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

41–50 of 199 posts

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#41

Post by airza »

capableweb wrote: post #12
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…

The problem is that it doesn't keep working automatically, because federated servers are in practice a hot mess of mismatched versioning and application support.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#43

Post by joepie91_ »

newswasboring wrote: post #38
the_duke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Matrix seems to want to be an IRC replacement rather than a one-to-one / small-group chat app I don't know where you get that impression. Matrix / Element works great for 1-1 and small group chats, the general UX issues aside.

> the general UX issues aside. I think those are the issues, at least according to the op. I mean, anyone can write a chat app. That tech has existed for ever. Putting the right UX on it is the hard problem good chat apps need to solve.

Anyone can write a centralized chat app. Building a federated chat app is an order of magnitude more difficult, and is still a largely unexplored space.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#44

Post by mavhc »

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…

Standard vs non Standard is often, but not always, the same as Federated vs Closed.

In olden times (1990s), you needed standards because you had multiple platforms, and slow updates, people actually had to download and install an update to get it. Now with app stores and web apps updates are automatic. This means the rate of change can be faster and thus sticking to standards is causing more issues.

The system that's coped best with keeping standards is HTML, it's flexible, it's full of inconsistencies, it's mostly developed by companies inventing things and seeing if they catch on, and then standardising those things. And pretty much everyone's just switched to using Chromium.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#45

Post by iamben »

ppf wrote: post #42

They don't mention the other issue - Whatsapp and similar are, if anything, the worst form of social media. You have shallow conversations that dribble your attention away throughout your entire day, yet you have not gained any meaningful interaction.

But on the flip side I have shallow conversations that dribble my attention away throughout my entire day.

The first time I worked for myself - pre social media - was really, really lonely. This pandemic and lockdown is really, really lonely.

I can silence my phone, I can turn the screen away from me. I can focus when I want to. But it's truly a blessing knowing I have WhatsApp groups with friends just bantering away throughout the day. Doesn't have to be meaningful, it's just great having that "water cooler" interaction.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#46

Post by dsr_ »

maxwellito wrote: post #16
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.

There are a bunch of people who think that their mail system is named Thunderbird.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#48

Post by sammorrowdrums »

rwmj wrote: post #36
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.…

Moments of recognition reading this. A couple of weeks ago at virtual FOSDEM I was trying to work out how to join the FOSDEM chatrooms using the Android app formerly known as Riot.im (now Element.io). And I couldn't work it out - I gave up completely. I'm an actual programmer and heavy IRC user!

I actually felt that the instructions weren't that clear if you were joining via the app. I incidentally did join some of the rooms after the actual conference, but FOSDEM could have provided more instructions beyond "sign up on our server and use the web client" - the main Android App client, and most popular server are hardly niche. And many people already have that setup. I did eventually work out how to find the chats - but it took me a while too

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#49

Post by Strom »

ppf wrote: post #42

They don't mention the other issue - Whatsapp and similar are, if anything, the worst form of social media. You have shallow conversations that dribble your attention away throughout your entire day, yet you have not gained any meaningful interaction.

This does not match my experience at all.

There's no limit to the amount of text I can send and it's not ephemeral. Thus there's really nothing preventing me from typing out thoughtful messages, which I do.

As for attention, anything can suck away attention if you let it. I don't find WhatsApp (or other similar chat apps) to be any worse than e-mail or snail mail. I look at them when I want to and no more. Again, there's no real rush, because the messages aren't ephemeral. [1]

There are social media sites that truly lead towards shallow conversations, like reddit where a quick joke gets more upvotes, or twitter where you have a tiny character limit and your message gets immediately drowned by everyone else's latest angry tweet.

What's more, I've seen plenty of shallow conversations face to face. Thus I think it depends very much on the specific human to human match whether they will have any meaningful deep conversations. If the humans are capable of it, they can do it on WhatsApp as easily as face to face. [2]

--

[1] Unless of course you specifically configure them to be ephemeral, e.g. in Signal.

[2] Yes I realize that face to face has the benefit of body language, but WhatsApp has the benefit of remoteness and asynchronicity. Thus I'll call it a wash.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#50

Post by Semaphor »

joepie91_ wrote: post #43
newswasboring wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the general UX issues aside. I think those are the issues, at least according to the op. I mean, anyone can write a chat app. That tech has existed for ever. Putting the right UX on it is the hard problem good chat apps need to solve.

Anyone can write a centralized chat app. Building a federated chat app is an order of magnitude more difficult, and is still a largely unexplored space.

XMPP/Jabber explored it pretty well. And for a glorious few months, I could use a FLOSS client (with for me far superior UX to any other modern client) to talk to people on Facebook and GTalk as well as all proper Jabber servers.
Post reply on HN