> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.