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

WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

stuker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 199 posts

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#11

Post by CJefferson »

I really sympathise with this point of view, but when it comes to messaging with family and friends, I just don't really care. Matrix seems to want to be an IRC replacement rather than a one-to-one / small-group chat app. That's fine, but often not what I want.

Teaching my mother in law to use Signal:

Install. Accept permissions. Choose a PIN. I can send you messages. You can see your friends who already use Signal. Well done!

Matrix:

When you start you will get to choose from [matrix.org], swirly symbol "element matrix services" (the biggest and middle option, but not the one you want), or other.

Choose matrix.org (nothing else, or we will get very confused). Then click "sign up". Then enter a username and password (need a username which no-one has used before, you can't use your email address. Make sure to remember it).

Oh, but do put your email address in the next page, which is how people in practice are going to find you.

Bonus feature: How do you join a room? Click on it. How do you leave? Maybe long-press the room name, or swipe? Nope, you enter the room, click on the triple dots, settings, scroll down, leave room.

Bonus feature 2: Once you join a popular room, all users of that room are added to "Known users", making the list completely without value. How do I actually find people I know?

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#12

Post by capableweb »

cassepipe wrote: post #10

The reason why Signal is not an open protocol like email has been argumented by Signal creator Moxie before (can't find the article please help). It has pros (evolution is faster and thus it's easier to compete with proprietary solutions) and cons (single point of failure) and Signal devs are well aware of that. We should stop acting like Matrix and Signal are competing with each other. I happily use Matrix but my gr…

The problem with statements like "I happily use Matrix but my grandma will not, ever, not in this world" is that Matrix is more of a protocol than anything. So of course, your gradma would never use HTTP, but since browsers are now user friendly enough, everyone is using HTTP indirectly. Same can (will? Might?) happen with Matrix, where a popular applications get written on top of Matrix, and users don't even need to know about Matrix, just that stuff works. And when they move to another client, they can bring everything with them and stuff keeps working automatically.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#15

Post by beagle3 »

kenniskrag wrote: post #9
ezst wrote: post #5

I wanted to like this piece for calling Signal for what it is: WhatsApp with better marketing (with a lot of security and privacy backed by obscurity), but if everyone is jumping ship from WhatsApp out of data syphoning concerns, I'm not sure that Matrix's insistance on replicating and distributing as much metadata as possible across its nodes is much better. The end game is probably P2P with "dumb" servers doing lit…

Can you recommend a self hosted setup? I want chat + forward to email if I'm offline.

Google Delta Chat. It’s a chat protocol/server/client based on email. You only need the client - it will use your existing email account (and your recipients’); if you use the Delta client, it will appear as chat; if you don’t it will just be 2 line emails - and similarly for your addresses.

When/if the actual server comes of age, you’ll have additional features like online indicators and stuff. Bit it’s already usable today (if somewhat wasteful in bandwidth and storage compared to e.g. Signal) and there are no new accounts to register or discover — it’s usable with standard email as transport.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#16

Post by maxwellito »

CJefferson wrote: post #11

I really sympathise with this point of view, but when it comes to messaging with family and friends, I just don't really care. Matrix seems to want to be an IRC replacement rather than a one-to-one / small-group chat app. That's fine, but often not what I want. Teaching my mother in law to use Signal: Install. Accept permissions. Choose a PIN. I can send you messages. You can see your friends who already use Signal.…

+1

Also about Matrix, the confusion when the client app doesn't have the same name as the protocol is so unfriendly for the non tech-savy users.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#17

Post by ezst »

cassepipe wrote: post #10

The reason why Signal is not an open protocol like email has been argumented by Signal creator Moxie before (can't find the article please help). It has pros (evolution is faster and thus it's easier to compete with proprietary solutions) and cons (single point of failure) and Signal devs are well aware of that. We should stop acting like Matrix and Signal are competing with each other. I happily use Matrix but my gr…

Moxie's argument can be found in its essay "the ecosystem is moving"[1], which is highly fallacious. Moxie's Signal is about control and building for himself the same kind of monopoly as others currently enjoy. You can find evidence of that through the libresignal issue tracker on GitHub where he rationalizes barring access to 3rd party clients or servers[2].

He sees federation as the technically superior approach (and as beneficial for privacy and security), but also as a threat to himself, which makes the point that he doesn't have your best interests at heart.

[1]: https://gultsch.de/objection.html

[2]: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#18

Post by bosswipe »

mojuba wrote: post #8

Yes but email also used to be fragmented and walled garden'ed back in the early days of networking. Chat is still in its infancy as a technology. We are still trying to figure things out: what's the minimal necessary feature set? What should a server API provide to clients? And a myriad of behavior/feature/privacy questions that different messaging systems handle differently, for example: what happens when I leave a…

Chat is not in its infancy, it has been around almost as long as email.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#19

Post by rebuilder »

mojuba wrote: post #8

Yes but email also used to be fragmented and walled garden'ed back in the early days of networking. Chat is still in its infancy as a technology. We are still trying to figure things out: what's the minimal necessary feature set? What should a server API provide to clients? And a myriad of behavior/feature/privacy questions that different messaging systems handle differently, for example: what happens when I leave a…

Isn't having a well-specified protocol how you get features to stabilizes?

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#20

Post by antihero »

"Why does everybody wanting to exchange messages need the same client?"

Gee I don't know, maybe standardisation has some sort of benefit that leads to a cohesive, consistent experience for all users as opposed to having a bunch of clients that all implement varying levels of the spec to various standards...

Post reply on HN