7 ms·

This individual feature isn't so bad, but I still dislike the precedent - WhatsApp is an amazingly fast, efficient app right now. It'll be a shame to see it des

by untog 10y ago

This individual feature isn't so bad, but I still dislike the precedent - WhatsApp is an amazingly fast, efficient app right now. It'll be a shame to see it descend into the usual junk as they pack in feature after feature no one really asked for. My parents use WhatsApp on generations-old phones - it performs great and it's simple enough to understand. Why can't we keep the more complex stuff over on Snapchat? Or Instagram. Or Facebook Messenger. Or...

foepys 10y ago
I guess WhatsApp will replace Facebook Messenger in a few years. Why should Facebook waste their time on developing two different apps that do nearly the same? Also, WhatsApp's userbase seems to consist of a lot of people that don't use Facebook anymore and Facebook wants them back.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  Ugh I hope not, Messenger is exactly what I don't want WhatsApp to become.
  - vvvv 10y ago
    I'm trying to stay away from Messenger but it does have one significant advantage over WhatsApp - it can be used on multiple devices seamlessly, which is useful when I have a work phone and my personal phone.
    - Kadin 10y ago
      Almost impossible to square that requirement with strong end to end encryption. You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient. But it's why I don't use Whatsapp as well, personally. I prefer the cross-device seamlessness of Hangouts (and FB Messenger) to E2E crypto.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        > You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient. Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints.
        levosmetalo 10y ago
        > Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints. Always had an impression that iMessage is not end to end encrypted.
        JimmyAustin 10y ago
        It is, but it requires the sender to encrypt the message for every one of the recipients devices. What isn't encrypted is iCloud backups, which are what provide the ability to scroll backup on new devices.
  - TristanIsham 10y ago
    It's just overburdened and cooked at this point honestly. WhatsApp feels fresh compared to it.
    - mcintyre1994 10y ago
      It reminds me a little bit of Google+, they're willing to ruin every product they have so they can look more like the fresh new thing.
- emdowling 10y ago
  Why does it want them back? It really just cares about the social graph. It doesn't need to know what you're saying, just who you're talking to. I've already seen that information used in Instagram: people I chat with more often in WhatsApp have their content (stories and posts) surfaced at the top of my feed.
- jakebasile 10y ago
  I hope not. I prefer Messenger by far. I want my conversations everywhere I compute, and WhatsApp seems very averse to that. I understand why, but it's not what I want in a messengong product.
- dingdongding 10y ago
  Because different market have different choices. In developing world more people like to use WhatsApp as their messaging solution while on the other end in some countries WhatsApp is not popular and messenger is more popular
- kerhackernews 10y ago
  How will they harvest data from encrypted chats?
snarf21 10y ago
Because Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground. That is why they are trying to steal all of their users to their own messaging apps. Instagram Stories has done that some but they want more. There are also some users that would prefer to just use one app than have 5 to switch between. The carrot is 'You already use WhatsApp and now you can do Snapchat without leaving. Cool, huh?' I'm not sure I agree but I think that is the attack vector.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground I think it's more Facebook wants what Snap's got. Snap has visibility into bits of time social graph Facebook doesn't, and the latter doesn't like that. Vindictiveness isn't a good long-term strategy; ruthless territoriality is.
  - roymurdock 10y ago
    I think this is Facebook's 9th or 10th thinly-veiled attempt to siphon users away from Snapchat. Previous direct attempts at cloning included Poke (2012) and Slingshot (2014), which didn't work at all, so they've settled for slowly cloning and integrating Snapchat features into Whatsapp and Instagram. Have to agree with the conclusion of this Guardian article that has documented the phenomenon: "With attempts six and seven coming in the same month, and eight, nine, and 10 coming in the same weekend, it’s clear that Facebook’s attacks on Snapchat are accelerating. Some back-of-the-envelope maths suggests that at the current rate of acceleration, there will be more Facebook clones of Snapchat than there are atoms in the universe by the year 2030. And yet Snapchat will probably still be more popular among teens." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/facebook-tries-to-clone-snapchat https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/facebook-...
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      facebook learned well the myspace lesson - users don't like to use on multiple social networks - and the generational nature of cool - and snapchat is having monster growth in the younger population
tuna-piano 10y ago
Possibly a good point, but alternatively, take a look at what's happened with WeChat in China. http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ It was originally a chat app, but is now a standardized authentication, payments and UI for tons of services, like booking a doctor, getting a taxi, etc. Truly seems like we're missing out by not having it.
- bsder 10y ago
  The payment processors will NEVER let something like this happen. They will fight each other to the death before giving up a unified payment system to Apple, Verizon, etc.
sangnoir 10y ago
> My parents use WhatsApp on generations-old phones - it performs great and it's simple enough to understand WhatsApp dropped support for legacy phone platforms (Symbian, Android 2.2<, iOS 6, WinMo 7) at the end of 2016 in pursuit of fancy features. > While these mobile devices have been an important part of our story, they don't offer the kind of capabilities we need to expand our app's features in the future.[1] I miss the independent, $1/yr WhatsApp, it was all features and no bloat. 1. https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000617/WhatsApp-support-for-mobile-devices https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000617/WhatsApp-support-for-mobi...
- jonknee 10y ago
  > it was all features and no bloat. Isn't Status a feature?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    As with many things, the distinction between "bloat" and "feature" varies from person to person. That out of the way, Status is not a feature I would want or use, it's increasing system requirements with no benefit to me, therefore qualifies as bloat in my book
thewhitetulip 10y ago
Especially ironic considering that they had promised that they won't venture beyond SMS when they were bought by FB, they backtracked on each promise I guess.
- anaganisk 10y ago
  which commercially motivated shop would keep up its promises?
  - thewhitetulip 10y ago
    Yes, but the commercially motivated shop should not actively add features which most of its userbase doesn't care for? My mother uses whatsapp, I don't, she doesn't give a rat's ass for disappearing messages leave aside setting status that too disappearing, this is what happens when the parent company shoves down strategy on your throat!
kerhackernews 10y ago
I can see facebook trying to turn it into the west's wechat.

