While maybe not directly on topic, I've never seen the point of Whatsapp over plain SMS, or for that matter any of the other chat apps that can do way more (Google Hangouts, Skype, etc)... what's the point?
Whatsapp Web
71–80 of 111 posts
Re: Whatsapp Web
#72A lot of negativity, but despite its limitations I already love it. (OK love's too much, but it's a big improvement for me at least.) I don't use whatsapp with a huge number of people, but some of them I talk to daily on it. When we're both behind a computer (work hours, sometimes outside them) we'll often move to Skype to be able to type quicker. Skype's pretty horrible on phones (for me and most people I know), so…
Have you considered Google Hangouts? I tend to use that for most of my chatting, so never really "got" whatsapp.
Re: Whatsapp Web
#73While maybe not directly on topic, I've never seen the point of Whatsapp over plain SMS, or for that matter any of the other chat apps that can do way more (Google Hangouts, Skype, etc)... what's the point?
In some countries the price per SMS is not null. Also you have received verification. And group messaging with some features that are not available in MMS. Also end to end encryption.
Re: Whatsapp Web
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did you even get 2.11.498 (which seems to be newer than mine but still not latest)? I'm trying to download and all I get is 2.11.491.
From Play Store. I think version varies with device. On WhatsApp site there's still your version.
I think that version is for Nexus 5. I can't install 491, and 498 doesn't have the menu option :(
Re: Whatsapp Web
#75A lot of negativity, but despite its limitations I already love it. (OK love's too much, but it's a big improvement for me at least.) I don't use whatsapp with a huge number of people, but some of them I talk to daily on it. When we're both behind a computer (work hours, sometimes outside them) we'll often move to Skype to be able to type quicker. Skype's pretty horrible on phones (for me and most people I know), so…
While I agree with all your points it's still the shittiest implementation that I have seen. I have been using Telegram Web, and it works delightfully without having to connect my phone to the web. Line has it's own desktop program since at least a year.
I have no idea why they decided to go this route, none whatsoever. It looks more like a hack than an official solution. I've been following Whatsapp since 2010, and to me it always has looked like a bad company. They haven't really taken care of the security of their platform until they have reached 500 million users. The more I read about Whatsapp, the more I think that they just got lucky.
Re: Whatsapp Web
#76Which version of Android app do you use? 2.11.498 seems don't work for me. There isn't a WhatsappWeb option.
I'm running 2.11.498 (just updated) on my Android phone and the menu option is there. The new web.whatsapp.com just started working for me this morning.
(I'm on Chrome OS.)
Re: Whatsapp Web
#77I know everyone is complaining about Chrome only support, but the more important question we should be asking is what technology stack are they using for the web client? It's well documented that Whatsapp is a Erlang shop. Did they stay with using Erlang for the web as well ... or did they switch to another technology like Nodejs, etc?
They seem to be using React for the View rendering. Websockets for data. Bluebird for promises. Google's CryptoJS for end-to-end encryption. MomentJS for time formatting.
The code seems to be pretty modular There are some nice gems in it like EXIF format decoding etc. This is nice to reverse engineer :)
Re: Whatsapp Web
#78It works quite well. They've done a great job at following Google's "Material Design" prescriptions while -- surprisingly -- not actually using the Polymer framework. First time I've seen that.
The app loads some interesting libraries:
* CryptoJS 3.1.2 (for AES and HMAC-SHA256)
* punycode 2.1.4
* bluebird 2.5.3
* React 0.12.2 (with addons)
It's entirely possible that they really are doing end-to-end crypto...
Re: Whatsapp Web
#79v2.11.498
working
Re: Whatsapp Web
#80A lot of negativity, but despite its limitations I already love it. (OK love's too much, but it's a big improvement for me at least.) I don't use whatsapp with a huge number of people, but some of them I talk to daily on it. When we're both behind a computer (work hours, sometimes outside them) we'll often move to Skype to be able to type quicker. Skype's pretty horrible on phones (for me and most people I know), so…
While I agree with all your points it's still the shittiest implementation that I have seen. I have been using Telegram Web, and it works delightfully without having to connect my phone to the web. Line has it's own desktop program since at least a year. I have no idea why they decided to go this route, none whatsoever. It looks more like a hack than an official solution. I've been following Whatsapp since 2010, and…
You're right it does feel like a hack, but one that works fine for me at least. I guess my comments were those of a user thinking about how it works for me, not a technical critique at all.