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

WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

andregarzia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#61

Post by Aldo_MX »

azakai wrote: post #37
iamdanfox wrote: post #4

I would be interested to understand more about why WhatsApp made some of those decisions. The requirement to keep your phone connected to the Internet seems strange, perhaps it's using some encryption key that never leaves the device? Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much? Why has iOS been left out?

> Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much? There is nothing the FileSystem API can do that others cannot, although it might be less convenient or less optimized. Even that shouldn't be true any more, but it still might in some browsers. Regardless, this was a wrong decision by WhatsApp. FileSystem is no longer standards track. The API document itself says > "Work on this document has been discontinued…

> Google keeping nonstandard APIs in Chrome for its own convenience opens the possibility of other websites using them. Either through ignorance - they don't know it's deprecated and nonstandard - or because they trust Google to not break them, and don't care about standards. The result is a web that works only in one browser.

This is what happened to XMLHttpRequest, or have you already forgotten that it was originally an ActiveX control?

There is not (and there never will) a single way to define how the web is built.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#62

Post by bikamonki »

coldtea wrote: post #51
bikamonki wrote: post #41

Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history. Remember that 'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less than 10%? Remember that über successful smartphone company that owned the market with its propietary chat/email network? How about widely used programming languages and frameworks? Flash for cool web effects anyone? The web is open, open wins. No matter how monolithic a market leader i…

> Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history. The only lesson from history is that all tecnologies succumb at some point. General infrastructure standards (like TCP/IP or HTTP) persist longer, but that doesn't say much for application level technologies. > Remember that 'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less than 10%? If anything that's a counter-example. Netscape, that "now has l…

The fact that a given closed tech is winning does in fact support my argument: open wins, eventually. And the fact that protocols and standards prevail is precisely because they need to be open to become protocols and standards.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#63

Post by bikamonki »

jshevek wrote: post #52
bikamonki wrote: post #41

Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history. Remember that 'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less than 10%? Remember that über successful smartphone company that owned the market with its propietary chat/email network? How about widely used programming languages and frameworks? Flash for cool web effects anyone? The web is open, open wins. No matter how monolithic a market leader i…

We are still in the early days of computer technology. There may be thousands of examples from the last 50 years that support your line of thinking here, but I'm not convinced that this will be true, always, in the future.

I agree, mine is a naive forecast. But something tells me that users/markets don't like to be kept walled: they slowly but surely migrate to the better alternative (I guess we must thank hipsters for leading). It seems that the better alternative disrupts b/c it offers true value, real improvement. Then it grows like crazy, then it gets greedy and tries to hold the mass...but the mass is like sand.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#64

Post by bazookajoes »

The linked article could have been titled "andre garzia does not understand that mobile messaging is not the web" jajaja ;)

I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints.

The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need their old whatsapp messages. Most will say no. In fact, many proactively delete them. Turning a mobile messaging into a CPU and bandwidth only problem is a clever hack instead of it also being a disk and indexing problem.

This is hard thing for a lot of us to understand because we come from a world where our business has message retention and surveillance requirements. We want to run quantized self and sentiment analysis reports for the last 10 years. But most people either don't know that might even want that.

The other key insight is that knowing the user's identity can be more important than the user themselves.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#65

Post by nostrademons »

tedunangst wrote: post #54
nostrademons wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, so WhatsApp is the real SnapChat? The one that actually deletes your messages once read?

Did snapchat not delete messages?

http://rt.com/usa/157960-snapchat-deceived-users/

http://www.bewebsmart.com/app-review/snapchat-changes-chat-s...

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#66

Post by fiatjaf »

>Here in Brazil WhatsApp is basically ubiquitous since its cheaper to send IM messages than to send SMS.

From this I conclude that OP has fallen for the bizarre nonsense argument I've heard in Brazil a lot of times when WhatsApp was gaining traction: "You must use it! It's free SMS!"

What? No, it is not "free SMS", it is internet messaging. Internet messaging has existed since... since there was internet. Yeah, it is "free" as long as you have unlimited internet, but if that qualifies for "free SMS" email was free SMS much before WhatsApp.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#67

Post by soapdog »

bazookajoes wrote: post #64

The linked article could have been titled "andre garzia does not understand that mobile messaging is not the web" jajaja ;) I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints. The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need…

author here.

I don't think you understood what I am complaining about. I am complaining exactly about chrome only and usage of non-standard api.

As for storage, the web client is requesting non-standard file system permission exactly to store things. I am saying they should use a standard API such as IndexedDB for that kind of thing.

I do understand a thing or two about IM having worked on more than a client before. There is no need whatsoever for the hacks they did...

As for surveillance, thats another can of worms that is not protected by what they are doing. Traffic is intercepted at other vulnerable spots such as the carrier itself or ISP.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#68

Post by soapdog »

fiatjaf wrote: post #66

> Here in Brazil WhatsApp is basically ubiquitous since its cheaper to send IM messages than to send SMS. From this I conclude that OP has fallen for the bizarre nonsense argument I've heard in Brazil a lot of times when WhatsApp was gaining traction: "You must use it! It's free SMS!" What? No, it is not "free SMS", it is internet messaging. Internet messaging has existed since... since there was internet. Yeah, it i…

Actually there are carriers in Brazil that allow free connection to WhatsApp server even if you have a limited connection plan...

People say that it is free SMS because of some reasons such as the fact that WhatsApp transfer your whole list of contacts to their server and thus populates the application contact list to the point that it is as convenient to use as SMS. Emails require email addresses. WhatsApp contacts are matched by phone number which are already on your phone address book anyway.

Its about perception. People here tend to place SMS, WhatsApp, LINE, Telegram all in the same collection because they are used to exchange small instant messages. Email is usually used for longer text that doesn't require immediate action.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#69

Post by soapdog »

bazookajoes wrote: post #36
dmix wrote: post #14

> Your phone needs to stay connected to the internet for our web client to work... What? Is this true? I can't think of a reason why their devs would ever need the users phone to be online.

I suspect that the reason is that WhatsApp wants to make sure that the person behind using the web client is really the person behind the number. This is same reason Whatsapp has no api. They don't want the bot problem that tinder has. People think the value of Whatsapp is that it is so pervasive. That's a big part of the value, but so much of the value is that whatsapp knows who you really are. You might have a few…

There are phones here supporting two, three and even four SIM cards. People will do crazy stunts with multiple accounts for everything. Also there are whatsapp bots, they are just not available on github anymore due to DMCA takedowns. You can still google for yosup, coseme and others to get libraries that allow you to build bots, third-party clients and stuff.

Re: WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

#70

Post by soapdog »

bazookajoes wrote: post #48
iamdanfox wrote: post #4

I would be interested to understand more about why WhatsApp made some of those decisions. The requirement to keep your phone connected to the Internet seems strange, perhaps it's using some encryption key that never leaves the device? Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much? Why has iOS been left out?

Ok! All of this is my gut-feel with no data behind it. Caveat emptor. Here goes nothing Yippeekayay The single device strategy is to keep the whatsapp network a network of people - no bots and no spam. They are still trying to destroy Kik, Line and Viber. The war is not over ( http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/how-many-people-use-c... ) Bots and spam would be just the reason for people to switch. As it is, spam…

You can build bots for Whatsapp. There used to be lots of libraries and samples on github before the DCMA takedown. There were libraries in C/C++, PHP, JS and Python.

Here in Brazil we do have Whatsapp and SMS spam. Whatsapp spam is rare but it happens and it will only grow.

Post reply on HN