by untog 10y ago

foepys 10y ago

I guess WhatsApp will replace Facebook Messenger in a few years. Why should Facebook waste their time on developing two different apps that do nearly the same? Also, WhatsApp's userbase seems to consist of a lot of people that don't use Facebook anymore and Facebook wants them back.

mcintyre1994 10y ago
Ugh I hope not, Messenger is exactly what I don't want WhatsApp to become.
- vvvv 10y ago
  I'm trying to stay away from Messenger but it does have one significant advantage over WhatsApp - it can be used on multiple devices seamlessly, which is useful when I have a work phone and my personal phone.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    Almost impossible to square that requirement with strong end to end encryption. You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient. But it's why I don't use Whatsapp as well, personally. I prefer the cross-device seamlessness of Hangouts (and FB Messenger) to E2E crypto.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      > You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient. Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints.
      - levosmetalo 10y ago
        > Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints. Always had an impression that iMessage is not end to end encrypted.
        JimmyAustin 10y ago
        It is, but it requires the sender to encrypt the message for every one of the recipients devices. What isn't encrypted is iCloud backups, which are what provide the ability to scroll backup on new devices.
- TristanIsham 10y ago
  It's just overburdened and cooked at this point honestly. WhatsApp feels fresh compared to it.
  - mcintyre1994 10y ago
    It reminds me a little bit of Google+, they're willing to ruin every product they have so they can look more like the fresh new thing.
emdowling 10y ago
Why does it want them back? It really just cares about the social graph. It doesn't need to know what you're saying, just who you're talking to. I've already seen that information used in Instagram: people I chat with more often in WhatsApp have their content (stories and posts) surfaced at the top of my feed.
jakebasile 10y ago
I hope not. I prefer Messenger by far. I want my conversations everywhere I compute, and WhatsApp seems very averse to that. I understand why, but it's not what I want in a messengong product.
dingdongding 10y ago
Because different market have different choices. In developing world more people like to use WhatsApp as their messaging solution while on the other end in some countries WhatsApp is not popular and messenger is more popular
kerhackernews 10y ago
How will they harvest data from encrypted chats?

