[anindha]

WhatsApp and Instagram were innovative but were acquired.

The only reason Instagram isn’t a $100B company in its own right is because Facebook had a better vision for it than investors. If Instagram were able to raise at a $5B valuation rather then be acquired, then Facebook would now have a serious competitor.

Similarly, Facebook messenger wasn’t as popular as WhatsApp.

Facebook could have been acquired by Yahoo or Microsoft but wasn’t.

[kelnos]

> The only reason Instagram isn’t a $100B company in its own right is because Facebook had a better vision for it than investors.

What has FB done with it that was so great, though? IMO Instagram's user experience has declined since FB bought it. I personally don't like Stories, though I understand why many people do. The timeline used to be strictly reverse-chronological, and now it's a useless mess like the FB timeline. It's also peppered with ads, which I hate. Nowadays I use Instagram a lot less than I used to.

[icebraining]

What was innovative about Whatsapp?

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Sending SMS over the web. May not be particularly interesting in the US, but in countries where texting is expensive, being able to do it for "free" was a godsend.

[smsm42]

Wait, they invented internet messaging??? That existed since forever. Calling it "SMS" doesn't change much. Yes, they exploit the greed of cell providers as leverage, but that's a very tactical innovation (not to dismiss it, tactical innovations can be very lucrative) but nothing strategically new.

[dsacco]

> Wait, they invented internet messaging? That existed since forever...Nothing strategically new.

WhatsApp enabled low-cost internet messaging on a global scale by taking the existing messaging technology, perfecting the user interface and positioning the product correctly (i.e. text messaging instead of instant messaging).

Sure, people could have used AIM, but then they would need to collect the emails or screen names of their close friends and encourage people to use AIM with that system. WhatsApp succeeded by framing it in the context of text messaging (something you do on your phone with friends) instead of in the context of internet messaging (something you do at a computer, and less personally). Tying the messaging to something that was already familiar and ubiquitous (phone numbers) while keeping the interface essentially the same was a real innovation.

There is a tremendous amount of innovation opportunity when two situations collide: 1) a new platform of user software emerges or becomes realistically cheap, and 2) useful systems or software exists that is extremely useful, but decentralized or frustrating to use. Mobile app stores and taxis are a good example, which resulted in Uber and Lyft.

Your criticism is substantially the same as people dismissing Dropbox’s legitimate innovation because rsync already existed. If you dig deeply enough, most real innovation can be described as a kernel of something old enhanced by something that’s new. It’s more consistent to use this heuristic for identifying innovation than it is to go by whatever personally impresses you.

[smsm42]

> perfecting the user interface

Frankly haven't noticed any difference in UI.

> and positioning the product correctly (i.e. text messaging instead of instant messaging).

Basically framing & marketing. Yes, that's important. But not exactly a technological innovation, rather finding a right set of words to convince the users to use existing technology.

> dismissing Dropbox’s legitimate innovation because rsync already existed.

There are substantial differences between what rsync did and what Dropbox did, especially in the area of storage and automation. rsync is just a tool to get bytes from point A to point B, Dropbox solves the end-user problem. Whatsapp doesn't add much to solutions that already existed - besides using phone number as ID instead of email, there's nothing different in UI or capabilities or solutions of this service that hadn't existed for decades before.

Uber and Lyft give me things I couldn't do before - i.e., get transportation cheap on 5-minutes notice. Whatsapp just rehashes what already existed for decades with a new label on the box. It was a successful label, good for them, but that is not what we talk about when we talk about innovations, usually.

[icebraining]

Tying the messaging to something that was already familiar and ubiquitous (phone numbers) while keeping the interface essentially the same was a real innovation.

As the original poster of this thread, thanks, I think that's a good answer to my question. It seems a small step considering SMS, but then again I can't remember any other app doing that, and hindsight makes many things appear simple.

[skybrian]

As I understand it they also had a stronger focus on usability for first-time Internet users in many countries. For example, porting the app to many devices (not just smart phones) and using phone numbers as user identifiers instead of usernames.

I don't know if you call that tactics or strategy, but it made a difference for user growth. Users don't care who invented it, they care if they can get it to work easily.

[icebraining]

Yes, messaging over the Internet is useful, but we had that for a long time. Whatsapp was far from the first.

[plussed_reader]

For a lot of users it was their first SMS to Web interface.

[icebraining]

Right, but that's not an innovation.

[ksk]

Okay, maybe that's not YOUR definition of innovation.

I personally like this one:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html

[KGIII]

It might not be much of an invention, but it is an innovation.

[rhizome]

Is that quantitatively different than AIM, YahooIM, ICQ, etc.?

[sfifs]

These simply didn't have market penetration and network effects in the Indias and Indonesias of the world. Probably did not have a dominant network even in the US. Maybe they we a bit ahead of their time of easy internet availability anytime.

The other innovation was WhatsApp used phone numbers already stored on phone address book as identifiers, allowing rapid user onboarding and spread without much effort by the user. Again maybe these others happened before the smartphone revolution making this possible

[praneshp]

Messaging people across countries, not worrying about what phone they had, or about having to pay extra money.

[icebraining]

Yes, but we already had free messengers. As I pointed out in another post, Windows Live Messenger already worked on a bunch of phones (including J2ME).

[praneshp]

And yet Windows Live Messenger is dead and whatsapp is going strong. It was a piece of shit.

[raverbashing]

Mobile first messaging system that worked even in feature phones

[icebraining]

Windows Live Messenger, just as a random example, had apps for J2ME, Windows Mobile, BlackBerry and later iOS, besides the desktop.

Is "mobile first" an euphemism for "doesn't have a native desktop client"?

[peoplewindow]

No. In this case "mobile first" meant that their user identity was a phone number, not a username or email address.

[icebraining]

Thanks. I think that's in fact an innovation. Were they the first?

[peoplewindow]

I believe so. The first I remember anyway.

[seppin]

Are you asking why Whatsapp is better than Windows Live Messenger?

[icebraining]

No, I'm asking why it's more innovative than Windows Live Messenger.

This debasement of the concept of innovation is exactly what I'm railing against.

I think Whatsapp is a good app, and their business is obviously successful. I just don't see the innovations. And I think it's important to preserve the word for those who merit it, even if they don't have the interest or skill to build a successful business.

[amyjess]

> Similarly, Facebook messenger wasn’t as popular as WhatsApp.

That depends wildly on country. That's only the narrative from a non-US perspective.

In the US, WhatsApp is basically unheard of, and most people I know use Messenger for everything because we're all on Facebook anyway so we might as well use the same service for everything.

[srtjstjsj]

or FB bought Whatsapp as insurance against competition. If an independent Whatsapp can make $1 for ever $10 they make Facebook lose, FB would value Whatsapp 10x what investors would, but not because of "vision"

[krrrh]

Exactly. And WhatsApp was way ahead in striking preferred access deals with telecoms in the developing world. Facebook was able to piggyback on those, and develop it into the internet.org initiative to try to create a beachhead in these markets that it had less traction in.