WhatsApp doesn't understand the web • Hacker News Board

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#71

Post by AceJohnny2 » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #49

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a complete shame that they use XMPP but modified it to make it non compliant on purpose. Yes, as a (former* ) XMPP advocate, this makes me sad. But it's really WhatsApp's attitude towards 3rd party clients that have me blacklisting them for myself as well as family and friends. This is the antithesis of what XMPP was supposed to bring. It's like nega-XMPP. * XMPP as a standard and as community implementation m…

Yes, poor Jingle support really puzzles me. It's not new, but I barely ever manage to connect two different clients without problems for video calls. That's besides the fact that most clients don't support it at all yet... I don't have much respect for Hangouts really. If Google wanted to improve things they could propose Hangouts protocol as a replacement for XMPP. Make it an open IETF standard. They were such backe…

My understanding for poor Jingle support is that, whereas text is easy and low-bandwidth (so you can afford to send everything through a 3rd party server with easy connection semantics), voice and video are much, much much more complicated: not only do you have multiple voice and video codecs with iffy support and stability (sure, even if support library claims to support CodecFoo, it may still fail when passed data from your peer that uses this other library), but the bandwidth requirements means that you now have to deal with trying to directly connect these two clients despite any silent NAT or firewall that may be hidden around. Jingle provided its NAT-traversal algorithm, but even that required network support in the form of "superservers" for when all else failed.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#72

Post by PauloManrique » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:10 AM UTC

matthewgifford wrote: post #58

soapdog wrote: post #2

Author here, will monitor this thread waiting for feedback and general comments.

I'm wondering if you're aware that WhatsApp's data store is on the phone, not on their servers. If so, how would you do away with the requirement that the phone stay online while using the web client?

Not really. WhatsApp do store messages on their servers for sometime.

Clean data and uninstall the app from your Android, uninstall the app and then install again. WhatsApp you ask if you want to recover some of your history.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#73

Post by tedunangst » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:12 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #65

tedunangst wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did snapchat not delete messages?

http://rt.com/usa/157960-snapchat-deceived-users/ http://www.bewebsmart.com/app-review/snapchat-changes-chat-s...

OK. I thought you were getting it confused with one of the message saving snapchat proxies (which then got hacked). But whatsapp is clearly not a replacement. snapchat may have failed to delete videos from the users device, but whatsapp doesn't even try.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#74

Post by PauloManrique » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

One more update to your article: several mobiles can't use that, because it seens de animation on the QR Code Scan screen is not responsive. My phone is a example, I just can't scan the QR Code:

http://i.imgur.com/QTmTdJ4.jpg

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#75

Post by matthewgifford » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

PauloManrique wrote: post #72

matthewgifford wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if you're aware that WhatsApp's data store is on the phone, not on their servers. If so, how would you do away with the requirement that the phone stay online while using the web client?

Not really. WhatsApp do store messages on their servers for sometime. Clean data and uninstall the app from your Android, uninstall the app and then install again. WhatsApp you ask if you want to recover some of your history.

I think that's due to the app making a local backup on the device.

"WhatsApp automatically makes backups every day at 4 AM and stores them in the WhatsApp folder of your Android phone."

http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/android/20887921

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#76

Post by antbbn » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:27 AM UTC

Can it be a money issue? Remembering that WhatsApp is not free, the 1$ for a year of service should be how they make money (I think they did a very good job there because no one that I know remembers that). Maybe the on-line phone solution suits them technically and economically, because they don't want to provide you with an alternative client that you might use for free. As they say this is simply and extension of the phone client.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#77

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:33 AM UTC

bikamonki wrote: post #62

coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history. The only lesson from history is that all tecnologies succumb at some point. General infrastructure standards (like TCP/IP or HTTP) persist longer, but that doesn't say much for application level technologies. > Remember that 'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less than 10%? If anything that's a counter-example. Netscape, that "now has l…

The fact that a given closed tech is winning does in fact support my argument: open wins, eventually. And the fact that protocols and standards prevail is precisely because they need to be open to become protocols and standards.

>The fact that a given closed tech is winning does in fact support my argument: open wins, eventually.

Huh? I fail to see the logic behind this.

>And the fact that protocols and standards prevail is precisely because they need to be open to become protocols and standards.

Well, yes, but that doesn't say much about other levels of the stack, like applications. And besides, we've had lots of succesful proprietary but de-facto standards too, from the .doc format to .mp3 (patent encumpered), to GIF and h264.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#78

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 4:34 AM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #53

coldtea wrote: post #47

So? Why should WhatsApp "understand" the web?

Because they are claiming that they released a "web client" that doesn't actually work on the web but only on a single browser and is not independent (it requires a mobile app running on a phone connected to the internet). People release crippled software on the web because they don't understand what it is all about. The day we lose interoperability between browsers it will all be doomed. The fact that most of the we…

That would be a problem for them only if it hurts their main business, which is their mobile clients.

I'd say a functional web client might be more of an issue for them than a broken one.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#79

Post by PauloManrique » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:00 AM UTC

matthewgifford wrote: post #75

PauloManrique wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. WhatsApp do store messages on their servers for sometime. Clean data and uninstall the app from your Android, uninstall the app and then install again. WhatsApp you ask if you want to recover some of your history.

I think that's due to the app making a local backup on the device. "WhatsApp automatically makes backups every day at 4 AM and stores them in the WhatsApp folder of your Android phone." http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/android/20887921

You're right, I just removed Whatsapp and that folder and now it didn't ask me to recover.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#80

Post by bazookajoes » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:23 AM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #67

bazookajoes wrote: post #64

The linked article could have been titled "andre garzia does not understand that mobile messaging is not the web" jajaja ;) I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints. The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need…

author here. I don't think you understood what I am complaining about. I am complaining exactly about chrome only and usage of non-standard api. As for storage, the web client is requesting non-standard file system permission exactly to store things. I am saying they should use a standard API such as IndexedDB for that kind of thing. I do understand a thing or two about IM having worked on more than a client before.…

I do understand. One of your complaints is "Mistake three - It doesn't work if your phone is not connected to the internet."

That is not a mistake. It is a direct result of the fundamental insight that enabled whatsapp to become what is is - being stateless. Your first two complaints are technical, but the third is a business decision that optimizes their product to fit the needs of the market.

This is a by the by, but surveillence in the context of business requirements means something different. For example, financial companies need to surveil their employee's messages for illegal activity.