101–110 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatsapp is hugely popular in India where phone contracts are not popular and most people use pay-as-you-go prepaid mobile services. Very few, if any, of them come with unlimited messages. Unlimited messages are a US-only thing I guess.
I'm in the UK. That doesn't change my point though. Despite the unlimited text messages in UK/US people still use Whatsapp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WhatsApp does not store messages on their servers. It's a clean passthrough from one device to the next. They only hold onto message until all clients in the group text or one-on-one text have received the sent message. So, if you have two clients using the same phone number, the system wouldn't know when it is able to delete the message. Right now the single phone receives the message and simply passes it up to the…
I believe you're wrong. This is how WhatsApp USED to work before they were acquired by Facebook. Remember how messages used to stay in the waiting (clock) state and you could delete them if the recipient wasn't online? Well now the first tick appears immediately because there's an intermediate server storing them for delivery and they can't be deleted from the client. It's similar to what Microsoft did to Skype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatsapp is hugely popular in India where phone contracts are not popular and most people use pay-as-you-go prepaid mobile services. Very few, if any, of them come with unlimited messages. Unlimited messages are a US-only thing I guess.
I'm in the UK. That doesn't change my point though. Despite the unlimited text messages in UK/US people still use Whatsapp.
Group text via SMS is a PITA. The main reason why I use WhatsApp for certain messaging tasks.
Having Wifi but no phone signal - WhatsApp gets used again.
WhatsApp also lets you see when a message has been received and also when it has been read. Spooky, but useful.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I would be interested to understand more about why WhatsApp made some of those decisions. The requirement to keep your phone connected to the Internet seems strange, perhaps it's using some encryption key that never leaves the device? Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much? Why has iOS been left out?
Somebody probably came up with this crazy and cool architectural idea. "I know Jim! Instead of having the browser communicate with our servers, have it communicate with the phone which communicates with our servers! Brilliant! Cheers! ! Another round of beers please!"
In all seriousness, you'll probably find that having Whatsapp on your phone is somehow tied to how they plan to monetize the platform. If the web client works without the phone there is no reason to have the app on your phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix now works in Chrome on Linux.
Thats not really Netflix's fault though. Google Chrome (not Chromium) is the only browser on Linux that supports the DRM the TV/movie studios forced upon Netflix. With Windows Silverlight works in all browsers so they have access to the DRM.
Or does Netflix tout the need for "content protection"?
DRM is fantastic business for Netflix as it creates a nice barrier to entry for competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram is a bad counter-example for various reasons. LINE has a desktop client that works well though
What are those reasons?
LINE and WhatsApp were started on the basis of making a useful chat program for the masses. Usability for those on FF OS is not part of their core principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, b…
What does being stateless mean, in this context?