snarf21 10y ago

Because Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground. That is why they are trying to steal all of their users to their own messaging apps. Instagram Stories has done that some but they want more. There are also some users that would prefer to just use one app than have 5 to switch between. The carrot is 'You already use WhatsApp and now you can do Snapchat without leaving. Cool, huh?' I'm not sure I agree but I think that is the attack vector.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground I think it's more Facebook wants what Snap's got. Snap has visibility into bits of time social graph Facebook doesn't, and the latter doesn't like that. Vindictiveness isn't a good long-term strategy; ruthless territoriality is.
- roymurdock 10y ago
  I think this is Facebook's 9th or 10th thinly-veiled attempt to siphon users away from Snapchat. Previous direct attempts at cloning included Poke (2012) and Slingshot (2014), which didn't work at all, so they've settled for slowly cloning and integrating Snapchat features into Whatsapp and Instagram. Have to agree with the conclusion of this Guardian article that has documented the phenomenon: "With attempts six and seven coming in the same month, and eight, nine, and 10 coming in the same weekend, it’s clear that Facebook’s attacks on Snapchat are accelerating. Some back-of-the-envelope maths suggests that at the current rate of acceleration, there will be more Facebook clones of Snapchat than there are atoms in the universe by the year 2030. And yet Snapchat will probably still be more popular among teens." https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/facebook-tries-to-clone-snapchat https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/facebook-...
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    facebook learned well the myspace lesson - users don't like to use on multiple social networks - and the generational nature of cool - and snapchat is having monster growth in the younger population

tuna-piano 10y ago

Possibly a good point, but alternatively, take a look at what's happened with WeChat in China. http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/ It was originally a chat app, but is now a standardized authentication, payments and UI for tons of services, like booking a doctor, getting a taxi, etc. Truly seems like we're missing out by not having it.

bsder 10y ago
The payment processors will NEVER let something like this happen. They will fight each other to the death before giving up a unified payment system to Apple, Verizon, etc.

sangnoir 10y ago

> My parents use WhatsApp on generations-old phones - it performs great and it's simple enough to understand WhatsApp dropped support for legacy phone platforms (Symbian, Android 2.2<, iOS 6, WinMo 7) at the end of 2016 in pursuit of fancy features. > While these mobile devices have been an important part of our story, they don't offer the kind of capabilities we need to expand our app's features in the future.[1] I miss the independent, $1/yr WhatsApp, it was all features and no bloat. 1. https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000617/WhatsApp-support-for-mobile-devices https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000617/WhatsApp-support-for-mobi...

jonknee 10y ago
> it was all features and no bloat. Isn't Status a feature?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  As with many things, the distinction between "bloat" and "feature" varies from person to person. That out of the way, Status is not a feature I would want or use, it's increasing system requirements with no benefit to me, therefore qualifies as bloat in my book

thewhitetulip 10y ago

Especially ironic considering that they had promised that they won't venture beyond SMS when they were bought by FB, they backtracked on each promise I guess.

anaganisk 10y ago
which commercially motivated shop would keep up its promises?
- thewhitetulip 10y ago
  Yes, but the commercially motivated shop should not actively add features which most of its userbase doesn't care for? My mother uses whatsapp, I don't, she doesn't give a rat's ass for disappearing messages leave aside setting status that too disappearing, this is what happens when the parent company shoves down strategy on your throat!

kerhackernews 10y ago

I can see facebook trying to turn it into the west's wechat.