Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

andregarzia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#51

Post by SixSigma »

smhenderson wrote: post #32
iagooar wrote: post #14

I just don't get it. What is so difficult about providing a one-time authentication through the user's phone? Just open Whatsapp on the smartphone, get a token, put your phone number and token and voilà! I mean, there have been web chats for decades now, so I don't understand why they invented such a messed up set of constraints. Besides, am I the only one who suspects that Whatsapp is boycotting Apple? They needed a…

I would have thought the whole point of a web client was so that people who don't have a supported phone can get in on the fun. If I have to have WA on my phone to authenticate a web client then said client is just the useless toy described in the article. I confess, I've never used it and don't want to pass judgment without actually checking it out but if what the article describes is true than, yeah, they screwed t…

I haven't used the Web service but I probably will. Not having to pick my phone up to use it will be a boon.

I'm always logged in so this is a non-issue for me.

I have cursed the lack of a desktop client often.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#55

Post by riquito »

NietTim wrote: post #31
julianwachholz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try searching for "WhatsApp".

TIL Hackernews has a searchbar I'm still finding my way trough this UI (Why is there no 'inbox' with replies to your comments?!)

> TIL Hackernews has a searchbar

It does, it's at bottom of each page

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#56

Post by ownagefool »

TillE wrote: post #49
ddeck wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram store your message and conversation history on their servers, whereas Whatsapp run somewhat like SMS - they pass your message on to the destination and then forget about it. Clearly every point in the chain matters, but it always surprised me that a company that puts so much emphasis on security and privacy thinks it's a good idea to keep your messages in the cloud: "Unlike WhatsApp, Telegram is cloud-based…

There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting your encrypted data anywhere and everywhere, as long as you are the only one who has the encryption key. Unfortunately, it sounds like that's not what Telegram is doing with its non-"secret" messages.

Actually, you have to assume that any encryption is a temporary measure; it can and will be broken in the future. With that in mind, if something is worth encrypting, it's possible you don't want the service to store it after it's useful.

Of course, whatsapp could register devices which are thrown away after x days without delivery then store the messages until delivered to all end devices but that's likely a core infrastructure update which would require them to store more data, not the same as just writing another client.

Still, what they've created as a web client is a little batty; typically I'd want to use those when I can't find my phone.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#57

Post by Smirnoff »

WhatsApp went from being a poster child to an ugly donkey in my country (Uzbekistan & other countries in Central Asia). Just two years ago everyone I knew was using WhatsApp, and what happened now? Most people use either Viber or Telegram, because uploading/downloading pics on WhatsApp takes forever.

WhatsApp had a POTENTIALLY massive commercial use here and they blew it with paid subscriptions (which people in my country can't pay through Apple/Google stores). So people started switching their mobile numbers to get back into WhatsApp, which actually was really bad for WhatsApp but they blindly saw that as success. Their growth team probably said: "We are killing it because more and more people are signing up!" Yeah, but what's the churn rate? It's probably huge as well. These unique mobile users that they counted were actually the same people who couldn't find a way to pay.

Ok, so if anyone from Whatsapp happened to read my post, here is how you can make (or could have made) money: - Charge businesses to communicate with their clients through WhatsApp. This is very straightforward -- businesses need A MAC/PC CLIENT for their team to talk to customers. I know our tech company wanted it, but you wouldn't let third party clients exist. So we sticked with Viber and Telegram. Luckily regular users also ditched WhatsApp.

And look, we were not the only ones who needed it. The guy selling shoes/clothes would show products through WhatsApp. The local florist would show what he had available on particular day through pics on WhatsApp. Then he got tired of sending these pics to everyone, so he wanted to have these pics in his profile page. So who offered multiple pics in the profile? Telegram did. As much as I hated their deceptive claim about "being the most secure app", they actually managed to listen to users.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#59

Post by 72deluxe »

ddeck wrote: post #38
iagooar wrote: post #14

I just don't get it. What is so difficult about providing a one-time authentication through the user's phone? Just open Whatsapp on the smartphone, get a token, put your phone number and token and voilà! I mean, there have been web chats for decades now, so I don't understand why they invented such a messed up set of constraints. Besides, am I the only one who suspects that Whatsapp is boycotting Apple? They needed a…

I believe the issue is that unlike web chats and apps like Telegram, Whatsapp doesn't store conversations on their servers beyond what is required to deliver messages to the required destination device(s). This presents obvious problems with having not just a web client, but any client other than the main device, since the main device is the only store of the existing conversations. New messages sent also need to be…

Doesn't that sound like a poor architecture then?

If the system is reliant on the main device, what happens if that gets run over or destroyed? WhatsApp have no control over the fate of the device. Why wouldn't they store the messages on the server and sync from that? WhatsApp have control of the fate of their own servers, which is far more reliable, SURELY.

If I send a new message from a device, either the other devices can poll periodically for messages that I have sent, or they can use WebSockets and be notified when a new message is sent, or when the app opens it can fetch all the recent messages that I have sent from other devices. It isn't difficult with a fine grained timestamp, surely? That's what Google Talk does.

You'd only need to order my messages by timestamp to get all messages that I had sent.

It's a bit of a daft architecture if it is incapable of this basic mechanism, isn't it?

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#60

Post by TeeWEE »

TillE wrote: post #49
ddeck wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telegram store your message and conversation history on their servers, whereas Whatsapp run somewhat like SMS - they pass your message on to the destination and then forget about it. Clearly every point in the chain matters, but it always surprised me that a company that puts so much emphasis on security and privacy thinks it's a good idea to keep your messages in the cloud: "Unlike WhatsApp, Telegram is cloud-based…

There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting your encrypted data anywhere and everywhere, as long as you are the only one who has the encryption key. Unfortunately, it sounds like that's not what Telegram is doing with its non-"secret" messages.

I assume investors of telegram are Russian big dudes, and they use it to control people. Thats why they store it on their server.

I know, this is a wild guess. Id rather use whatsapp.

Post reply on HN