Live data from Hacker News

Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

windowslatest.com

111–120 of 402 posts

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#111
post #42

I remember doing voice and video calls, and of course IM, on a PC with 128MB of RAM and a single core CPU around the turn of the century. It's amazing how far we've regressed in efficency.

> It's amazing how far we've regressed in efficency. I don’t think we have. This is always what efficiency leads to, higher resource consumption. The phenomenon was described already in the 1800s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox JS and the web has seen performance improvements. They lead to more ads being served and more code being released faster to users.

> This is always what efficiency leads to, higher resource consumption.

That's not the same thing. If you make batteries more efficient then people build more devices that run on batteries and then you need more batteries than ever. But you also get a bunch of new devices you didn't used to have.

When computers get more efficient, miserly corporations cut staff or hire less competent programmers and force their customers to waste the efficiency gains on that, because they don't have enough competition or the customers are locked in by a network effect. The difference is whether you actually get something for it instead of having it taken from you so somebody else can cheap out.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#112
post #42

I remember doing voice and video calls, and of course IM, on a PC with 128MB of RAM and a single core CPU around the turn of the century. It's amazing how far we've regressed in efficency.

> It's amazing how far we've regressed in efficency. I don’t think we have. This is always what efficiency leads to, higher resource consumption. The phenomenon was described already in the 1800s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox JS and the web has seen performance improvements. They lead to more ads being served and more code being released faster to users.

Both of you are right.

Without any regulations companies will create software that costs more to the users, but saves pennies to the company.

So, we have regressed in efficency.

They are not mutually exclusive but one follows from the other.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#114

Well, the reason for the replacement seems pretty obvious: they're shipping new features on the web that aren't matched by the native client, and apparently that was just too hard to update for a multibillion AI-powered behemoth. So, a wrapper it is! You may not like that from a 'native look and feel' point of view, but the question 'what is a native Windows app these days anyway' is very much unanswerable, and you c…

>I'm actually sort-of impressed, in that I have no idea how I would even make that happen!

Let google do it on your behalf.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#115
post #97
post #89

If companies needed to pay ressource usage of their apps, the digital world would look nothing like today

When I buy a refrigerator, if a model has insane power consumption that makes me think about my electric bill, I’d be less inclined to buy it. The refrigerator manufacturer is going to sell less. So in a way, you can say that they’re definitely paying for those wasted resources. For software companies it’s the same, in a way. They pay whatever the consumers deem appropriate. It’s just that consumers don’t really care…

> RAM is cheap

My time isn't

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#116
Pathetic.

All this “engineering” from Meta and algorithm acrobatics with hundreds of optimization puzzles and they accept a solution that performs completely far worse in both runtime and space complexity.

Whoever believes that this is the acceptable solution from a trillion dollar company would have failed their own interview.

No company would accept a huge regression like that and push it to billions of users but Meta.

Total amateurs.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#117

Well, the reason for the replacement seems pretty obvious: they're shipping new features on the web that aren't matched by the native client, and apparently that was just too hard to update for a multibillion AI-powered behemoth. So, a wrapper it is! You may not like that from a 'native look and feel' point of view, but the question 'what is a native Windows app these days anyway' is very much unanswerable, and you c…

Well if you are concerned about a resource hog, why are you running Windows in the first place?

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#119
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amazing how far we've regressed in efficency. I don’t think we have. This is always what efficiency leads to, higher resource consumption. The phenomenon was described already in the 1800s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox JS and the web has seen performance improvements. They lead to more ads being served and more code being released faster to users.

Both of you are right. Without any regulations companies will create software that costs more to the users, but saves pennies to the company. So, we have regressed in efficency. They are not mutually exclusive but one follows from the other.

Your framing is correct

It’s company vs user not regression vs efficiency

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#120

Well, the reason for the replacement seems pretty obvious: they're shipping new features on the web that aren't matched by the native client, and apparently that was just too hard to update for a multibillion AI-powered behemoth. So, a wrapper it is! You may not like that from a 'native look and feel' point of view, but the question 'what is a native Windows app these days anyway' is very much unanswerable, and you c…

I keep fighting with devs that want to use web-everything.

Luckily for me, i have the ultimate power so i can just say "Firefox doesn't support that. I don't use chrome. period."

But lately i had to start saying Safari doesn't support that so we would lose all iphones, or we can start investigate after we have a working solution. God damn react.

Post reply on HN