Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

maximiliankiener.com

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#41
post #34

What is it about WhatsApp that made so many people adapt it over all the alternatives, I cannot understand it.

Device support. WhatsApp works on Nokia's dumb phones, which is what everyone has in Europe/Asia if they don't have a smartphone: http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/20951556

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already an instant chat solution with both desktop and mobile clients: Skype. Whatsapp is useless to me, and, I suspect, most people in the US. Out of ~1200 contacts in my phone, 11 are currently registered with Whatsapp. I suspect a desktop client would be useful in Europe, India, etc. but be prepared to spend some real money on internationalization.

WhatsApp is not useless, it's pretty freaking huge. One year ago WhatsApp had 400 million active users. Skype has 663 million registered users, out of which 280 million are active monthly users.

I didn't say it was useless to everyone. I just said that it's pretty clear that it has a relatively small US footprint, and language fragmentation in Europe - where Whatsapp is pervasive and useful - is a significant issue. Thus writing a desktop client isn't as simple as it would appear to be at first glance.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#43

What I really want is a desktop version of WhatsApp. I have a lot of conversations on there and typing on a piece of glass is just never as efficient as typing on a laptop. I haven't been able to find a desktop client that isn't blatantly laden with spam or viruses. I might take a stab at building one myself. I'd be curious if anyone has already reverse-engineered their backend API.

that's why I use Viber when I can - it has a desktop app as well as free calling - and whatsapp when I must.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the first checkmark indicates delivery and the second "read". do you guys care about the "it left the phone" state?

Definitely. You want confirmation it got to someplace same until delivered to the recipient. 1 check for got to server, 1 check for delivered to recipient device, and then "Read" underneath the furthest part of the conversation that has been read. Or I'm just crazy and niche.

I'd say: clock symbol till it left the phone, one checkmark for delivered, another one for read.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. You want confirmation it got to someplace same until delivered to the recipient. 1 check for got to server, 1 check for delivered to recipient device, and then "Read" underneath the furthest part of the conversation that has been read. Or I'm just crazy and niche.

I'd say: clock symbol till it left the phone, one checkmark for delivered, another one for read.

Perfect!

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#46
post #8

FYI: double checkmarks means your message was successfully delivered to their phone [0], not that they necessarily read your message. https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/20951546

WHAT?! I was using it for over 2 years under that assumption! Thanks

I think it works like this on the iPhone. Probably because the msg can't be delivered unless you start the app.
Post reply on HN