Live data from Hacker News

Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

windowslatest.com

131–140 of 402 posts

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because many of the "native" windows components like the start menu are written in react native.

Dear God, I hate the way the Windows 11 Start Menu takes slightly too long to open - long enough that I often accidentally close it again. You can actually watch CPU usage increase if you toggle it.

Never use the start menu anymore with CmdPal in PowerToys.

macOS spoiled me.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#132
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering whether it's time to reserve browsers for their original purpose of reading documents and move web applications to a different paradigm: perhaps native controls/windows rendered and controlled by cross-platform markup served over the web, running on a "headless" sandbox. Perhaps a bit like React Native, but JIT compiled on the client. Not sure if this already exists. I'd really like to have native…

We could call it Flash. Or Java Applets.

You have completely misunderstood the proposal. None of those drive OS native UI widgets through markup and scripts downloaded from the web.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#133
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering whether it's time to reserve browsers for their original purpose of reading documents and move web applications to a different paradigm: perhaps native controls/windows rendered and controlled by cross-platform markup served over the web, running on a "headless" sandbox. Perhaps a bit like React Native, but JIT compiled on the client. Not sure if this already exists. I'd really like to have native…

https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qmlreference.html

Yes, but QT is precompiled. If QML can be served over the web and JIT compiled locally, that might be closer to what I'm talking about.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#134

You can use WhatsApp in your browser: web.whatsapp.com No 1 GB or installation needed Why is the desktop app even a thing?

It will use 1gb on your browser.

Using 224MB on Firefox. Still feels way too high for what it is.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#135

As the person who designed and fought for this app, I am a bit sad about the change. The native app was by no means perfect, but it felt like a real productivity tool that was trying to be respectful of it's environment. I've come to the conclusion that native desktop apps are just not viable from large companies, even if there is headcount. The problem is coordination cost. If you want to launch new features and exp…

You're in a very unique position to render a great public service just now - could you point in the direction of the secret storage used for the database key on Windows? I tried to locate it before but could not. Since that DB is about to be bricked it'd be real nice to export from it imminently

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#136
post #129
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well ... when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much

... You'll end up being forced into WhatsApp groups? Sounds dangerous

Yeah, why not something else? There are a lot of better alternatives. Matrix (Element) although does the search functionality work yet? It sucked ass. I wonder if it works now.

Even Telegram is better, then there is Signal, Briar, and XMPP, too. They are fully featured ones. If you are fine with text only, then Ricochet Refresh is the best candidate as far as privacy goes.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#137

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…

Why just they don't give the Web UI code to their AI and tell it to convert the code to Windows native code without making mistakes?

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#138

As the person who designed and fought for this app, I am a bit sad about the change. The native app was by no means perfect, but it felt like a real productivity tool that was trying to be respectful of it's environment. I've come to the conclusion that native desktop apps are just not viable from large companies, even if there is headcount. The problem is coordination cost. If you want to launch new features and exp…

You're absolutely right that the issue is the coordination cost. It's not about the number of resources but just the fact that you need those resources to coordinate, slowing everything down.

Not a problem in waterfall, since you can set the targets beforehand and just have the teams work in parallel. In an "Agile" setting though (not the manifesto version, the current practice version)? It's a huge mess.

So then the question becomes, is this coordination cost worth it and how much are we willing to "spend". It seems the cost is worth it for Android and iOS since the native app experience on those platforms is so much better.

The macOS app is just a tweaked iOS app so it's also easy to justify.

But what about Windows? The Microsoft provided APIs are a disaster that keeps getting rewritten every half decade, and even Microsoft barely uses them. Windows users don't have a "feel" for a native app the way macOS and mobile users do, since there hasn't been a "native app experience" on Windows for a very long time.

Just look at the 2 context menus on Windows Explorer, they can't even get the sizes and colors between them right.

Meta would have been better off doing like Telegram and just using Qt.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#139
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... You'll end up being forced into WhatsApp groups? Sounds dangerous

Yeah, why not something else? There are a lot of better alternatives. Matrix (Element) although does the search functionality work yet? It sucked ass. I wonder if it works now. Even Telegram is better, then there is Signal, Briar, and XMPP, too. They are fully featured ones. If you are fine with text only, then Ricochet Refresh is the best candidate as far as privacy goes.

Most parents I know dont even allow their children WhatsApp (as you said there are safer alternatives like Signal without weird social network functions you can barely control) so why would parents use it?

For me this just sounds nonsensical. I am sure it makes sense somewhere in the world

Post reply on HN