Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

stuker.com

91–100 of 199 posts

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#91
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usab…

I wish this were more popular. I love the idea of using the email protocol for chats. Email servers are ubiquitous and, better, everyone can email everyone else and your contacts and you don't have to be on gmail or yahoo or anything else.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#92

The reason people move out of WhatsApp : to leave Facebook data collection. People are happy with walled gardens. Look at Apple success.

People (normals) are happy with software that just works. If Apple's software stopped "just working", people would leave.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your mother in law can't even pick a username and password, how will she shop on Amazon, sign up with Google, book a flight? Most other mobile apps require you to sign up for an account too. And it bypasses the big problem of having to use your phone number (though you can already add it if you want for people to easily find you!) In regards to the UX of Elements, I think it's not great either but it's not the onl…

Amazon doesn't have a username, it uses your email. Also, it doesn't give you a choice of "which amazon to sign up with", with 3 options.

This guy UXs.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I remember those days. It was so rewarding to be able to throw together a Twitter and chat client in an afternoon (especially as a very new coder). I don't think that kind of stuff is possible any more.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#95
post #4

I wish that the author had spent more time really thinking about _why_ communication has moved away from email, or why XMPP/IRC never really caught on despite being vastly older than these app competitors (hint: it is because they are federated, and so making sweeping changes to the protocol/client in the name of UX becomes intractable.) It is _very_ frustrating that the internet has had messenger fragmentation since…

"It is _very_ frustrating that the internet has had messenger fragmentation since the beginning of time"

If you ignore IRC...

"Signal just works."

It also contributes to the fragmentation you complained about, because it is closed -- no federation, no third party clients, not even a web client. If you are on a platform the Signal team does not have time to deal with then there is no option for you. If you have a specific need that the Signal team cannot take the time to support, too bad. More problematic than lacking federation is lacking any third party client software.

Whenever I confront developers about this the conversation usually results in someone demanding a specific example of a user need they are not meeting; if I give one, they say, "Oh, we are planning that, but we first need to do $XYZ!" and if I say "there are needs we may not be aware of" they say "Well we are trying to do $this or $that, we can't solve everyone's problems!" As if users who have unusual or overlooked needs deserve to be cut off from everyone else...

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#96

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.

Let me rephrase a bit, and this is now my opinion not op's. The UX is the most important problem to solve. Sure making a secure federated chat app may be harder in quantifiable sense, the structures are not really know. But for UX, honestly speaking I feel like nothing is known. We can copy WhatsApp interface, just like you can copy signal/WhatsApp architecture. But is that really what makes them successful?

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#97
post #63
post #4

I wish that the author had spent more time really thinking about _why_ communication has moved away from email, or why XMPP/IRC never really caught on despite being vastly older than these app competitors (hint: it is because they are federated, and so making sweeping changes to the protocol/client in the name of UX becomes intractable.) It is _very_ frustrating that the internet has had messenger fragmentation since…

> _why_ communication has moved away from email Has it, though? I don't think we are any step closer now to dropping email than we were 25 years ago. > or why XMPP/IRC never really caught on despite being vastly older than these app competitors Could be the lack of marketing (because there isn't a corporation or venture capital money behind benefiting from exponential user base growth) and critical mass/peer-pressure…

> Has it, though? I don't think we are any step closer now to dropping email than we were 25 years ago.

I think OP meant that there's been a significant decrease in usage. In my case I can definitely relate to this for personal communications, I no longer send emails to personal acquaintances, I mostly use email for professional purposes, so I think OP's point stands.

> Could be the lack of marketing (because there isn't a corporation or venture capital money behind benefiting from exponential user base growth) and critical mass/peer-pressure as a result

Maybe marketing would work, but a killer feature is way more efficient, especially in the long run. WA offered users a way to text using the same phone numbers for free in countries where you had to pay. Decentralization, like being-open source, does not provide short-term benefits to a user, so you still need distinguishing features.

> did you know that WhatsApp runs on XMPP [...] All those silos could open federation and let messages be exchanged across services but chose not to do so (including Signal), because they have more to gain in keeping you hostage.

WA also uses the Signal Protocol, which I assume is not directly compatible with OMEMO (or this name wouldn't exist). From the little information I found, it uses a customized version of XMPP, which is also probably not directly compatible with XMPP.

My point is that it's not as simple as setting COMPATIBLE=TRUE to make every network compatible with each other. I doubt Facebook deviated from the base protocol just for the sake of it (and there are simpler ways to prevent 3rd party clients), they wanted to implement something which was missing. They wanted to customize XMPP to add features (pretty much Moxie's argument against federation).

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#98

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.…

If your mother in law can't even pick a username and password, how will she shop on Amazon, sign up with Google, book a flight? Most other mobile apps require you to sign up for an account too. And it bypasses the big problem of having to use your phone number (though you can already add it if you want for people to easily find you!) In regards to the UX of Elements, I think it's not great either but it's not the onl…

[deleted]

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#100

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.…

> 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.

Long press sure works in a recent version of element-android. (And I remember that being the case for a long time, but might be mistaken here.)

Post reply on HN