4 ms·

Shouldnt be hard to convince folks. Everyone i know hates facebook / meta and is just waiting for an agreed upon alternative.

joe_mamba 9mo ago
You realize that at the end of your sentence you've contradicted everything you've said from the start until that point, right? Maybe it was tongue in cheek and I missed it.
Scarblac 9mo ago
There is an ongoing move from Whatsapp to Signal. It's just very slow.
xmcp123 9mo ago
Everybody says this until there’s an alternative. There have been several alternatives, and people didn’t switch.
- zarzavat 9mo ago
  The alternatives suck. WhatsApp strikes a good balance of usability and security. Telegram is too insecure (no E2E by default). Signal is too secure (no chat exports). Nobody has even bothered to make an app that stands toe-to-toe with WhatsApp, even without the network effects.
  - tonyhart7 9mo ago
    You literally mention 2 of the biggest whatsapp competitor and you have audacity to says "Nobody has even bothered to make an app that stands toe-to-toe with WhatsApp"
    - expedition32 9mo ago
      Besides what WhatsApp does on a technical level can be fairly easily replicated. Getting the 2 billion users is the hard part. But that is marketing not coding.
      - chii 9mo ago
        > But that is marketing not coding. it's the network effect. If normies who don't care for things (which is most people tbh) don't decide to switch, do you, as a techie/early adopter, just turn off whatsapp and disconnect with your normie friends? You are unlikely to be important enough in the friend group to force a switch, not to mention that this needs to happen enmass for a swing in the network effect to happen.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        Being implacably stubborn is underrated. People can trivially have two messaging apps on their phone, which means they can all still contact you while using WhatsApp with other people. Then they all slowly end up with Signal on their phone, at which point who needs WhatsApp at all? "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
        arter45 9mo ago
        Yes, you can have two messaging apps, but people will have a “main app” which is typically the one used by important people in their life (family, partner,…) and/or the one used by most people. Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps. Imagine all your friends love pizza, as do you. Suddenly you decide sushi is better so, naturally, you tell your friends to try out sushi at the next dinner. Assuming some of your friends are not absolutely against sushi, yes, you’ll have that sushi dinner. But what if they don’t like it that much? They will revert to pizza or accept sushi, occasionally, when they want to see you, while still prefering pizza for all other interactions. There has to be a perceived advantage for changing habits. If few people see the benefits of Signal or other non-Whatsapp apps, they will not change their minds.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        > Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps. You just have to check the one they use. Also, both of the apps would support notifications when something has happened in that app. > But what if they don’t like it that much? There is no real advantage of WhatsApp over Signal except that some people are already using it, and a significant privacy disadvantage. Once someone already has Signal then the advantage of WhatsApp is gone and only the disadvantage remains.
  - computerfriend 9mo ago
    Signal has exports.
    - neves 9mo ago
      Which non hacker news user exports chats? I'm the only person I know who ever did it.
      - popol12 9mo ago
        They released cloud backups recently and I believe they are also working on manual exports on iOS too
  - bornfreddy 9mo ago
    Signal allows you to do local chat export for backup, as opposed to WhatsApp (which only allows backup to Google account on android). That's actually my biggest complaint against WhatsApp and Viber: why don't you allow local backup, or backup to something I control?
    - j1elo 9mo ago
      Correction, in case you're interested: Whatsapp does (and has always done) allow local file backups. I know because they are just there on the storage: Android/media/com.whatsapp/WhatsApp/Backups/ I also know because for many years I was VERY cloud-averse so for several iterations of smartphone purchases I did migrate my chat backups between phones (plain copy-paste of files with a computer) without issues.
      - bornfreddy 9mo ago
        That sounds interesting, though a short search revealed this method is not very user friendly [0]. Still, if it works... Thank you! [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/whatsapp/comments/11oiwse/working_as_of_march_2023_method_for_restoring_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/whatsapp/comments/11oiwse/working_a...
anonzzzies 9mo ago
