[deleted]
WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
41–50 of 113 posts
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#42The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider networ…
It sucks. Here in the Netherlands, WhatsApp is used by the vast majority of people. The holdouts (like me) consist of people who don't want to deal with smartphones (some elderly, some who deliberately avoid them because of addictive behaviour), or who own a smartphone, but don't agree with WhatsApp's terms of use (essentially paying for access with your data). Not using WhatsApp has consequences. We sometimes miss o…
> To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts.
Same if you don't have a Facebook account. Speaking of which, WhatsApp was the defacto IM standard before it was bought by Facebook. Previously it was MSN Messenger (or whatever it is called these days. Skype?) and that was horrible as well. XMMP was at least federated, and had backwards compatibility.
The advantage WhatsApp has over MSN is that the data is E2EE.
There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards.
Though if I look at the Mastodon drama (recently posted on HN, apparently from 2017) federated in practice can lead to fractured communities. Heck, you can even see that in the history of IRC (how EFnet and IRCnet got started).
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plenty of other communications networks are open, so any network effect of "walled gardens" ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product. So, when people evidently complain that they feel the social pressure to use the walled garden even though they rather wouldn't ... then that ought to be attributed to the superiority of the product? Could you explain your reasoning behind that?
What explanation is necessary? You've laid it out already. It's like saying you feel pressure to drive a gasoline powered car instead of a coal powered one because gasoline is much more convenient. The network effect arises out of superiority over competition. The social pressure is a result of everyone using the same platform, which itself is a testament to the product.
In what way does ubiquity equate to superiority? Popularity does not confer superiority.
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> superiority of the product It's not though. Once you become big and have reached critical mass you can pull off quite a lot of mediocre/bad stuff. Fact is the majority of people simply do not care as long as the product still works (they might not even be aware there's bad stuff going on behind the scenes) - too much effort to find a suitable alternative, convince everyone else to go to the same platform and so on
How do you think it got big in the first place? "Too much effort to find an alternative" is just a synonym for "superior".
This comment gave me new perspective on my romantic relationship. Thank you. :)
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#45If I understand this correctly then I think Google needs to step in here and defend users of the Android APIs. It can't be that developers are getting sued for nothing more than using these APIs as intended.
Google could add to their ToS of the Play Store that apps that try to enforce control over the use of Android APIs get penalized or removed.
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#46Remember when Instant Messaging protocols used to be open? When there was a multitude of clients for any given service to chose from?
Now IM has left its early adopter stage and became an integral part of everybody's life, but in doing so we became stuck with 100% proprietary WhatsApp. Not undeserved, it works very well with billions of users, and is probably the most usable IM service ever made.
But it became so big and "essential", that it doesn't seem right that a large part of human communication is bound exclusively through their apps.
I think in the long run there would be a real benefit to opening up their protocol.
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#47The real problem here is that after this stunt I'd like to completely stop using Whatsapp and switch to something else instead, but I can't because other people use Whatsapp and communicating with other people is essential to me. The problem is there no laws to stop whoever becomes the lucky recipient of such a network effect from doing whatever they want. Instead antitrust law needs to be expanded to consider networ…
Saying ~"We need more laws!" isn't enough. What do you specifically want here? We could demand that all network protocols are fair game for reverse-engineering to enable interoperability. Or mandate public specs and save everybody a bit of effort. But if it's my app —not the protocol or the service itself— that's generating revenue to pay for the whole thing (eg adverts), why is it fair to let people and other provid…
[deleted]
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#48Remember when Instant Messaging protocols used to be open? When there was a multitude of clients for any given service to chose from? Now IM has left its early adopter stage and became an integral part of everybody's life, but in doing so we became stuck with 100% proprietary WhatsApp. Not undeserved, it works very well with billions of users, and is probably the most usable IM service ever made. But it became so big…
> Remember when Instant Messaging protocols used to be open? When there was a multitude of clients for any given service to chose from?
I remember the unofficial clients not being able to support the latest features, and being completely locked out as soon as a new major version of the mainline client being released.
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#49In Brazil, everyone uses Whatsapp and companies have been pressured by consumers to offer customer service through this channel. I researched and saw that there are integrated apps, but I do not know what form they are using since for all I know, the API has not yet been made available to everyone.
yowsup and Android emulators
Re: WhatsApp sends Cease and Desists for apps that use native Android APIs
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
They start out by building a superior product; then that product gets big; then they realize they need to monetize; then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay; then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative... WhatsApp is currently in the "no longer superior" phase.
> then the product stops being superior, but it still has everyone's contacts, so most users stay You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior. You're defining superiority to be some very strict UX that you've decided. > then the product keeps getting worse until it's unbearable and everyone switches to the most popular superior alternative Exactly. Once it stops bei…
> You're just twisting words here. The fact that switching costs are too high means it's superior.
I don't see how high switching costs implies superior, nor how that's part of a definition for superior. For superior app I'd consider that to mean if it's better. It's also weird your usage of superior has shifted. You've stated it became bigger because it was superior; meaning superior is not about how much used it is. But you also define superior as having pretty much everyone use it. This seems to conflict, no?