Feeds

Facebook pays $19bn for WhatsApp. Yep. $45 for YOUR phone book

And they're not the biggest mugs. We are

Remote control for virtualized desktops

+Analysis Putting a man on the Moon cost less than what Facebook paid for WhatsApp, a generic chat app. So why is Facebook paying $45 per user to gain functionality it already has?

The silly numbers look even sillier when you consider Facebook's own Messenger only lags narrowly behind WhatsApp in terms of usage. Facebook Messenger maintains a lead in the USA, despite WhatsApp's growth.

The most likely explanation is that it's actually paying $42 for your phone book.

WhatsApp notoriously rifles through your address book, scoops up your phone numbers, and uploads them to its servers. This is something Facebook has wanted for some time since its own phone records are incomplete.

Although half of its daily users are mobile, many don't share their full contact network with Facebook, and of the desktop-only Facebook users, many don't share their telephone numbers.

In July last year Symantec found that Facebook had slurped users' telephone numbers from its Android Facebook app. Caught red-handed, the social network said it had deleted the phone numbers extracted by this method from its servers.

Last October, in what was beginning to look like a desperation move, Facebook changed its policy to allow it to extract its users' phone number. Facebook admitted last summer it leaked some 6 million phone numbers passed voluntarily to the social network to other Facebook users.

Rather ominously, WhatsApp has a wretched reputation for security. It's really just a quick and dirty chat clone which borrowed much from the existing clients, and, as it was developed, BlackBerry's BBM.

Until August 2012, all chats were transmitted in plain text. It then implemented a crude and widely criticised cryptographic layer – which was compromised. In a word, its security is "horrible".

When it was discovered the same key was used to encrypt all messages in a conversation, so the contents could be fairly easily decrypted, CEO Jan Koum brushed away reporters with the comment: "We have a company to run. Back to work."

Koum now becomes a Facebook director. It's not likely he'll ruffle feathers in the dress-down boardroom with a pernickity attitude to personal privacy. If you were cynical – and sometimes it's hard not to be – you could say he'll fit right in.

Now, it's possible to argue that Facebook has also bought what could be the "universal phone dialer" of the future, in an era where we do more than just "dial". Increasingly, OTT chat apps are doing text and voice; as I've argued for years, they're really social networks in their own right. In a notorious piece I wrote in 2010 I described BBM as the perfect UI for a communication device. It presented your social network in a carousel of people and messages that was easy to control, and very compelling to use. All other activity on the BlackBerry such as sharing music or photos spun out of BBM.

Why weren't all phones designed around such a human-centric UI? Well, fast forward to now and WhatsApp has 310 million daily users and is adding 1 million users a day, demonstrating the strongest growth of any OTT messaging app. But in a copycat world, there are many other "universal phone dialers" out there with millions of users. There's Viber, Line, and BBM itself - finally and belatedly released on iOS and Android. There's no secret sauce to WhatsApp, which in any case, has almost run out of BBM features to replicate.

So spunking away so much money simply for the UI or brand is a long shot. The most rational explanation brings us back to the value of the data WhatsApp has captured.

I began this piece with a comparison with Apollo. I'll end it with another one, and it's one I'm not hearing too much today. If Facebook values your phone book at $42, or £25.24 today, what do you think your lifelong medical record is worth? The health industry is a colossal business, much bigger than internet social networking, and pharmaceutical companies desperately need the data to reduce the risk on their own drug research planning. They have the means and willingness to pay for this data.

So surely the market value of a medical record, given the many other valuable uses it can be put to, must be in the thousands of pounds?

Actually, the UK government in its wisdom has recently placed a value on it, and it's rather less than that.

Keeping the £25 for your phone book in mind, now look at this (PDF) - the price list for acquiring the UK's medical records, via the HSCIC extraction scheme. The scheme was delayed this week, so a new round of misleading PR can be whipped up - but the fundamentals are unchanged. The most it will cost the recipient of 60 million health records ("containing personal confidential data") is just £11,865.

That's 0.020 of a penny. Each.

Facebook has received much criticism for making an "insane" valuation. Yet we've allowed politicians to swallow the "open data" ideology, which insists we must give away our data for nothing. Because data must be free.

The biggest idiot today isn't Facebook. It's us. ®

Bootnote

The BBC had a slightly different take on WhatsApp's core functionality this morning:

Massaging service?

Intelligent flash storage arrays

More from The Register

next story
Bladerunner sequel might actually be good. Harrison Ford is in it
Go ahead, you're all clear, kid... Sorry, wrong film
Musicians sue UK.gov over 'zero pay' copyright fix
Everyone else in Europe compensates us - why can't you?
I'll be back (and forward): Hollywood's time travel tribulations
Quick, call the Time Cops to sort out this paradox!
Euro Parliament VOTES to BREAK UP GOOGLE. Er, OK then
It CANNA do it, captain.They DON'T have the POWER!
Megaupload overlord Kim Dotcom: The US HAS RADICALISED ME!
Now my lawyers have bailed 'cos I'm 'OFFICIALLY' BROKE
Forget Hillary, HP's ex CARLY FIORINA 'wants to be next US Prez'
Former CEO has political ambitions again, according to Washington DC sources
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing and building an open ITOA architecture
Learn about a new IT data taxonomy defined by the four data sources of IT visibility: wire, machine, agent, and synthetic data sets.
Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
5 critical considerations for enterprise cloud backup
Key considerations when evaluating cloud backup solutions to ensure adequate protection security and availability of enterprise data.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Managing SSL certificates with ease
The lack of operational efficiencies and compliance pitfalls associated with poor SSL certificate management, and how the right SSL certificate management tool can help.