5 ms·

What one should do about this? I mean, beside working on lowering that number. (Asking as a European who quite stubbornly refuses to install it - there are doz

by jraph 8mo ago

What one should do about this? I mean, beside working on lowering that number. (Asking as a European who quite stubbornly refuses to install it - there are dozens of us. Dozens!) Edit: please don't participate in making WhatsApp even more inescapable as it is today.

embedding-shape 8mo ago
I guess if you want to lower that number, you'd need to build something better, in some way. Answered as another European who've had Whatsapp forever, as some stubborn people refuse to move away from it, and also bunch of businesses use it.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 8mo ago
  Network effect is killer. "better" would include having more than 3 billion people already on it. Maybe the EU or China will crack down on it. A single company shouldn't decide who gets to talk to half the world. If that company is American they will not tolerate it for long. Personally DeltaChat is my new favorite Thing but it falls afoul of Zooko's Triangle - A WhatsApp number or POTS number is short because it's centrally controlled and you have to pay for each one. DeltaChat has public keys, so I have 20 of them, and nobody can control who gets one, but they're incredibly long... the QR codes are nightmares.
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    > Network effect is killer. "better" would include having more than 3 billion people already on it. At one point people moved from something else to Whatsapp, and that happened before Whatsapp had 3 billion people on it. If it's good, early adopters will adopt it and want others to adopt it too, then it snowballs from there. It has happened before, and as long as new regulation doesn't solidify Whatsapp/FB in their position, it can happen again :)
    - riffraff 8mo ago
      WhatsApp happened at a time when, in Europe, you paid for SMS. WhatsApp allowed people to send SMS without paying, or rather, paying just once to buy the app, so it was instantly valuable if you just convinced your spouse or parents or a single friend to install it. To overcome it now, you need a lot more effort (or rely on enshittification, which I'm sure will happen).
      - embedding-shape 8mo ago
        No, before Whatsapp, people were mostly using Facebook messages, at least where I lived at the time. And no one was paying per SMS at the time we were using SMS for communication, almost everyone I know were on monthly plans that gave you N text messages and N minutes of calls for static sum each month. The first people I saw who started using whatsapp, was people who were communicating across the border, because even if you had a monthly plan, those didn't include international messages. Eventually we all converged on whatsapp because that's what outside family and relatives used anyways.
        vlovich123 8mo ago
        WhatsApp launched in January of 2009 compared with Facebook Chat which launched in 2008. WhatsApp saw drastically wider adoption among the general populace and paying for “N text messages per month” is precisely what people refer to as paying per message - WhatsApp had unlimited messaging.
        embedding-shape 8mo ago
        Is "Facebook Chat" not the same as "Facebook Messenger", the separate chat client? Because I seem to remember a lot of people using the chat built-in into Facebook (not Messenger) a lot earlier than the standalone app/client, maybe I misrecall. > paying for “N text messages per month” is precisely what people refer to as paying per message Maybe I said it wrong, "N text messages per month" for me means "Pay us 10 EUR per month, send up to 5000 messages" for example. Doesn't matter how many you send, you pay the same. While "pay per message" is "Every text message you send, costs 0.01 EUR". Maybe I'm using the wrong words, but that's how I understand it. Most of the people who were "texters" (in my circles) were on plans offering the first way of paying, while hardly anyone was doing it the second. Another important part, was that most telecom's had free SMS and calls if you were with the same company (and still do, AFAIK), so constant bickering about what plan people are on and why they don't change so it's free and yadda yadda. Many people were already mostly texting for free at this point.
  - stavros 8mo ago
    The EU has already forced WhatsApp to be interoperable. Of course, Meta complied maliciously, making it a setting that you have to enable, but at least it's a start.
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      I guess the bean counters figured it'd be cheaper compared to ultimately paying the fine they get for maliciously following the rules. Hope the fine ends up large enough to make them wrong :)
galangalalgol 8mo ago
Can you describe your reasons? I haven't developed an opinion as no one here uses it.
- jraph 8mo ago
