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

101–110 of 199 posts

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#101

Post by cassepipe »

m4lvin wrote: post #76
ezst wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, for what's worth, my grandma uses XMPP just fine...

+1 Also, "grandma" is an annoying cliche/placeholder. No law says that young males understand any kind of app or sign-up process immediately.

I am literally talking about my grandma though. All of the other grand parents are dead. Young people (wether male or female) that have had access to a computer are generally more familiar with tools they grew up with which was my point. A lot of people, not even just old people, are not ready to spend more than one second when something does not work and will just switch to what they heard was working. Consider someone who does not know the difference between an OS and a browser, between 5G internet and WiFi etc. Having those people in mind matters when thinking about mass adoption (which is the goal when your target is mass surveillance by big gov).

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#102

Post by betterunix2 »

argvargc wrote: post #27
airza wrote: 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…

Isn't the fact neither XMPP nor IRC are e2e-encrypted a factor in them catching on? Nobody wants to use a messenger that's public, or that with a single centralised compromise/hack could make all their messages become so. To me that disqualifies them as even being potential solutions to the problem. Matrix has significant usability issues in its currently-available form(s) - but it at least meets the most basic of re…

Remember OTR messaging? The benefit of an open system like XMPP is that you can add end-to-end encryption if you want to do so.

Really though, why is end-to-end encryption the one thing that should disqualify a system? What about a10y, i18n, etc.? For a vision-impaired user a10y matters a whole lot more than encryption. That is the real point of openness and federation -- allowing users' needs to be met by any developers who have the time and inclination to do so, rather than leaving users at the mercy of a single team (or even a single person).

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#103

Post by anthropodie »

pimeys wrote: post #67
dpatterbee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying, but you seem to just be criticising element, not matrix. All of these are temporary problems which can be overcome with more time to hone the user experience. I would love to see another company come along and make another matrix-based chat app to compete with element, hopefully that would result in them both getting better much quicker.

Beeper seems to be one. Hopefully they allow more people to join their beta soon. https://www.beeperhq.com/

Here's another I haven't tried it but it looks slick https://github.com/syphon-org/syphon

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#104

Post by GekkePrutser »

cosmodisk wrote: post #86
GekkePrutser wrote: post #58

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…

He's got a point tbh. We are having family members who are just about manage to operate WhatsApp. To talk about them booking flights or shopping on Amazon is the equivalent of flying to Mars tomorrow. I reckon there are tens if not hundreds of millions of users who just about manage to answer a call or reply to a message. An average HN reader is probably 0.01% in terms of understanding how to use tech, but there's 99…

But how do they pay their taxes? Sign up for electricity or a mobile phone? Literally everything now requires an electronic account somewhere.

I now have 200+ accounts in my Password manager. Sure, I know I'm part of the 0.01%. But I can't imagine that there's anyone who does own a smartphone but still has less than 10 online accounts somewhere :) You just need them for too many basic necessities of life these days.

It shouldn't be so much of a barrier, and if it is, they probably need help even with setting up Signal or Whatsapp too. After all that requires a google play or apple account to install from the store too.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#105

Post by hiq »

betterunix2 wrote: post #95
airza wrote: 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 spec…

Signal is still an improvement over other non-federated messengers in that it's open-source, so you actually can try to improve the situation, although it's notoriously difficult. As an example of more platform support: https://github.com/signalapp/ringrtc/pull/12

signal-cli is an example of a 3rd party client which is tolerated for now: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli

The main problem right now is that they don't have enough developers to take care of everything, but it's not specific to centralized services (no developer == no code). If you care about it, you can develop your own client using their library (à la signal-cli).

Regarding your last paragraph: I could probably list 20 features I'd like to see in Signal. That doesn't mean I want somebody implementing them with no guarantee about how securely they are implemented. One of the main goals of Signal is to provide guarantees against dragnet surveillance, and that constraint takes precedence.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#106

Post by hiq »

betterunix2 wrote: post #102
argvargc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the fact neither XMPP nor IRC are e2e-encrypted a factor in them catching on? Nobody wants to use a messenger that's public, or that with a single centralised compromise/hack could make all their messages become so. To me that disqualifies them as even being potential solutions to the problem. Matrix has significant usability issues in its currently-available form(s) - but it at least meets the most basic of re…

Remember OTR messaging? The benefit of an open system like XMPP is that you can add end-to-end encryption if you want to do so. Really though, why is end-to-end encryption the one thing that should disqualify a system? What about a10y, i18n, etc.? For a vision-impaired user a10y matters a whole lot more than encryption. That is the real point of openness and federation -- allowing users' needs to be met by any develo…

> Really though, why is end-to-end encryption the one thing that should disqualify a system?

Because security as an afterthought is known to fail.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#107

Post by shreyshrey »

cheph wrote: post #79
tchalla wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am heavily against switching from WhatsApp to Signal, I'm curious - what are your arguments against the switch?

I think the article sums it up fairly well. Signal to me does not solve the fundamental problems inherent to WhatsApp, additionally it suffers from some of the more serious ones I have with WhatsApp (tied to phone number) and brings some new ones (no web client). And the places where Signal improves on WhatsApp relies entirely on trust which is what WhatsApp relied on until it broke trust. I would prefer to use Matri…

Recommend trying out https://www.airsend.io. It is not tied to phone and it has a web/desktop client.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#108

Post by rimiform »

cheph wrote: post #79
tchalla wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am heavily against switching from WhatsApp to Signal, I'm curious - what are your arguments against the switch?

I think the article sums it up fairly well. Signal to me does not solve the fundamental problems inherent to WhatsApp, additionally it suffers from some of the more serious ones I have with WhatsApp (tied to phone number) and brings some new ones (no web client). And the places where Signal improves on WhatsApp relies entirely on trust which is what WhatsApp relied on until it broke trust. I would prefer to use Matri…

Signal has a desktop client, though? Not sure where that issue came from.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#109

Post by rimiform »

m4lvin wrote: post #76
ezst wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, for what's worth, my grandma uses XMPP just fine...

+1 Also, "grandma" is an annoying cliche/placeholder. No law says that young males understand any kind of app or sign-up process immediately.

And yet look at the demographics of any service/app that has a slightly more complicated sign-up process.

Re: WhatsApp and most alternatives share the same problem

#110

Post by mprovost »

mojuba wrote: post #54
mprovost wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICQ came out in 1996, AIM in 1997, and MSN in 1999. I don't think it's fair to give the people working on this a pass by saying this is a new problem - working products have been shipping for over 20 years. Some of the devs working on Signal and Matrix were probably born after ICQ was released. The reality is that all of these systems, including email, tend towards becoming walled gardens. Otherwise you end up with t…

The problem is not in which year it started but whether the feature set is stable enough to be standardized - see my questions in the original comment. And that's just a few of them.

Each of these chat applications have answered the questions you raised in their own way. Since we haven't converged on a single set of standard behaviours in 20+ years, it probably means there isn't a single right answer.
Post reply on HN