Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

blog.whatsapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 228 posts

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#191

Post by rhaps0dy »

kome wrote: post #188
Freak_NL wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's likely no technical reason why you couldn't use a pc instead of a phone […] Any personal computer built in the last five years can do anything a smartphone or tablet can in terms of processing power and connectivity. A smartphone is a computer with hardware that enables it to use cell phone networks and make calls. My inner cynic strongly suspects that Facebook and other similar corporations really like the…

You are totally right! That's the obvious answer. On desktop you have too much freedom.

I'm going to assume this is sarcasm and upvote.

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#192

Post by Longhanks »

ddeck wrote: post #127
tostitos1979 wrote: post #62

Why is Facebook/WhatsApp doing the tether to the phone crap? I have a few seniors in the family who have no need of a cellphone (stay at home most of the time). Everyone else in the family uses WhatsApp and these poor people are left out of the look. It is completely stupid as far as I can see. What is the phone requirement buying them?

It's required because your phone is where your messages are stored. Whatsapp don't retain messages/media after they've been delivered to your phone, which is a compelling privacy feature for many. It's also what allows them to serve such an enormous user base with limited hardware. Their technology stack (FreeBSD/Erlang) is pretty interesting, more info here: 2014 talks by Rick Reed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c…

Neither does iMessage store messages on servers, and yet I receive iMessages on every device I signed on.

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#194

Post by bikamonki »

lucb1e wrote: post #96
bikamonki wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monetization strategy is what's stopping Whatsapp. Eventually, there will be an official API so business can hook CRMs to clients' Whatsapp accounts. However, FB is first trying that with Messenger API/bots. I assume Whatsapp API/bots comes next. FB did not pay billions for the most popular chat app just to let 1 billion people use it for free forever...

Free? Every WhatsApp user paid Facebook on day one with the contents of their address book and how frequently one person contacts another. This is of huge value if your business model is exactly to gather this kind of data.

True, but to be honest I am not sure that alone is worth 22B, in particular when you have to show shareholders how you plan to make that money back.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-28/facebook-s...

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#195

Post by flanbiscuit »

Propen wrote: post #193

What's different compared to using nativefier on web.whatsapp.com? I've been using that for a while now

My guess is that they took web.whatsapp.com and wrapped it in an Electron app and added a couple native desktop features. Not a lot of effort to do this on their end so I guess it's just another added value to the product. I'll continue just to use the website, I personally see no need for this.

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#197

Post by mderazon »

pimeys wrote: post #109
magazinelala wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram also relies on phone numbers, and you need them to just to log in. You can log in once and stay logged forever on your computer without ever touching your phone again. Whatsapp makes you to stay connected at the same time on your phone to use their web/desktop apps.

WhatsApp doesn't store messages on their servers, which is one of those features I really like in a privacy point of view. Signal does the same, its web app only loads the messages from your phone and they are not stored to any servers.

Still, Signal's web app works without a phone AFAIK

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#198

Post by fastball »

tostitos1979 wrote: post #62

Why is Facebook/WhatsApp doing the tether to the phone crap? I have a few seniors in the family who have no need of a cellphone (stay at home most of the time). Everyone else in the family uses WhatsApp and these poor people are left out of the look. It is completely stupid as far as I can see. What is the phone requirement buying them?

How is facebook "tethering" to phones?

You can send messages to all of your facebook friends through facebook.com on any device, as you always could.

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#199

Post by HemanHeartYou »

magazinelala wrote: post #90
NiekvdMaas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a wrapper for web clients of the "protocols" they support. So WhatsApp is web.whatsapp.com in a tab, Skype is web.skype.com, etc.

Way to undermine the hard work of talented developers. Is that envy? You should see all the features its offer before calling it just a "wrapper".

>talent

okay sure

Re: Introducing WhatsApp's Desktop App

#200

Post by fastball »

nitin_flanker wrote: post #165
cosecantt wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should try web app disabling the internet on your phone. Have you tried it? If watsup store the messages on its servers, it would be able to retrieve. But this is also not reliable since they may check phone connectivity before they retrieve from their "servers". I am still skeptical that they may store on servers behind the scene at least for speed and performance.

>they may store on servers behind the scene at least for speed and performance. Yes, that's why I think so. They easily loads all the messages and images in just few seconds even when my phone's internet is too slow. They won't let you use the web app when you're phone is disconnected, so there's no way to confirm it.

In order to use Whatsapp Web you need to be on the same wifi network as your phone.

Your phone has the data on it. Intranet speeds on most wifi networks these days is faster than 50Mbps. That's more than fast enough to transfer all your messages and photos with little to no lag.

It doesn't matter how fast your connection to the WWW is because you're not using the WWW to transfer the data, you're using the wifi intranet.

Post reply on HN