Because when Whatsapp was born, SMS were paid (and not cheaply). In my country, sending one SMS cost 0.19€ at the time and didn’t allow pics to be send. Meanwhile, with 10€ I could have 1-2GB of data that allowed for tens of thousands of messages to be sent while on mobile data and unlimited messages while I was on a wifi connection.
Why does most of the world use WhatsApp as their messaging app rather than RCS/SMS?
Submitted 2 weeks ago by speedythefirst@lemmy.zip to [deleted]
Comments
AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
WhatsApp was also an independent company and worked really well compared with other apps. I remember checking alternatives like… 5 years ago and no other app was able to do video calls reliably. Since then Signal caught up and works great now but everyone is already on WhatsApp. EU was working interoperability requirements. That’s pretty much the only way to escape WhatsApp now.
Nighed@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Signal still doesn’t do live location sharing I don’t think?
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Its funny that thats the current situation of international phone costs. Sms and calling internationally is expensive while I can download a global(/local to the country) esim giving me data for cheap.
AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
And not only. I can make a voice or video call to my family abroad with any IM app (whatsapp, telegram, signal, discord… pick your poison) for free because I have tons of gb of data in my cell plan. Meanwhile, making a phone call will cost me dearly.
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 2 weeks ago
Because sending a message with data was cheaper than the cost of sending one SMS. And it was free on WiFi.
That’s why WhatsApp took off.
Siegfried@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Some countries like mine have free whatsapp even if we run out of common-mobile-internet-points (packages?)
xavier666@lemmy.umucat.day 2 weeks ago
Plus network effect of WhatsApp is pretty strong
Krudler@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You have explained something I’ve wondered for a decade+
bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Others are mentioning price per message, but also important to remember that in the 2000-2010s outside of the United States, when traveling from country to country, you usually had to get a local SIM card for a provider in that country, During your vacation, you’d have a new number for a month when no one could contact you over normal text messages which was a problem. WhatsApp became popular so you could keep chatting with friends abroad even if your phone’s SIM card changed during your vacation.
Since most people from the United States don’t travel outside the country, and vacation time is rather limited, this wasn’t a problem for them, but for the rest of the world, a solution was needed that removed the cell carrier from the equation.
BladeFederation@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
It’s not such a mystery. WhatsApp came out in 2009. RCS would not be rolled out widely on Android until 2019. RCS was not implemented properly on iOS until literally a month or so ago.
Therefore its competition has been SMS mainly, which it is directly better than in every way. SMS is not encrypted. WhatsApp is. SMS (technically MMS) heavily compresses pictures & video. SMS splits up long blocks of text into multiple texts, which may or may not come in the correct order. SMS used to be limited in cell phone plans around the time of WhatsApp’s release, and STILL is in some parts of the world. SMS requires a consistent cell signal which requires a paid monthly subscription, WhatsApp only requires internet. Sometimes it is easier to find public Wi-Fi than a good cell signal in some places, and it was a popular thing for some teenagers to get an iPod touch or parent’s old phone and only be able to use it with Wi-Fi.
People got used to it being the best for at least a decade, and don’t want to switch. Even nowadays, RCS is nearly as closed a standard as WhatsApp bring limited to an app. You have to use Google Messages or I message specifically. In Apple’s case, your messages aren’t encrypted on their servers unless you specifically request it, and they hold the keys. I suspect Google is the same. Of course, the same is true of WhatsApp and they’re ran by Meta, so it’s a lateral move at this point.
The real solution is a WhatsApp replacement like Signal.
LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
One thing you missed… WhatsApp took off BEFORE facebook (now meta) bought it. So it had a huge network effect while it was independent.
BladeFederation@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Exactly, and they’ve been uncharacteristically quiet about it. You have to dig through settings for an option to link it to Facebook or Instagram, and I’ve never got a notification prompting me to. They’ve been hesitant to roll out enshittification too, so most people don’t see a reason to move. Which is why I still haven’t gotten rid of it.
rapchee@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
what progress does signal need? or you mean in adaptation?
BladeFederation@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Yeah, social adoption mostly. Not needing a phone number would be cool too, but functionality & security/privacy is pretty great. The only thing that could improve it is being decentralized like Matrix, but Signal is more functional as of now so I don’t recommend Matrix as much to people. Signal takes 2 seconds to set up & is visually familiar.