  I refuse to use proprietary software as much as I can, especially when it has a strong network effect where it encourages others to join. Meta is also a despicable company, they don't need my help to succeed. (edit: and I haven't abandoned the idea to switch back to a Linux mobile OS at some point, and WhatsApp would be a pain)
londons_explore 8mo ago
Make your customer support on whatsapp. "Drop us a message to change your order". Allow ordering/enquiries over whatsapp. Send 2 factor verification pins over whatsapp - it is more reliable than SMS and generally there is a better 1:1 mapping between whatsapp accounts and real humans than phone numbers, so it is a good anti-spam or good way to distribute "first month free" type deals whilst keeping abuse low. Obviously make sure all URL's have info cards properly rendered in Whatsapp for good share-ability.
- jraph 8mo ago
  And now your customers are required to agree to Meta's term of services and to run some black box software, and you are screwed if Meta decides your business or your customers need to be kicked out.
- sieabahlpark 8mo ago
  [dead]
harikb 8mo ago
As a developer, I tried building an app that needs to use Whatsapp for communication. Unfortunately my phone number got blocked by the second test message. No Spam. Not marketing, just a test message to my own number. Along with it, they blocked my entire business, my LLC, and anything tied to it. I have been trying to get hold of anyone or anything at Whatsapp. I've spent 6 months trying to navigate the bureaucracy. Facebook support claims they can't touch WhatsApp; WhatsApp support ignores the Facebook side. If you're building on WA, have a backup plan. If any Whatsapp employee reading this can look into my WBA Account 1117362643780814
- rvnx 8mo ago
  Telegram API is easier to handle as far as I know if that can somehow help (in case you want live ChatGPT or notifications for yourself in a mobile chat)
  - harikb 8mo ago
    I will look into it. But my user base is either WhatsApp or plain SMS text messaging.
  - yandie 8mo ago
    Yeah telegram is so easy to develop with - I was blown away. I was able to spin up a bot that checks for GE appointments with minimal effort.
  - duskwuff 8mo ago
    Telegram's bot API is a lot easier to get started with for sure. It's got some rough edges once you start trying to do anything more complex, though, and the underlying MTProto API is nothing short of bizarre. I'd urge caution before using them as a component of your business, though. Their business strategy is pretty chaotic and has relied heavily on weird cryptocurrency-adjacent plays (e.g. TON / Fragment / gifts). They've made a couple of attempts to introduce business features, but I'm not sure they've had any substantial uptake.
    - 8mo ago
tremon 8mo ago
Advocate protocols over platforms. Have your government take an active interest in opening up closed communication systems and mandating third-party client access.
mfashby 8mo ago
Force interoperability one way or another. WhatsApp is a closed system, if I want to use an alternative I'm stuck with adversarial interoperability, so stuff like Beeper (which is great, but...) which might get my account banned. Or waiting for some legislation to force WhatsApp to open it's API and let me interact with my contacts there without being locked into their apps
- darrenf 8mo ago
  There is legislation in the EU, and BirdyChat announced compatibility. https://www.birdy.chat/blog/first-to-interoperate-with-whatsapp https://www.birdy.chat/blog/first-to-interoperate-with-whats...
  - jraph 8mo ago
    BirdyChat, the existence of which we all first became aware at the same time as that legislation and which nobody can use yet, only join a waitlist... :-)
    - aaravchen 8mo ago
      And apparently requires explicit WhatsApp user opt-in to be available. Meta is of course going to maliciously comply as best they can, so they've made sure interoperability is off by default and requires a specific opt in.
nextaccountic 8mo ago
> What one should do about this? I mean, beside working on lowering that number. Every business in Brazil has an whatsapp to talk to their clients. Sometimes this whatsapp goes into the phone or computer of a real human being. Other times, it's manned by a bot (usually a dumb choose-your-own-adventure bot - I don't see business using LLMs for this here) Indeed I use food delivery apps (ifood here) only to check out the menu of delivery restaurants, then I search for them in Google so I can order directly from them through whatsapp. This won't work for some dark kitchens, but other than that it's pretty reliable and avoid the middleman
morpheuskafka 8mo ago
Well, you now have the right to use third-party apps to exchange messages with WhatsApp users, but apparently your law only covers it if the other user is in the EEA. So you are back to square one when communicating with India, Pakistan, and much of SE Asia, Africa, and MENA.

