I wonder what the EU commission will say to that. They only agreed to the WhatsApp takeover because FB stated that they would not do exactly what Zuck has in mind.
FB have already been fined over that "When Facebook took over the WhatsApp messaging service in 2014, it told the [EU] commission it would not be able to match user accounts on both platforms, but went on to do exactly that." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/18/facebook-fi...
>You can't sell the platform if it's heavily integrated.
Do you think lawmakers care? There is a fair bit of public goodwill for acting against big evil intl tax evading tech companies...so I think they actually could force this.
Presumably the pre-integration builds are still sitting around somewhere on Facebook servers. I suppose they could destroy this IP specifically to sabotage the sale-value of it, but I can't imagine shareholders being too pleased with that.
> You can't sell the platform if it's heavily integrated. Whoever buys it will just have to rewrite it from scratch then.
Not necessarily. My understanding is WhatsApp basically uses the Signal protocol right now, Signal itself is open source, so I assume an acquirer could just stand up some new Signal infrastructure and get 80%+ of WhatsApp functionality without much redevelopment.
> Not if they integrate the messaging infrastructures as described in the article...
WhatsApp is a phone app. Even if Facebook heavily integrates the messaging infrastructures, the problem an acquirer has is porting the existing users over to a new messaging infrastructure. Signal-based infrastructure is (relatively) turn key, most of the software is already developed, deployed, and tested. After you have that, the main thing you have to do is push a new version of the app out to all the different app stores that uses your new infrastructure. Bam, you're done.
I am simplifying certain things (there'd definitely be a somewhat complex transition period where your new app would have to support both infrastructures), but my main point is that this integration is not as big of a barrier to re-separation as it may seem.
> the problem an acquirer has is porting the existing users over to a new messaging infrastructure.
If you're selling it, it would be your job to port it. This wouldn't be the purchaser's job, it would be Facebook's job. It would be like expecting someone to dismantle a bed your selling on eBay. No one in their right mind would agree to dismantle it for you unless you were giving it away.
The Signal Protocol only covers the E2E encryption of message content (and related activities like key management). Think of it more like OTR from the old IM days, but more deeply integrated into the product and invisible to the user.
All the other protocol bits are very much WhatsApp-specific.
Which isn't a lot of work now that WhatsApp doesn't support the userbase that supported them in the beginning (all the crappy old hardware and twenty different platforms). The network effect is what makes WhatsApp worth billions instead of thousands. The software can be reproduced in a few weeks.
afair Facebook has been already fined something like 2% of profits they made on tracking/profiling whatsapp users. EU and FB are OK now and it's also OK to lie to governments, because punishment will be smaller than profits.
That release sums it up indirectly -- they had no issue with it because they were all distinct platforms with different features, but if Facebook consolidates them, I think that somewhat implies they are competitors and there is clear duplication of offerings.
