Framed another way, it goes to demonstrate the ridiculous price paid for the company. How are the "other 3 billion people" without smartphones going to contribute to Facebook's bottom line? When they don't even have Facebook? That they don't even view ads? And that the cost of switching is practically close to zero, with many other competitive products like WeChat?
It all seems to me that it's just to pad the "total number of active users on Facebook and associated platforms" column during earnings season.
As WhatsApp's user base grows, the probability of users who are also on Facebook increases and vice versa. Which means you are supporting my argument that this is just a play for "number of users", since it's very likely a good proportion would be counted twice instead of uniquely.
I don't think they're necessarily looking to integrate the user bases that way. If Facebook's mission is simply to "connect everything ” then this gets them closer to that goal. Whatsapp profits are note Facebook profits, and Facebook is connecting everyone that Whatsapp used to connect.
Facebook wants as many users as possible, connected to rapture in as many ways as possible. This is a big win for that, and will continue to reap benefits as the Whatsapp user base grows.
It's not apparent to me that having the "most number of users" is a net win as I stated previously, especially so when the WhatsApp co-founder states unequivocally that "nothing is going to change" for its users.
This is directly at odds with Facebook's business model which requires mining users' information for serving ads. Something has to give.
Looked another way, let's say WhatsApp is going to grow to 1 billion customers who pay $1 for an annual subscription. It would still take 19 years just to recoup the acquisition cost.
It all seems to me that it's just to pad the "total number of active users on Facebook and associated platforms" column during earnings season.