Live data from Hacker News

Wavelength

daringfireball.net

101–110 of 151 posts

Re: Wavelength

#101
post #96
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. He should have started the article with "Disclaimer: [...]".

That’s a stylistic choice. It’s not a universal rule.

> That’s a stylistic choice. It’s not a universal rule.

It's universal rule if you want people to actually read disclaimer. Similar method of burying the lead is used to promote quackery, info that's it's based on a online poll that five people took is "hidden" in later parts of article.

Re: Wavelength

#102
Very nice app. One minor nit if the devs are reading this: on the desktop Mac app it seems I need to click on someone's name to ping them. If I type "@ai hello", "@AI hello", nothing happens, unless I click the @AI autocomplete above the message.

Re: Wavelength

#104

I am wary of Wavelength due to unclear business model (it’s not paid and promises can’t rule out another future double-sided market where I’m the product) and won’t use it because any integration with ClosedAI makes me uncomfortable (I don’t need an LLM at my side when chatting with friends, and if I needed it I’d expect it can be run natively on Apple Neural).

We will never run ads. We plan to make money primarily by offering pro subscriptions and a version of Wavelength for organizations.

> We will never run ads. We plan to make money primarily by offering pro subscriptions and a version of Wavelength for organizations.

There are so many corporations that made similar pledges only to break them when it became advantageous for them to do so. Is there any mechanism that actually would enforce it? Mechanism that wouldn't disappear with a single stroke of pen?

Re: Wavelength

#105
post #102

Very nice app. One minor nit if the devs are reading this: on the desktop Mac app it seems I need to click on someone's name to ping them. If I type "@ai hello", "@AI hello", nothing happens, unless I click the @AI autocomplete above the message.

I suspect that’s a deliberate UI choice due to the encrypted nature of messages that aren’t directed to the AI.

Re: Wavelength

#106
post #81

Given its place in the orbit of tastemaker-market, iOS-exclusive apps, I expected Wavelength to require a paid subscription for access. I was surprised to see that the developers plan a freemium model. Of course, a paid-only model would put a hard ceiling on the total addressable market, but they have an interesting challenge ahead in finding something that a sustainable number of users will want to pay for.

This app is dead in the water. That doesn't mean it's not gonna provide some usefulness to groups of people, just that a iOS-only, freemium group chat will never reach mass appeal if their goal is to make money off of it.

Yup, the group-chat-thread-first model sounds very interesting

But, iOS only/first is a nonstarter for a huge portion of the population. If they're just trying to experiment is a small pond first to get it right (sort of as a throwaway version), then that is excellent. If they're planning to stay in the Apple walled garden exclusively or as a first-class/peasants model, then, well, good luck with that.

Re: Wavelength

#107
post #53

It's a forum. On a mobile device. And called a messaging app. But it's a forum.

It's not a forum if it doesn't have (broken) PHP plugins. (:

But yeah, article gives some glimpse of hope for communities.

Re: Wavelength

#108
post #51

> Groups → Threads → Messages for each thread By making Groups hierarchical they can even reinvent Forums.

Discord is groups > channels > messages but doesn’t use threads (I believe).

MS Teams is groups > channels > threads > messages

But yea this does feel like forum arrangement. Which is really the most useful format for longer term conversations. Discord is great for “today and tomorrow matters yesterday doesn’t (yolo).

Re: Wavelength

#109
post #51

> Groups → Threads → Messages for each thread By making Groups hierarchical they can even reinvent Forums.

Discord is groups > channels > messages but doesn’t use threads (I believe). MS Teams is groups > channels > threads > messages But yea this does feel like forum arrangement. Which is really the most useful format for longer term conversations. Discord is great for “today and tomorrow matters yesterday doesn’t (yolo).

Discord has subchannels, which it calls threads

Team's threads vs messages are so similar users often don't understand them

No one has usenet style threads yet

Re: Wavelength

#110
My group of (nerd) friends just migrated to matrix after Telegram started with their premium/crypto shenanigans and synthetic free-tier restrictions.

This new chat app is currently bait, but I'm not really lured by "threads", and the switch is a ticking timebomb.

Other red flags:

  * Signup with phone number, other apps have proven that it's not universally necessary.
  * Not mentioning that the author got equity of the app's company until halfway through the article.
  * e2ee handwaving but there will never be proof unless they open-source it.
  * Some integrated AI bot thing that nobody wants, could have been a bot API, stands at odds with e2ee, and just sounds like a lame attempt to ride the current wave.
  * Mentions signal, whatsapp, telegram, but suspiciously not matrix.org, which AFAIK does have the touted feature to re-encrypt older messages to new members.
Post reply on HN