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

41–50 of 151 posts

Re: Wavelength

#41

Post by skybrian »

Privacy and "there are people you don't know in the group" seem in tension. I sort of get it since that's how a company works, but it doesn't seem like "real" privacy when you don't know who will read what you wrote.

Similarly, if someone new can join and they can read what you wrote, it doesn't seem very private. Your audience is not only the people in the group, but a person to be named later. (Screenshots are always a possibility, but this is normalizing it.)

This goes double for having AI in the chat. The AI needs to read all the messages, so doesn't that mean the Wavelength needs a private key?

At that point, I'm not sure that end-to-end encryption matters. The chat might as well be stored on Wavelength's servers.

Re: Wavelength

#42

Post by mmcclure »

georgelyon wrote: post #19

I’m intrigued by this. I wonder how well it functions as an HN discussion forum… let’s try to hug it? https://wavelength.app/invite/FtKfkbGbbbc#r9ji5_g_IA7UV23et1...

Found this thread by searching "hug" because it seems like we (or Daring Fireball) successfully hugged it.

Re: Wavelength

#43

Post by nickm12 »

ftio wrote: post #35

Sounds like the fundamental bet here is that design and privacy are meaningful differentiators in this market. With regard to design, Wavelength's particular, native aesthetic might have a certain kind of emotional appeal to old-school Mac and iOS users (including me), but fundamentally its conversation view works a lot like Discord's, which also supports threads and basic replies. I don't think they're going to win…

Yes, I've used Discord on my Mac, Linux machine, Android phone, and the web. I understand the hate on Electron apps, but being everywhere all at once is why people make that technological tradeoff. It's even more important when you only have two developers.

Re: Wavelength

#44

Post by rylz »

skybrian wrote: post #41

Privacy and "there are people you don't know in the group" seem in tension. I sort of get it since that's how a company works, but it doesn't seem like "real" privacy when you don't know who will read what you wrote. Similarly, if someone new can join and they can read what you wrote, it doesn't seem very private. Your audience is not only the people in the group, but a person to be named later. (Screenshots are alwa…

We're very transparent in the UI about the fact that messages that mention @AI are not covered by e2ee. See https://imgur.com/a/5kPEdQP

Only messages that actually mention @AI are sent in plaintext to us, and then to OpenAI's API. All content shared between people without invoking the AI is fully end-to-end encrypted. Our servers don't have access to any users' private keys -- those are generated on each client and never transmitted, except in the case when a user logs in on secondary device and uses our QR-code transfer flow (in which case the sensitive information is communicated peer-to-per in that QR code). We'll share much more on this when we publish our tech blog in the coming weeks.

Regarding privacy around strangers joining a group -- Wavelength supports locking down groups to the degree the group creator chooses. You can disable history syncing, so that new members don't get a copy of prior history (which, when enabled, is reencrypted and sent by prior members of the group) when they join. And groups only grow to a size where there would be people you don't know in them, if someone chose to share an invite link semi-publicly, or allow all members to invite new members (which is also a setting the creator can toggle). Personally, I'm in a number of quite large groups including people I don't know in real life, as well as plenty of groups with 2-10 friends I know in real life, where I obviously trust everybody not to screenshot/share what I'm writing, and I appreciate having strong e2ee.

Re: Wavelength

#45

Post by richardhenry »

anileated wrote: post #40

I am wary of Wavelength due to unclear business model (it’s not paid and promises can’t rule out another future double-sided market where I’m the product) and won’t use it because any integration with ClosedAI makes me uncomfortable (I don’t need an LLM at my side when chatting with friends, and if I needed it I’d expect it can be run natively on Apple Neural).

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

Re: Wavelength

#46

Post by ajsnigrutin »

I know that this isn't the point of the article:

> “something like Twitter but with real names and enforced civility, and with hashtags as Slack-like channels of interest.”

but why is having real names on a chat app a good thing? Considering what's happening worldwide, anonymity online should always come first.

Re: Wavelength

#47

Post by dang »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #46

I know that this isn't the point of the article: > “something like Twitter but with real names and enforced civility, and with hashtags as Slack-like channels of interest.” but why is having real names on a chat app a good thing? Considering what's happening worldwide, anonymity online should always come first.

Also how do you "enforce civility"? That seems like an oxymoron.

Re: Wavelength

#48

Post by smcl »

andrewflnr wrote: post #32
brianpan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a "beef" with Discord, but I have the feeling I really don't get it when I use it. I joined a couple of servers related to games I play and some sports. But I feel like there's conversations going on that I can't see. Do I need to message some special bot? Do I need an invite or be admitted before I can see some hidden channels? There are voice chats, there are so many settings. I definitely feel like I…

FWIW, that's more a matter of customizations for those servers than Discord in general. Vanilla discord is... still kind of annoying, but not terribly confusing. Mostly just Slack with voice/video chat and bad threading.

Slack has voice / video chat no?

Re: Wavelength

#49

Post by hota_mazi »

etchalon wrote: post #30
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…

Plenty of services managed to build large user bases before being on Android. Instagram comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Instagram

Plenty more floundered because of that shortsightedness.

Surely you realize that picking one of the most successful apps created this past decade is not the resounding endorsement you think it is.

Re: Wavelength

#50

Post by retSava »

dang wrote: post #47
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #46

I know that this isn't the point of the article: > “something like Twitter but with real names and enforced civility, and with hashtags as Slack-like channels of interest.” but why is having real names on a chat app a good thing? Considering what's happening worldwide, anonymity online should always come first.

Also how do you "enforce civility"? That seems like an oxymoron.

To me that sounds like pre-eternal september rather than an achievement, a lucky happenstance before the floodgates are open.
Post reply on HN