WhatsApp itself started as an obscure chat application. They nailed the simple SMS-like experience without high SMS fees, and that was enough for mainstream users. No reason people won't jump ship when WhatsApp loses that core experience.
It's still going to remain the same. Whatsapp is too big to fail, perhaps people in the US just don't comprehend how big of a user base Whatsapp has around the world.
WhatsApp itself started as an obscure chat application
It actually started as a one-line status app, a bit like finger for the mobile era. Hence the name.
It was only when they discovered that users were interactively chatting by changing their status lines in response to each other that WhatsApp pivoted to full chat.
A good example of adapting to improvised user behaviour.
Comments
WhatsApp itself started as an obscure chat application. They nailed the simple SMS-like experience without high SMS fees, and that was enough for mainstream users. No reason people won't jump ship when WhatsApp loses that core experience.
It's still going to remain the same. Whatsapp is too big to fail, perhaps people in the US just don't comprehend how big of a user base Whatsapp has around the world.
I don't live in the US and fully understand WhatsApp's ubiquity. As others have commented, AOL instant messenger once seemed "too big to fail".
There's not that much friction in changing to (or simply adopting a second) chat app - especially one which uses your phone number as an identifier.
It actually started as a one-line status app, a bit like finger for the mobile era. Hence the name.
It was only when they discovered that users were interactively chatting by changing their status lines in response to each other that WhatsApp pivoted to full chat.
A good example of adapting to improvised user behaviour.