Recommended Posts

Rumour: Google negotiating $ 1 billion purchase of WhatsApp

Messaging app WhatsApp is in the negotiating phase over prices with Google in what could be Google?s next billion dollar acquisition, according to an inside source.

While the deal started four or five weeks ago, we've been told that WhatsApp is ?playing hardball? and jockeying for a higher acquisition price, which currently is ?close to? $1 billion right now.

We?ve suspected for some time now that a messaging app would be the next billion dollar acquisition deal following Facebook?s Instagram buy-out last year. 2012 was the year for photo-sharing apps, which you know everything about by now. So, 2013 has been dominating by the messaging app-meets social network market.

There are rumors that Google Babble will combine Google?s disparate communication services under one roof, but the platform still needs to do something to innovate in this space; mobile messaging has been taken over by smaller apps and Facebook has made a major push as well. Google hasn?t given an answer to this competition. Even Google Product Manager Nikhyl Singhal confessed to GigaOM in June of last year that ?We have done an incredibly poor job of servicing our users here.? Messaging is a huge, gaping hole in Google?s mobile strategy.

Communication services are the pillar to any connected device; knowing this, if Google wants to be taken seriously on mobile, it?ll need a standout like WhatsApp to take under its wing, and it needs to work fast.

By all regards, the acquisition is a no-brainer. Apps like LINE, WeChat, Nimbuzz, Tango, KakaoTalk, and of course WhatsApp, are making a splash on mobile (and as social apps) in record time. LINE has gone from zero to 130 million users in just under two years. Even new entrant MessageMe has rocketed from zero to one million users in just 12 days.

Google can?t afford the time to rebrand and rebuild a competitive messaging app at the risk of entering the game too late ? or, it needs to be able to work off the platform WhatsApp has already established and use this technology (and sensically, the user base) to fill out the purported Babble.

Also justifying the rumors is the fact that Google has approached WhatsApp before (as has Facebook). Look at it this way: WhatsApp is consistently the number one paid app in more than 100 countries with an enviable user base size spread throughout more than 100 countries and 750 mobile networks. To give you an idea about WhatsApp?s scale, on New Years Eve 2012 alone WhatsApp saw a record 18 billion messages processed in a day.

But more importantly, WhatsApp has a proven monetization scheme. Its yearly but nominal $0.99 subscription fee keeps the service ad-free. Behind the scenes however, WhatsApp also generates revenue through profitable partnerships with international telecommunications companies. For instance WhatsApp?s monthly local plan in Hong Kong with mobile operator 3 HK costs just $8HK ($1.03 USD) and an international package will run for $48HK ($6.18 USD) per day. And whatever Whatsapp is doing is working: The app has even had a direct hand in declining SMS usage around the world.

WhatsApp has remained mum about its revenue, but our source says that WhatsApp may have a ballpark of $100 million in yearly revenue ? we?re working on corroborating that detail.

Source: Digital Trends

And what makes this better than something like trillian that does the same thing PLUS connects to pretty much every other social networking product AS WELL?

The fact that almost everybody has it, unlike Trillian? Now, if only it could make calls and let those greedy operators rot in hell...

Whatsapp it's just another messaging app... with the difference that the username is your phone number, I never find out how come it became so popular.

At least Whatsapp uses the Jabber/XMPP protocol (albeit customized) so it could be integrated with Google's current chat services without too much re-engineering.

Anyway the current state of all these chat services is ridiculous. Imagine if email worked the same way: different providers using different incompatible protocols and not being able to send mails to people that had an account on a different mail service.

This purchase makes no sense, except to block whatsapp from being on other platforms, google already has their own messaging service that does the same as this crappy app. Good thing no one uses it over here. Honestly most people here st SMS, most have Eire free SMS' or their so cheap it doesn't matter and you always now the other person has that, instead of using, whatsapp, kik, and all the other "free" messengers.

Whatsapp it's just another messaging app... with the difference that the username is your phone number, I never find out how come it became so popular.

Because it was simple to use and also was lucky with getting most of the users first. There are kids that send dozens of thousands SMSs every month and that app saves them a lot of money.

I'd never heard of it til today. No one I know has it. Maybe is an American thing.

You probably have decent mobile phone contracts in your country then. Many countries had contracts where in order to send many messages you had to pay for many minutes as well where most kids nowadays only use messages, thousands and thousands of messages that often requires quite expensive contracts.

The fact that almost everybody has it, unlike Trillian? Now, if only it could make calls and let those greedy operators rot in hell...

I don't have it, till I read this article I never heard of it before.

I say sell now before google change their mind and buy windows live messenger.

This purchase makes no sense, except to block whatsapp from being on other platforms, google already has their own messaging service that does the same as this crappy app.

If they managed to integrate Whatsapp into all their other services they could suck every Whatsapp user into the Google ecosystem. Eg. if you have seen LINE you might have noticed that it has implemented sort of a message wall (like a simplified Facebook wall). Google could take the same kind of approach with Whatsapp but integrating the Google+ wall in there.

