everyone to put all their precious passwords into a single vault and then couldn't protect the vault from being hacked. Big surprise.

I'm not sure you are better off with any other service peddling the same flawed concept for $10/year instead.

Make money from ads - how?

[devslash0]

Quite honestly, I have never clicked on an ad on purpose. If ever, it was a "miss-click". How on earth is advertising still making anyone any money? I get that Whatsapp would get money for adding someone's product to ads but I'm lost as to how this would make the seller any money if people don't click on them?

Re:

[Baron_Yam]

Internet ads are incredibly inexpensive to deliver, only a tiny percentage of people have to click and an even tinier percentage actually buy something to make them cost-effective.

Printed flyers still work on that principle, and they're exponentially more expensive.

Re:

[Mr. Barky]

Quite honestly, I have never clicked on an ad on purpose. If ever, it was a "miss-click". How on earth is advertising still making anyone any money?

Have you ever clicked on a television commercial or an ad in a printed magazine? Yet these ads still exist. Merely showing them to you gets into your head - whether you like it or not. Also, just because you don't click doesn't mean that others do the same.