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

Wavelength

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Wavelength

#141

Post by souldoubt »

tourist2d wrote: post #27

This whole article felt like a poor sales pitch. What wavelength offers: - Privacy focused (majority of users do not care about this, all modern chat apps have e2ee already) - Natively runs on Apple devices (without Android/Windows version, good luck getting a large user base, especially with 2 developers) - An AI chatbot (discord/slack already have this?) - A groups -> threads -> messages layout. Like they mentioned…

> The article could've done less without the author patting themselves on the back about how amazing their opinions offered were.

You must be new here

Re: Wavelength

#142

Post by souldoubt »

andrewflnr wrote: post #111
smcl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack has voice / video chat no?

True, ish. The voice is much newer, not part of their DNA like it is for discord, and I don't think they have video.

Can confirm that Slack has video, following their acquisition of Screenhero

Re: Wavelength

#143

Post by augment001 »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #127
jgruber wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> e2ee handwaving but there will never be proof unless they open-source it. This is a good point, and the Wavelength team is well aware of this. > but suspiciously not matrix.org I will admit I’d not heard of Matrix until your mention of it here. So I spent a few minutes downloading it, signing up, etc. It’s obviously competitive with Wavelength to some extent, but the first-class threading concept isn’t there. It se…

Matrix is more interesting as a protocol than it is in terms of its current clients

If true, this means that it’s not actually a relevant competitor for end users yet.

Re: Wavelength

#144

Post by augment001 »

toss1 wrote: post #106
zapt02 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This app is dead in the water. That doesn't mean it's not gonna provide some usefulness to groups of people, just that a iOS-only, freemium group chat will never reach mass appeal if their goal is to make money off of it.

Yup, the group-chat-thread-first model sounds very interesting But, iOS only/first is a nonstarter for a huge portion of the population. If they're just trying to experiment is a small pond first to get it right (sort of as a throwaway version), then that is excellent. If they're planning to stay in the Apple walled garden exclusively or as a first-class/peasants model, then, well, good luck with that.

I think you overestimate how huge that proportion of the population actually is. Android users heavily skew older and less interested in technology. Yes there are some tech users who use android for ideological reasons, but they are a small minority.

In terms of addressable market, Android isn’t a stumbling block to begin with.

Re: Wavelength

#145

Post by borland »

joshspankit wrote: post #112

I read about 30% of the article before I was sold on it, but I’m locked out. It requires iOS 15 which cannot (currently) be jailbroken.

There's a ton of apps now which require iOS15, and some are starting to move to 16. If you're stuck on 14 for jailbreak reasons I suspect you're going to struggle with more things than Wavelength.

Re: Wavelength

#146

Post by dexterdog »

jgruber wrote: post #121
the_gipsy wrote: post #110

My group of (nerd) friends just migrated to matrix after Telegram started with their premium/crypto shenanigans and synthetic free-tier restrictions. This new chat app is currently bait, but I'm not really lured by "threads", and the switch is a ticking timebomb. Other red flags: * Signup with phone number, other apps have proven that it's not universally necessary. * Not mentioning that the author got equity of the…

> e2ee handwaving but there will never be proof unless they open-source it. This is a good point, and the Wavelength team is well aware of this. > but suspiciously not matrix.org I will admit I’d not heard of Matrix until your mention of it here. So I spent a few minutes downloading it, signing up, etc. It’s obviously competitive with Wavelength to some extent, but the first-class threading concept isn’t there. It se…

As somebody who has followed your blog via rss for longer than I can remember I am very surprised that you were not aware of matrix even before your involvement with Wavelength and shocked that you did not become aware of it during your early involvement. Don't you guys have a list of competitors/alternatives that you keep track of?

That being said I like what I see of Wavelength so far. I don't have anybody in my network that popped up right away, but I have a few people who are always interested in trying new chat apps so we'll give it a whirl.

Re: Wavelength

#147

Post by dexterdog »

augment001 wrote: post #144
toss1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, the group-chat-thread-first model sounds very interesting But, iOS only/first is a nonstarter for a huge portion of the population. If they're just trying to experiment is a small pond first to get it right (sort of as a throwaway version), then that is excellent. If they're planning to stay in the Apple walled garden exclusively or as a first-class/peasants model, then, well, good luck with that.

I think you overestimate how huge that proportion of the population actually is. Android users heavily skew older and less interested in technology. Yes there are some tech users who use android for ideological reasons, but they are a small minority. In terms of addressable market, Android isn’t a stumbling block to begin with.

Did you forget a /s at the end there?

Re: Wavelength

#148

Post by js2 »

shafyy wrote: post #86
wslh wrote: post #80

IMHO the core point is John Gruber equity, so it is basically a business promotion not an article: "Not only was my feedback warmly received, it begat a series of discussions that culminated in my gladly accepting a position as an official adviser to the company, in exchange for a small amount of equity. I’m happy to disclose this now, and will continue to disclose it when writing about Wavelength henceforth.". The d…

Exactly. He should have started the article with "Disclaimer: [...]".

Disclosure, not disclaimer.

Re: Wavelength

#149

Post by augment001 »

dexterdog wrote: post #147
augment001 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overestimate how huge that proportion of the population actually is. Android users heavily skew older and less interested in technology. Yes there are some tech users who use android for ideological reasons, but they are a small minority. In terms of addressable market, Android isn’t a stumbling block to begin with.

Did you forget a /s at the end there?

Nope. It doesn’t take much research to confirm this.

Re: Wavelength

#150

Post by ymolodtsov »

sobkas wrote: post #104
richardhenry wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will never run ads. We plan to make money primarily by offering pro subscriptions and a version of Wavelength for organizations.

> We will never run ads. We plan to make money primarily by offering pro subscriptions and a version of Wavelength for organizations. There are so many corporations that made similar pledges only to break them when it became advantageous for them to do so. Is there any mechanism that actually would enforce it? Mechanism that wouldn't disappear with a single stroke of pen?

Such a mechanism simply doesn't exist. A company can't simply force itself to keep this promise unless you actually trust its leadership. Similar to how Substack authors sometimes start running ads on their paid newsletters.
Post reply on HN