Then the purchase might (maybe) make sense.

I don't have it, till I read this article I never heard of it before.

I say sell now before google change their mind and buy windows live messenger.

I looked at the O2 UK website and indeed in your country you get unlimited messages with almost every contract, that's very likely the reason you never heard of it. When you pay 20 cents for every message and you send thousands you quickly start to look to alternatives.

At least Whatsapp uses the Jabber/XMPP protocol (albeit customized) so it could be integrated with Google's current chat services without too much re-engineering.

Anyway the current state of all these chat services is ridiculous. Imagine if email worked the same way: different providers using different incompatible protocols and not being able to send mails to people that had an account on a different mail service.

Ye, i totally agree with you. Having so many messenger apps that can not communicate with each other is just ridiculous.

Today SMS is basically the only service that can connect you with any phone in the world without installing anything but the problem is that it cost money and people use SMS less and less (if at all). Blackberry has it's own messengers, iOS has it's own messengers, Google has it's own messengers, Facebook has it's own messengers and that's before even speaking about other apps that do this.

I don't have it, till I read this article I never heard of it before.

I say sell now before google change their mind and buy windows live messenger.

I actually used it for almost few years long before the crisis. Back then they had no own account. So it was just a polygamy client for ICQ, MSN, Jabber etc, like Miranda. Since then popularity dived down to almost zero.

I was saying story of WLM before. MS bough Skype mainly because of Eastern Europe, where WLM had 0% of userbase, while Skype managed to beat ICQ, yet was also very popular on west.

Google could buy WhatsApp for its userbase, like MS did with Skype. But that userbase mainly come from Apple's camp. App has very low popularity amond Android users. At least here, in Russia. It's easier, faster and cheaper just to make a quick call. For extensive chatting modern teens prefer VK messengers. But nowadays instant messaging is not that popular like it was back in mid 00's.

Whatsapp is awesome!

Im from the UK but I work offshore on oil rigs - no phone service there. But there is wifi, so now I can text home since all my family has whatsapp :)

Up until whatsapp started getting popular we had to queue to use the phones.

I also travel a lot for work, texting from abroad on a UK contract is extortionate. Sometimes ?1.50 a text.

Now I can just use whatsapp! (aslong as I have wifi)

This purchase makes no sense, except to block whatsapp from being on other platforms, google already has their own messaging service that does the same as this crappy app. Good thing no one uses it over here. Honestly most people here st SMS, most have Eire free SMS' or their so cheap it doesn't matter and you always now the other person has that, instead of using, whatsapp, kik, and all the other "free" messengers.

A crappy app? It's used by millions of people, most of whom find it very useful. I mainly use it for the group messaging feature and being able to send pictures and videos easily. Most of my friends don't have MMS and there's nothing preventing me from switching between WhatsApp and SMS. If you don't like WhatsApp, then that's fine... but there's no reason to call it crappy.

I think Google wants to tap into WhatsApp's large user base and I fear that they'll stop development of the WP and maybe even BB versions. If they stop developing the iOS version, then they'll be shooting themselves in the foot because a large chunk of WhatsApp users use it.

I think Google wants to tap into WhatsApp's large user base and I fear that they'll stop development of the WP and maybe even BB versions. If they stop developing the iOS version, then they'll be shooting themselves in the foot because a large chunk of WhatsApp users use it.

I don't think they would stop developing those versions, at least certainly not the iOS one.

For other services like maps or mail they can affort treating other platforms like second rate citizens but not for a messaging client when precisely the success or failure of that kind of platform is entirely dependant on the number of users.

Then again they might do what they are doing now with GTalk: use the standard XMPP protocol allowing any third party client to connect to the service... which IMO would be even better than releasing Whatsapp for every OS.

And what makes this better than something like trillian that does the same thing PLUS connects to pretty much every other social networking product AS WELL?

As a fan/user of Trillian, I honestly don't see the different between the two apps, aside from userbase.

The whole benefit of using WhatsApp for alot of people is that it's cross-platform. We use it extensively to hold group chats between multiple people on multiple different platforms.

The way Google has been acting lately I wouldn't be surprised if they bought it and killed off the non-android versions.

Funny thing, I was thinking of this just this morning. It's extremely popular in Hong Kong. Everyone in my family uses it to contact one another. I mean, my aunts and uncles and everyone in the family are in different 'chats' it's a great way to have everyone stay informed.

The fact that almost everybody has it, unlike Trillian? Now, if only it could make calls and let those greedy operators rot in hell...

I'd never heard of it til today. No one I know has it. Maybe is an American thing.

Never heard of WhatsApp, I've heard and have used Trillian on my desktop. I only use gTalk.

long live whatsapp, independent without any of googles crapy UI or tie-ins.

whatsapp looks native on every platform not unified and out of place on all of them. its quick, barebones and does the job. i cant see it getting better only worse.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!