I have lately been telling people whatsapp is from facebook (meta means nothing to them) and now they are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, there isn't really much european/eu (never heard of birdychat though). It does show though it is not hard to get some people to switch; they have groups on whatsapp and use it for nothing else; these are people they chat with often so they only need to switch those and then whatsapp can go. I find Telegram the best app; its faster and easier than the rest I find. The default no e2e sucks so cannot use it for everything, but having everything immediately ready and working on all devices makes it very nice. When you buy a new one, immediately all is there. Yes, obviously I am aware that can only be because no e2e, but normies and non normies alike seem to really hate the whatsapp, and even more, signal losing all your messages because backup/restore is too annoying. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if someone manages to make more that experience... I mean turn it around; make e2e the default but allow people to create groups or 1-1 without e2e if they want (knowing then downsides and upsides of that).
- maqp 9mo ago
  >working on all devices makes it very nice. Signal has end-to-end encryption working on all devices. Telegram doesn't because they're amateurs.
  - anonzzzies 9mo ago
    I didn't say Signal did not and obviously Telegram can make it work because they do have it if you switch it on per chat. So what do you mean? Edit: I guess you are from Ukraine? That is valid, the CEO is fishy. I did say I would not recommend it, I said it is the only performant and easy to use chat app I know off. That was a user perspective thing and more the hope of people pointing out 'no you fool here is another good one'. Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly. Whatsapp a little better, but Meta. Next.
    - maqp 9mo ago
      >Telegram can make it work because they do have it if you switch it on per chat You can't enable 1:1 secret chat from your desktop client. The secret chat doesn't appear on desktop when you enable it on your phone. So you're forced to drop end-to-end encryption if you want interoperability between phone and desktop clients. You can't enable secret chats for group chats on any client. The company isn't working to make secret chats actually usable. >I guess you are from Ukraine? Nope. >Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly The thing is, friendly apps are apps that respect your human right to privacy. There's a term for applications that appear to do something useful while doing something against the user's interests without them knowing: A Trojan Horse. Which is a malware classification. When you view it through that lens, Telegram is the unfriendliest app out there outside completely unencrypted messengers like Palringo (at least used to be the case), where anyone can read your message from the cable with WireShark.
direwolf20 9mo ago
There's one. It's Signal. I keep telling people to use it and they keep not, because people are less likely to do things if they've been told they should do them.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- swiftcoder 9mo ago
  Without interoperability with the chat platform all the regular people are already using, that's always going to be an uphill battle. I use Signal to communicate with other tech folks, but good luck convincing your dentist/doctor/etc to send reminders on signal instead of WhatsApp.
  - sunshowers 9mo ago
    I talk to one of my doctors over Signal.
- j1elo 9mo ago
  To add a datapoint I can share mine: it's me who would be in a position to bootstrap the change in my circles, but I wouldn't use or recommend Signal as Whatsapp replacement until the core features are on parity, including history backups, which have always been a lagging userstory for Signal. I think they have different (and somewhat opposing, even) targets, Signal wants to be extremely privacy protecting, and it's a disservice to their goals to sell them as a replacement for WhatsApp, because they're not.
  - mhitza 9mo ago
    BTW Signal has a backup feature in the client (beta). Though can't say more about how it works since its a feature I do not need.
- jhasse 9mo ago
  Signal is so much worse than WhatsApp from a UX perspective. Backup sync forces you to allow background permissions (WhatsApp doesn't), you have to set and get nagged to enter a PIN every few weeks (WhatsApp doesn't), there's no transcription for audio messages (WhatsApp has that for some languages), the desktop app loses its connection if you don't open it ever few weeks (WhatsApp works fine), etc. If you want people to switch, recommend Telegram.
prmoustache 9mo ago
> agreed upon That is the main issue. There are alternatives but waaaay too many already. Some will say Signal, others matrix, xmpp, jami, deltachat, olvid, simplex, briar, tox,...there is a new one every couple of months but none everbody can agree on. The sad part is we were halfway there with XMPP 2 decades ago when both google and facebook were interoperable with it.

joe_mamba 9mo ago

You realize that at the end of your sentence you've contradicted everything you've said from the start until that point, right? Maybe it was tongue in cheek and I missed it.