Steve@communick.news 2 weeks ago
Wile texting in the US went free relatively early on, much of the rest of the world continued to charge for every text message. So data based instant messaging apps became very popular everywhere in the world that’s not the US.
jaygray91@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Basically this. tl;dr: being free and being first exposure to mobile instant messenger.
in my south east Asian country, back then we did have bundle sms pricing, buy when the mobile internet infrastructure was getting big money from governments, WhatsApp came in at the right moment. advertising them being free (with a minimal $1 or something lifetime fee nobody bothered to pay for) and can do texting and sending images for free. compared to paying bundled prices for sms and MMS, it’s just a no-brainer.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Because SMS sucks, always has, for many reasons
Give me a federated XMPP based messenger with all the same features as WhatsApp and then… Well, I’ll install it but I still wouldn’t use it because nobody is using it
That is the core of the matter: everybody uses WhatsApp because everybody uses WhatsApp
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
AFAIK WhatsApp is actually based on xmpp
mangobanana@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
I hate WhatsApp for no other reason than it’s a Facebook product.
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 2 weeks ago
Meta*
mangobanana@discuss.online 2 weeks ago
No, it will never be meta to me. The only reason they changed their name Facebook is because there was so many negative connotations from their shitty business practices. I will never call them meta just like I will never call Twitter x. I also will never call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America nor will I ever call the lake lake America.
Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 2 weeks ago
SMS is insecure as hell, RCS suffered from issues between Apple and Google, both were limited for a long time by Telecoms and priced too high after reaching your allowance (i remember my first mobile contract having a whooping 10 SMS/month included). The amount of data messenger apps use is negligible even with pretty low data limits as long as you are not attaching whole movies.
I personally only use Signal - i have removed all Meta products from my life. If someone without Signal wants to contact me, they can use snail mail, i really don’t care - i won’t sacrifice my privacy for the convenience of others.
gezero@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
My guess, because of the network effect.
TAG@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I use SMS specifically because of the network effect. Almost everyone I want to communicate with has a cellphone, so all of them are capable of sending and receiving text messages. There is no need to list my installed messaging apps and compare it to theirs, we just need to exchange phone numbers.
My longest and most active conversations (chatting with my wife or my closest friends) are going to be over a more feature rich app, but if I need to set up a quick chat with 3 or 4 people, I am not going to think what messaging app we all have in common, I will just start an SMS group chat.
the_q@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Why not Signal?
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
WhatsApp has been around for a few minutes more than Signal.
scrion@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Not really, no. Signal was released more or less exactly a year later than WhatsApp (May 2010 vs May 2009), which, if you look at the 17 years since then, doesn’t really matter that much.
However, broad adoption rates in messaging apps are typically achieved by e. g. funny emoji sets vs. encryption, and the early versions of Signal were pretty barebone.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 2 weeks ago
At least 5
sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Consumers, like voters, are stupid and hold a lot of things more important than values and morals.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
I’ve had SMS messages read to me by a third party, not a cop. I’ve had transcripts of ‘private’ cell calls read back to me by a third party, not a cop.
I survived the entire lifetime of skype without having the same, and I guess I hope the same happens with whatsapp.
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Could you share more about this, safely?
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 2 weeks ago
That definitely didn’t happen with Skype. Many, many people have saved your Skype messages.
stoy@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
RCS is not yet working on my carrier here in Sweden.
And since most people are already using alternative messaging apps, no one really cares.
im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 2 weeks ago
Network effect.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
And the reverse of that is true in the us. I don’t know anyone who uses that app, so I won’t. Actually it’s true in a general sense as well: there’s never been sufficient people on any specific app to make me want to use it
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 2 weeks ago
RCS is Google locked
scholar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It was never ‘Google locked’, its an open standard developed by the GSM Association that IOS has supported since 2024.
fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 2 weeks ago
All RCS goes through google servers, they have to approve the devices. Graphene OS and e/os can’t use RCS
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
WhatsApp is free (or was it a one-time purchase?), SMS tends to cost money.
Dave@lemmy.nz 2 weeks ago
This is my understanding. WhatsApp took off at a time and in places where SMS was expensive. Because WhatsApp used data, they could keep data usage low and allow people to message almost for free.
rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Nevermind past tense, my current phone plan still has me pay for SMS separately (IIRC I get 100 free SMS, after that it’s 9 cent/SMS).
kepix@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
cause whatsapp was is older than rcs, and costs zero unlike sms
fodor@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
The question is historical but posed as a tech choice. Convenience is the answer now.
Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
They are st*pid and like to suck on the zuck
Reality@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
- You can curse on the Internet. Don’t self censor.
- The world used WhatsApp before Facebook bought it and network effects hold people there.
- Most people around here had mobile plans with limited sms usage and were less likely to be iPhone users, so a chat across operating systems was a necessity. That meant WhatsApp was way cheaper and could do images and videos.
Devial@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That’s just objectively wrong, WA become popular long before Meta bought it, and once it was popular, people kept using it simply because everyone else also uses it.
