WhatsApp doesn't understand the web • Hacker News Board

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#121

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #120

smackfu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's not considered a duplicate submission because one has a trailing slash and the other doesn't.

Of course it is a duplicate. The software doesn't catch all of those; that's on purpose, to allow good stories multiple cracks at the bat (edit: i.e. multiple chances to get attention). We rely on users to search before posting and on moderators to bury the dupes that sneak through. User comments pointing out the duplication are helpful. This isn't a perfect system but it's much better than being too strict about rep…

[deleted]

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#122

Post by roymurdock » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

Smirnoff wrote: post #101

wjnc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's awesome to read about use cases in countries I know little about. Viber, Telegram for direct marketing? Wow. How do people decide to join? How do you do ad's? Just like in Argentina in '11 I was amazed that all SME had Facebooks, and were just skipping the website-part I was used to. Funny how local circumstances (might your Whatsapp problem just be an upload-to-US problem?) create different business environment…

Doing business in countries like Uzbekistan is tough because of inability to get payments. But there is a solution to that and it's called MIDDLE MAN. For example, Facebook ads are really picking up here. Of course, most small businesses cannot pay to Facebook directly due to tight payment regulations. So what happens? A middle man comes in. He signs up as a Facebook partner (or regular user), finds small local busin…

What you call a "Middle Man" is also known as a "Market Maker" or a "Liquidity Provider". He takes on the risk of connecting supply and demand in order to profit from the bid/ask spread.

The "Middle Man" has been replaced with technology because it's more efficient and enables more liquidity than an actual man or a network of men could.

If you see solutions popping up in Uzbekistan for basic logistical problems such as transportation and delivery, perhaps you should try to implement them elsewhere? I would be interested to hear more examples that could be implemented elsewhere in the world.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#123

Post by frankzinger » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 2:19 AM UTC

NietTim wrote: post #99

frankzinger wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On reddit 'TIL' means 'today I learned'. P.S. TIL some people automatically downvote any post containing the word 'reddit'.

And other places on the internet.

My apologies; talk of 'TIL' and inboxes made me think of reddit.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#124

Post by dzamo_norton » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 8:52 AM UTC

Standards defiance notwithstanding, the web client appears to work as advertised and will surely save many a neck and thumb from premature aging.

It's interesting at this point to think about identity and authentication in WhatsApp. They've never had a username or password and their use of your mobile phone number as your identity seems to have been key to their success (the other factor I'd cite is good cross-platform support).

WhatsApp authn on mobile consists of a once-off SMS verification to confirm you are running WhatsApp on the mobile device hosting the SIM card corresponding to the phone number identity you've claimed for yourself. That said, I recently saw a case of someone using a temporary pre-paid SIM card while she was traveling here in South Africa yet her WhatsApp messages from that phone still appeared to come from her New Zealand number. Not sure how that passed the authn.

The lack of username and password, I believe, is what has led to some of the unnaturalness of the WhatsApp web app. I don't think that their remarks of "the web browser mirrors conversations and messages from your mobile device -- this means all of your messages still live on your phone." reveal all of what guided their design choices. Instead I think they need the phone there and online because they have no username and password (or any other identity + authn).

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#125

Post by mercer » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 9:32 AM UTC

Is there a good reason to not switch to Telegram (or another alternative), which has a web client and native desktop clients? Especially on mobile it's almost no trouble to use two chat apps side by side, as most of the interaction happens through notifications (which send you straight to relevant app).

I switched initially because I was a bit uncomfortable with having long, personal conversations on a Facebook-owned property with no export capabilities, but I've been getting more and more of my friends to switch simply because of the very solid web and desktop apps. And even though they complain initially about installing 'yet another app', in practice it's no trouble (since they only have to use the two apps on mobile, where using both is not really an issue).

The main thing I'm wondering, I guess, is: is it mostly perception that keeps people within one mobile chat ecosystem, or am I underestimating how difficult it is for the average user to use more than one app, and/or slowly move to another app?

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#126

Post by pjmlp » Sat, Jan 24, 2015, 10:19 AM UTC

TeeWEE wrote: post #63

While i agree whatsapp web should work in every browser the auther is forgetting one IMPORTANT gotcha: Whatsapp, is a messaging-routing platform. It doesnt store any messages. Thats what makes whatsapp strong. Its a feature. Thats why you need your phone. Its like SMS. They are not storing all your sensitive message. If you dont care about storing sensitive messages on servers. Use Telegram/Facebook Messaging, etc...…

> Its like SMS.

SMS are stored while awaiting delivery during a certain period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_message_service_technical...

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#127

Post by ramonck » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 1:32 PM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #42

ramonck wrote: post #37

Heck, let's just go back to Skype! :)

Skype has some security issues that have yet to be resolved and knowing Microsoft's history with MSN Messenger, issues that will likely never be resolved. Also it is plenty unstable under Linux, sadly. I've found Viber to be easiest, only gotcha is you need it on your phone first before you use it elsewhere. Otherwise it's pretty spot on. It also looks and feels the same across platforms.

I'm a Viber user but I still prefer Skype, it's the easiest platform to talk to people besides Whatsapp, and I think it's the best mobile video platform there's here today is Skype at least on Windows and iOS.