Live data from Hacker News

Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

windowslatest.com

211–220 of 402 posts

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#211
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you can bridge WhatsApp and then use whatever client you like.

how to?

I mean I know that I can google it up but I'm looking for a working example. I found some code in github that is obsolete. Also whatsapp requires phone code and qr scan so looks like it's designed to prevent a server-only bridge.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#212

Software engineering really took a dive in the last 10 years. For instance, KDE has a daemon that asks for donations, added by Nate "I am the king of KDE". Granted, the daemon is mostly pointless in general and not causing much issues (people are typically only bothered by it once then you can silence it), but just the time people invest here to harass others or add unnecessary software on other computers shows how t…

Meta and KDE are not comparable. Not even in the same galaxy.

This comment is just an excuse to do a hitjob on KDE donations. KDE is FOSS and doesn’t use your data to make money.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#213

This app culture is getting out of hand, on all platforms. Why can't people offer and use web browser directly? Isn't that sexy enough?

You can use WhatsApp on a browser. If you have Chromium installed, you can even "install" WhatsApp as a PWA.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#214
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…

> It’s just that consumers don’t really care for the most part, so the cost is basically $0.

It's zero, because most people cannot just not use WhatsApp, M$ Teams, etc. because WhatsApp has a monopoly on their centralized garden.

It's not like a Matrix where I can easily switch clients like I can switch refrigerators.

Even if someone would be able to provide an alternative, Facebook would just "kill" them like Apple did kill Beepers iMessage alternative.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#215
post #125
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RAM is cheap My time isn't

How expensive is it? Is it expensive enough to suffer a month of feature lag? A year of feature lag? A decade of feature lag? Probably not. Regardless, we’re talking about the average user. As the article implies, on average, users’ time is in fact cheap compared to the alternative, or maybe the time cost is simply insignificant.

What is the alternative?

Additional 100k cost per year vs time, energy and hardware for billions of users?

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#216
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can report that Matrix/Element is still absolutely terrible, and not just the search.

not perfect? yes

terrible? no way

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#218
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Where I live, WhatsApp is the standard. 100% of people have it installed, minus some hermits who have never heard of the Internet. My parents know how to use WhatsApp and have it installed. My sister and her family, too. My friends, their friends, the scammer trying to explain to me how to access the crypto I apparently lost track of on their platform, my former coworkers, my current coworkers, the people I interact…

this means WhatsApp is the easy choice, but nobody forces you ... yet

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#219
I used to play a 3D MMO (Lineage 2) with hundreds of people on screen with spell effects, sounds etc on a computer with 512 MB of RAM.

I was also running a mIRC client in rooms with hundreds to thousands of people at once.

And I was able to do both at the same time.

Now that computer can't even run 1v1 chat.

Re: Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

#220

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…

I am baffled by this. I wrote a cross-platform GUI for an audio signal processor in wxWidgets that rendered all of its own widgets (own Draw calls, for faders, graphic EQ, compressors, drag/drop linking of nodes for a layout, knobs, meters/scopes) and incorporated Horde3D as a 3D rendering of the arena. It ran on macOS and Windows. Another chap handled the network control code that included joining multicast groups t…

it's simply just cheaper, and almost nobody is going to ditch WhatsApp for it, so it's a no-brainer for companies
Post reply on HN