Why you can’t quit WhatsApp… even when you want to ⛓️

Cliquez ici pour lire en français

Remember those WhatsApp outages that froze your family chats, work threads, and group conversations? Every time, the same chorus followed: “Let’s all move to Telegram!” A few weeks later… everyone was back on WhatsApp, as if nothing had happened.

Never mind that Telegram supports 200,000-member groups, 2GB file uploads, customizable bots, and more flexible privacy controls. It rarely makes a dent.

We saw the same pattern play out with Twitter. When Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, outrage pushed millions to try alternatives like Threads, Bluesky, and Mastodon. And yet, by 2025, X (formerly Twitter) still hovers around 586 million monthly users. Bluesky sits at roughly 40 million registered accounts—just 3.5 million of them active daily. Threads has grown faster, with around 320 million users, but hasn’t dethroned the incumbent.

This isn’t about user apathy or weak willpower. It’s about powerful economic and technological forces that make leaving a dominant platform incredibly hard. Let’s unpack four concepts that explain why quitting the digital giants feels nearly impossible.

The network effect: the more users, the stronger the lock-in 🔗

The network effect is simple—and brutal: a service becomes more valuable as more people use it.

A phone is useless if no one else owns one. A social network without your friends is a ghost town.

WhatsApp is the textbook example. With more than 3 billion monthly active users in 2025—roughly 38 percent of the global population—it has become the default communications infrastructure in over 100 countries. In India alone, more than 535 million people use it. In Brazil, penetration reaches 98 percent among smartphone owners. Across Africa, from Cameroon to Nigeria, WhatsApp is often synonymous with “the internet” itself.

Telegram, despite hitting 1 billion monthly users in March 2025, still trails far behind in day-to-day usage—especially in francophone Africa. The problem isn’t technical. If anything, Telegram is richer in features. The real issue? Your mom, your boss, your alumni group, your savings circle—they’re all on WhatsApp. And that’s what matters.

The network effect creates a feedback loop: more users increase value, which attracts more users, which further increases value. It’s a virtuous cycle for the dominant platform—and a vicious one for its competitors.

Metcalfe’s law: when math protects the giants 📐

In the 1970s, Ethernet co-inventor Robert Metcalfe formalized this idea into what’s now known as Metcalfe’s Law: the value of a network is proportional to the square of its number of users (V = n²).

If a network has 10 users, its “value” is 100 units. Scale that to 100 users, and its value jumps to 10,000. Ten times more users can mean one hundred times more value. That exponential dynamic explains why big networks are so hard to unseat.

Apply this logic to WhatsApp (3 billion users) and Telegram (1 billion), and WhatsApp’s network value would be roughly nine times higher—even though it only has three times as many users. That asymmetry makes competition brutally uneven.

Metcalfe originally framed this law not to glorify tech monopolies, but to identify the “critical mass” threshold at which a network becomes self-sustaining. Once crossed, momentum takes over. According to venture firm NFX, network effects account for roughly 70 percent of value creation among tech companies valued at over $1 billion since 1994.

Switching costs: the hidden price of freedom 💸

Even when a better alternative exists, leaving comes at a cost—not necessarily financial, but practical and social.

These switching costs take many forms.

First, data loss. Years of WhatsApp conversations, shared photos, voice notes—they don’t magically transfer to Telegram.

Second, learning effort. Even if an app is objectively better, adapting to a new interface requires time and mental energy—resources many users would rather conserve.

Third, social coordination. Leaving alone is pointless. You would need to convince your entire network to move simultaneously—family, coworkers, community groups. Coordinating that kind of collective shift is almost impossible.

And finally, ecosystem loss. On X, journalists, politicians, and creators have spent years building audiences. Moving to Bluesky often means starting from scratch in terms of visibility and influence.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has documented how major platforms actively increase switching costs. Meta, for example, uses API restrictions, software barriers, and even legal pressure to prevent interoperability or third-party bridges. The goal is straightforward: make leaving painful.

Path dependence: trapped by history ⏳

The most fascinating concept might be path dependence, popularized in 1985 by economist Paul David. It describes how early technological choices shape future possibilities—even when those initial choices weren’t optimal.

The classic example is the QWERTY keyboard layout. Designed in 1874 for mechanical typewriters to prevent key jams, it persists more than 150 years later across laptops and smartphones. Alternatives like Dvorak may be more efficient, but retraining billions of people simultaneously is unrealistic.

In messaging, WhatsApp is our modern QWERTY. It wasn’t necessarily the best product at the start. BBM had a devoted following. Viber and WeChat dominated in other regions. But WhatsApp captured key markets early—thanks to simplicity, free messaging, and timing. Once that advantage solidified, path dependence locked it in.

And in Africa? A double lock-in 🌍

In many African markets, these forces are amplified by local realities.

Mobile data is expensive. Every megabyte counts. Sticking to the one app everyone already uses avoids wasting data installing and testing alternatives your contacts might never adopt.

More importantly, WhatsApp has evolved far beyond messaging. It’s a commerce platform—WhatsApp Business alone has hundreds of millions of users globally. It’s a news channel, a community support system, and often the primary link to the diaspora. Leaving WhatsApp in Africa isn’t just switching apps—it can mean disconnecting from an entire social and economic ecosystem.

Can this change? 🔮

Tech history shows that no empire lasts forever. MySpace gave way to Facebook. Nokia was overtaken by the iPhone. Disruption is possible—but it usually requires one of three triggers:

• A radical technological shift (like the move from landlines to mobile)
• Strong regulatory intervention (such as Europe’s Digital Markets Act mandating interoperability)
• A catastrophic collapse of trust in the dominant platform

Musk’s Twitter takeover is an instructive case. X reportedly lost around 33 million users and saw revenue drop from $5 billion to roughly $2.5 billion. But it’s still standing—shielded by the same network effects, switching costs, and path dependence we’ve explored.

The real breakthrough may come from interoperability: the ability for platforms to communicate with each other, like email does today. If you could send a message from Telegram to a WhatsApp user without either party switching apps, network effects would weaken dramatically. Product quality—not lock-in—would once again become the main differentiator.

Final thoughts ✊🏾

Understanding network effects, Metcalfe’s Law, switching costs, and path dependence isn’t just intellectual trivia. It’s a lens for understanding why some technologies dominate, why others fail, and why our digital “choices” are far less free than they appear.

The next time you see a viral “Delete WhatsApp!” or “Move to Bluesky!” campaign, you’ll know why those calls—however justified—collide with massive economic and social forces.

And maybe recognizing those forces is the first step toward building a more open, interoperable digital ecosystem.

Have you ever tried to leave a dominant platform? Tell us about your experience in the comments!