Scarblac 9mo ago

There is an ongoing move from Whatsapp to Signal. It's just very slow.

xmcp123 9mo ago

Everybody says this until there’s an alternative. There have been several alternatives, and people didn’t switch.

zarzavat 9mo ago
The alternatives suck. WhatsApp strikes a good balance of usability and security. Telegram is too insecure (no E2E by default). Signal is too secure (no chat exports). Nobody has even bothered to make an app that stands toe-to-toe with WhatsApp, even without the network effects.
- tonyhart7 9mo ago
  You literally mention 2 of the biggest whatsapp competitor and you have audacity to says "Nobody has even bothered to make an app that stands toe-to-toe with WhatsApp"
  - expedition32 9mo ago
    Besides what WhatsApp does on a technical level can be fairly easily replicated. Getting the 2 billion users is the hard part. But that is marketing not coding.
    - chii 9mo ago
      > But that is marketing not coding. it's the network effect. If normies who don't care for things (which is most people tbh) don't decide to switch, do you, as a techie/early adopter, just turn off whatsapp and disconnect with your normie friends? You are unlikely to be important enough in the friend group to force a switch, not to mention that this needs to happen enmass for a swing in the network effect to happen.
      - AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        Being implacably stubborn is underrated. People can trivially have two messaging apps on their phone, which means they can all still contact you while using WhatsApp with other people. Then they all slowly end up with Signal on their phone, at which point who needs WhatsApp at all? "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
        arter45 9mo ago
        Yes, you can have two messaging apps, but people will have a “main app” which is typically the one used by important people in their life (family, partner,…) and/or the one used by most people. Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps. Imagine all your friends love pizza, as do you. Suddenly you decide sushi is better so, naturally, you tell your friends to try out sushi at the next dinner. Assuming some of your friends are not absolutely against sushi, yes, you’ll have that sushi dinner. But what if they don’t like it that much? They will revert to pizza or accept sushi, occasionally, when they want to see you, while still prefering pizza for all other interactions. There has to be a perceived advantage for changing habits. If few people see the benefits of Signal or other non-Whatsapp apps, they will not change their minds.
        AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
        > Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps. You just have to check the one they use. Also, both of the apps would support notifications when something has happened in that app. > But what if they don’t like it that much? There is no real advantage of WhatsApp over Signal except that some people are already using it, and a significant privacy disadvantage. Once someone already has Signal then the advantage of WhatsApp is gone and only the disadvantage remains.
- computerfriend 9mo ago
  Signal has exports.
  - neves 9mo ago
    Which non hacker news user exports chats? I'm the only person I know who ever did it.
    - popol12 9mo ago
      They released cloud backups recently and I believe they are also working on manual exports on iOS too
- bornfreddy 9mo ago
  Signal allows you to do local chat export for backup, as opposed to WhatsApp (which only allows backup to Google account on android). That's actually my biggest complaint against WhatsApp and Viber: why don't you allow local backup, or backup to something I control?
  - j1elo 9mo ago
    Correction, in case you're interested: Whatsapp does (and has always done) allow local file backups. I know because they are just there on the storage: Android/media/com.whatsapp/WhatsApp/Backups/ I also know because for many years I was VERY cloud-averse so for several iterations of smartphone purchases I did migrate my chat backups between phones (plain copy-paste of files with a computer) without issues.
    - bornfreddy 9mo ago
      That sounds interesting, though a short search revealed this method is not very user friendly [0]. Still, if it works... Thank you! [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/whatsapp/comments/11oiwse/working_as_of_march_2023_method_for_restoring_a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/whatsapp/comments/11oiwse/working_a...

