Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

maximiliankiener.com

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#12
post #8

FYI: double checkmarks means your message was successfully delivered to their phone [0], not that they necessarily read your message. https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/20951546

WHAT?! I was using it for over 2 years under that assumption! Thanks

Funny enough, Telegram (the open replacement for WhatsApp) works in the way you had expected (double check is read confirmation).

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#13
post #8

FYI: double checkmarks means your message was successfully delivered to their phone [0], not that they necessarily read your message. https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/20951546

I was just about to comment this. Seems it's a pretty common misunderstanding.

AFAIK the only way to know if someone's read your message is to assume based on their last time online.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WHAT?! I was using it for over 2 years under that assumption! Thanks

Funny enough, Telegram (the open replacement for WhatsApp) works in the way you had expected (double check is read confirmation).

I always assumed that the first checkmark indicates "delivered" and the second one "read", since right after you post it it shows a clock-symbol. also interesting, that i assume with current network speeds sent=delivered.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, Telegram (the open replacement for WhatsApp) works in the way you had expected (double check is read confirmation).

I always assumed that the first checkmark indicates "delivered" and the second one "read", since right after you post it it shows a clock-symbol. also interesting, that i assume with current network speeds sent=delivered.

First checkmark confirms it hit store and forward servers. I prefer second checkmark to indicate delivery, as I care less if someone read it and more if it just made it to their device.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, Telegram (the open replacement for WhatsApp) works in the way you had expected (double check is read confirmation).

I always assumed that the first checkmark indicates "delivered" and the second one "read", since right after you post it it shows a clock-symbol. also interesting, that i assume with current network speeds sent=delivered.

How about the first checkmark indicates delivery and the second "read". do you guys care about the "it left the phone" state?

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#19
What I learned from this is a great way to prototype/demo and share an idea before building the whole app. The three improvements you suggest - 1) re-sharing in groups 2) read confirmation in groups and 3) saving - aren't the pain points that I have.

Personally, my pain is just p2p sharing with a person sitting in front (or next to me) - I want the app to understand (say, when both users press a button - its like scanning for a nearby bluetooth connection) to add a person on my whatsapp, allow me send stuff (pics), share a contact, or share a meeting invite - stuff like that. WhatsApp would be great to do this. Proximity-based p2p connections should be quite easy, and apps could make it "feel" more automatic/magical.

Re: Show HN: Improving WhatsApp

#20
post #16

Nice ideas! I wonder how the read circles scale. How do you imagine this looking for groups of 10 or 20 or more people?

thank you! i imagined it to be similiar to fb messenger. (there would be a symbol that inicates "all others" if the groups size exceeds 6.

I also expeimented with more checkmarks, or colored lines that come down and show read progress for individuals (like a race).

there would also be more information when you click the status bar of the chat.

Post reply on HN