And the reason it became popular is because SMS were relatively expensive in most of the world outside the US, wheras internet messengers require only a tiny amount of data per message, meaning even when mobile internet plans were expensive, the cost per message for an internet messengers usually still worked out to way cheaper than an SMS. Also, for a lot of people not having any mobile internet wasn’t much of an option, so if you have to pay for mobile internet anyway whether you use an internet messenger or not, then internet messaging is completely free for all intents and purposes, so why would people pay for costly SMS ? And WA simply was (one of) the first mobile internet messaging apps with good features that worked well. And as soon as it started taking off, netwerk effect made it become exponentially more popular in those countries.
TBi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It was, one of, the first widespread free global messaging services.
So became default for most.
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
(if you don’t count ICQ, MSN Messenger, Skype, etc…)
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Why does most of the world feel the need to broadcast their communications? (he said while typing into the internet).
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
SMS costs money, no idea what RCS is. Other than that it’s probably just inertia. I prefer to use Signal but only about 30% of my whatsapp contacts have that.
AA5B@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Still? SMS used to cost me money as the cell vendors tried to maximize their profit on new technology. But I don’t think that’s been true here since smartphones
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
For ~150 other countries, yes, carriers charge per SMS
remon@ani.social 2 weeks ago
Yes, they still cost money in most of Europe, which is why nobody uses them.
The only sms I’ve received in the last few years were roaming-infos, voice mail reminders and 2FA codes.
puz@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Still?
In the EU yes and no. Most mobile internet plans here include unlimited SMS and phone calls as well. At least I know very few people who choose to have plans that include ONLY internet and those plans tend to be only marginally cheaper. However, the unlimited SMS and phonecalls (for most plans) only apply for messaging inside the EU. So if you regularly message friends outside EU you again either pay per SMS/call or have to get a more expansive plan that also includes that.
So overall it’s the most convenient (and mostly cheapest) to do all messaging and calls over mobile data or WiFi
swelter_spark@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Some VoIP plans still charge per text/call. It’s cheaper if you don’t use much.
weimaraner_of_doom@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
“It gives me the complexion of a Disney princess and lets me send weird pictures of my forhead or the ceiling to my friends.” –Teenagers gleefully giving Snapchat all their personal data
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 2 weeks ago
Snapchat was made for dick pics
mosaic09@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
intertia. I try to get as many friends onto Signal as I could but some are just entrenched that until they get forced, they’ll just stick with what’s comfortable
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
It’s better for group texts and sharing pictures/memes across different hardware
macro_byte@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
Bump
JeSuisUnHombre@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
SMS uses cellular, WhatsApp uses internet. Internet connects you anywhere with one flat rate, cellular may charge extra per message or for international communication.
Signal is better, but everyone’s grandmother is already on WhatsApp and good luck getting them to switch
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Back at the turn of the century text messages were exorbitantly priced
Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Which is crazy because it literally uses spare bandwidth they didn’t use (other than for the clock updates and other housekeeping) and the amount of data used is infinitesimal compared to voice or other data.
This is why it was free at first as it didn’t cost the carrier anything more. This changed quickly when they figured they could charge for it with rates as high as 20 cents per message in the US. This lead to crazy bills like $5,000.
www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/…/83-402630313
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS
nickiwest@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m in a country where this is apparently still the case. It seems that the major mobile carriers all charge for text messages to other networks.
WhatsApp is free regardless of your mobile provider. Most here even provide free access to WhatsApp that doesn’t count toward your data allotment.
TheMadCodger@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I keep hoping with this anti-American Big Tech push that Europe and other places are doing they’ll get off Meta products. But I’m also not holding my breath.
qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I work at a company that I strongly suspect had a very serious security breach because of Whatsapp.
During the outage, we were back to SMS and direct phone calling only. After the system was restored, back to how everything was before, caution be damned, lessons not learned.
It’s not bad enough to have that invasive application as the default means of passing information around (messages, photos, video and even audio, of all things!) on work phones, office personel has it paired to their computers, where highly sensitive programs and data is stored.
Pamasich@kbin.earth 2 weeks ago
I think that's why OP asked about RCS, which is also internet but built into SMS apps.
freddo@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Because the common user doesn’t know what rcs is, it is still sms on their minds.
Ugurcan@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Signal always sounded too good to be true. I won’t be shocked to learn it’s an NSA front I promise.
Attacker94@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Their clients are open source, unless you are worried about the NSA being better at decryption than is currently thought possible, the only information you are giving is encrypted traffic, who you are, who you sent a message to, and if their press release are anything to go by, they are trying to muddy the waters of the identification part with moving away from phone # account creation. I’m also a proponent of xmpp for a similar reason, and I think that xmpp is the better protocol, but signal has more concessions to non techies
ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Deltachat and Jabber/XMPP are good decentralized/federated alternatives to Signal.