4 ms·

A possibility that I can see is simply that they want to add a bot API which is just a simple rest API and not E2E encrypted. And if they remove the E2EE that

by jeltz 5y ago

A possibility that I can see is simply that they want to add a bot API which is just a simple rest API and not E2E encrypted. And if they remove the E2EE that means FB will be able to read all messages for businesses using their bot API. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that to run a WhatsApp bot you currently basically need to run a version of the whole app. No idea if my theory is correct but if it is I wonder why they won't just provide a good library which implrments their protocol, E2E encryption and everything.

saurik 5y ago
This was pretty explicitly explained by their representatives when this was all blowing up... and they actually DO provide the "library" version, it is just enough of an operations challenge for most businesses that they clearly got a lot of demand for a hosted solution tied to pages. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25875802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25875802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26801760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26801760
- jeltz 5y ago
  How is using a library an operations challenge? Especially in the era of package managers like npm and maven. This seems to me like FB is incompetent and cannot write a good library for bot use.
  - rescbr 5y ago
    It’s not a library. It’s a distributed multi-node WhatsApp client that handles the proprietary parts and interacts with your chatbot application using webhooks/REST APIs. Not trivial to setup and operate, as it was designed for high-throughput scenarios. It’s very understandable that smaller customers wouldn’t want to handle that little monster.
    - jeltz 5y ago
      That is exactly what I thought which is why I suggested that FB should replace their ugly hack with a normal library. But the person who I replied claimed they have a library which sounded weird to me because then there would be no ops problem. I feel FB is solving a technical problem by alienating a bunch of their users with a terms change. Why not instead just build the right technical solution?
      - saurik 5y ago
        By "library" I assumed you were just concerned with "local". I put it in quotes as it isn't a literal library that you would embed in your build system and link into your program. I honestly don't see how it being a literal library would make it easier... that frankly sounds more complex to integrate and maintain and ensure correct operation of than a separate daemon that you interact with over HTTP instead of some presumably-C-compatible ABI.

by jeltz 5y ago

saurik 5y ago

This was pretty explicitly explained by their representatives when this was all blowing up... and they actually DO provide the "library" version, it is just enough of an operations challenge for most businesses that they clearly got a lot of demand for a hosted solution tied to pages. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25875802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25875802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26801760 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26801760

jeltz 5y ago
How is using a library an operations challenge? Especially in the era of package managers like npm and maven. This seems to me like FB is incompetent and cannot write a good library for bot use.
- rescbr 5y ago
  It’s not a library. It’s a distributed multi-node WhatsApp client that handles the proprietary parts and interacts with your chatbot application using webhooks/REST APIs. Not trivial to setup and operate, as it was designed for high-throughput scenarios. It’s very understandable that smaller customers wouldn’t want to handle that little monster.
  - jeltz 5y ago
    That is exactly what I thought which is why I suggested that FB should replace their ugly hack with a normal library. But the person who I replied claimed they have a library which sounded weird to me because then there would be no ops problem. I feel FB is solving a technical problem by alienating a bunch of their users with a terms change. Why not instead just build the right technical solution?
    - saurik 5y ago
      By "library" I assumed you were just concerned with "local". I put it in quotes as it isn't a literal library that you would embed in your build system and link into your program. I honestly don't see how it being a literal library would make it easier... that frankly sounds more complex to integrate and maintain and ensure correct operation of than a separate daemon that you interact with over HTTP instead of some presumably-C-compatible ABI.