anonzzzies 9mo ago

I have lately been telling people whatsapp is from facebook (meta means nothing to them) and now they are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, there isn't really much european/eu (never heard of birdychat though). It does show though it is not hard to get some people to switch; they have groups on whatsapp and use it for nothing else; these are people they chat with often so they only need to switch those and then whatsapp can go. I find Telegram the best app; its faster and easier than the rest I find. The default no e2e sucks so cannot use it for everything, but having everything immediately ready and working on all devices makes it very nice. When you buy a new one, immediately all is there. Yes, obviously I am aware that can only be because no e2e, but normies and non normies alike seem to really hate the whatsapp, and even more, signal losing all your messages because backup/restore is too annoying. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if someone manages to make more that experience... I mean turn it around; make e2e the default but allow people to create groups or 1-1 without e2e if they want (knowing then downsides and upsides of that).

maqp 9mo ago
>working on all devices makes it very nice. Signal has end-to-end encryption working on all devices. Telegram doesn't because they're amateurs.
- anonzzzies 9mo ago
  I didn't say Signal did not and obviously Telegram can make it work because they do have it if you switch it on per chat. So what do you mean? Edit: I guess you are from Ukraine? That is valid, the CEO is fishy. I did say I would not recommend it, I said it is the only performant and easy to use chat app I know off. That was a user perspective thing and more the hope of people pointing out 'no you fool here is another good one'. Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly. Whatsapp a little better, but Meta. Next.
  - maqp 9mo ago
    >Telegram can make it work because they do have it if you switch it on per chat You can't enable 1:1 secret chat from your desktop client. The secret chat doesn't appear on desktop when you enable it on your phone. So you're forced to drop end-to-end encryption if you want interoperability between phone and desktop clients. You can't enable secret chats for group chats on any client. The company isn't working to make secret chats actually usable. >I guess you are from Ukraine? Nope. >Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly The thing is, friendly apps are apps that respect your human right to privacy. There's a term for applications that appear to do something useful while doing something against the user's interests without them knowing: A Trojan Horse. Which is a malware classification. When you view it through that lens, Telegram is the unfriendliest app out there outside completely unencrypted messengers like Palringo (at least used to be the case), where anyone can read your message from the cable with WireShark.

direwolf20 9mo ago

There's one. It's Signal. I keep telling people to use it and they keep not, because people are less likely to do things if they've been told they should do them.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
swiftcoder 9mo ago
Without interoperability with the chat platform all the regular people are already using, that's always going to be an uphill battle. I use Signal to communicate with other tech folks, but good luck convincing your dentist/doctor/etc to send reminders on signal instead of WhatsApp.
- sunshowers 9mo ago
  I talk to one of my doctors over Signal.
j1elo 9mo ago
To add a datapoint I can share mine: it's me who would be in a position to bootstrap the change in my circles, but I wouldn't use or recommend Signal as Whatsapp replacement until the core features are on parity, including history backups, which have always been a lagging userstory for Signal. I think they have different (and somewhat opposing, even) targets, Signal wants to be extremely privacy protecting, and it's a disservice to their goals to sell them as a replacement for WhatsApp, because they're not.
- mhitza 9mo ago
  BTW Signal has a backup feature in the client (beta). Though can't say more about how it works since its a feature I do not need.
jhasse 9mo ago
Signal is so much worse than WhatsApp from a UX perspective. Backup sync forces you to allow background permissions (WhatsApp doesn't), you have to set and get nagged to enter a PIN every few weeks (WhatsApp doesn't), there's no transcription for audio messages (WhatsApp has that for some languages), the desktop app loses its connection if you don't open it ever few weeks (WhatsApp works fine), etc. If you want people to switch, recommend Telegram.

prmoustache 9mo ago

> agreed upon That is the main issue. There are alternatives but waaaay too many already. Some will say Signal, others matrix, xmpp, jami, deltachat, olvid, simplex, briar, tox,...there is a new one every couple of months but none everbody can agree on. The sad part is we were halfway there with XMPP 2 decades ago when both google and facebook were interoperable with it.