by jraph 8mo ago

embedding-shape 8mo ago

I guess if you want to lower that number, you'd need to build something better, in some way. Answered as another European who've had Whatsapp forever, as some stubborn people refuse to move away from it, and also bunch of businesses use it.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 8mo ago
Network effect is killer. "better" would include having more than 3 billion people already on it. Maybe the EU or China will crack down on it. A single company shouldn't decide who gets to talk to half the world. If that company is American they will not tolerate it for long. Personally DeltaChat is my new favorite Thing but it falls afoul of Zooko's Triangle - A WhatsApp number or POTS number is short because it's centrally controlled and you have to pay for each one. DeltaChat has public keys, so I have 20 of them, and nobody can control who gets one, but they're incredibly long... the QR codes are nightmares.
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  > Network effect is killer. "better" would include having more than 3 billion people already on it. At one point people moved from something else to Whatsapp, and that happened before Whatsapp had 3 billion people on it. If it's good, early adopters will adopt it and want others to adopt it too, then it snowballs from there. It has happened before, and as long as new regulation doesn't solidify Whatsapp/FB in their position, it can happen again :)
  - riffraff 8mo ago
    WhatsApp happened at a time when, in Europe, you paid for SMS. WhatsApp allowed people to send SMS without paying, or rather, paying just once to buy the app, so it was instantly valuable if you just convinced your spouse or parents or a single friend to install it. To overcome it now, you need a lot more effort (or rely on enshittification, which I'm sure will happen).
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      No, before Whatsapp, people were mostly using Facebook messages, at least where I lived at the time. And no one was paying per SMS at the time we were using SMS for communication, almost everyone I know were on monthly plans that gave you N text messages and N minutes of calls for static sum each month. The first people I saw who started using whatsapp, was people who were communicating across the border, because even if you had a monthly plan, those didn't include international messages. Eventually we all converged on whatsapp because that's what outside family and relatives used anyways.
      - vlovich123 8mo ago
        WhatsApp launched in January of 2009 compared with Facebook Chat which launched in 2008. WhatsApp saw drastically wider adoption among the general populace and paying for “N text messages per month” is precisely what people refer to as paying per message - WhatsApp had unlimited messaging.
        embedding-shape 8mo ago
        Is "Facebook Chat" not the same as "Facebook Messenger", the separate chat client? Because I seem to remember a lot of people using the chat built-in into Facebook (not Messenger) a lot earlier than the standalone app/client, maybe I misrecall. > paying for “N text messages per month” is precisely what people refer to as paying per message Maybe I said it wrong, "N text messages per month" for me means "Pay us 10 EUR per month, send up to 5000 messages" for example. Doesn't matter how many you send, you pay the same. While "pay per message" is "Every text message you send, costs 0.01 EUR". Maybe I'm using the wrong words, but that's how I understand it. Most of the people who were "texters" (in my circles) were on plans offering the first way of paying, while hardly anyone was doing it the second. Another important part, was that most telecom's had free SMS and calls if you were with the same company (and still do, AFAIK), so constant bickering about what plan people are on and why they don't change so it's free and yadda yadda. Many people were already mostly texting for free at this point.
- stavros 8mo ago
  The EU has already forced WhatsApp to be interoperable. Of course, Meta complied maliciously, making it a setting that you have to enable, but at least it's a start.
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    I guess the bean counters figured it'd be cheaper compared to ultimately paying the fine they get for maliciously following the rules. Hope the fine ends up large enough to make them wrong :)

galangalalgol 8mo ago

Can you describe your reasons? I haven't developed an opinion as no one here uses it.

jraph 8mo ago
I refuse to use proprietary software as much as I can, especially when it has a strong network effect where it encourages others to join. Meta is also a despicable company, they don't need my help to succeed. (edit: and I haven't abandoned the idea to switch back to a Linux mobile OS at some point, and WhatsApp would be a pain)

londons_explore 8mo ago

Make your customer support on whatsapp. "Drop us a message to change your order". Allow ordering/enquiries over whatsapp. Send 2 factor verification pins over whatsapp - it is more reliable than SMS and generally there is a better 1:1 mapping between whatsapp accounts and real humans than phone numbers, so it is a good anti-spam or good way to distribute "first month free" type deals whilst keeping abuse low. Obviously make sure all URL's have info cards properly rendered in Whatsapp for good share-ability.

jraph 8mo ago
And now your customers are required to agree to Meta's term of services and to run some black box software, and you are screwed if Meta decides your business or your customers need to be kicked out.
sieabahlpark 8mo ago
[dead]

harikb 8mo ago

As a developer, I tried building an app that needs to use Whatsapp for communication. Unfortunately my phone number got blocked by the second test message. No Spam. Not marketing, just a test message to my own number. Along with it, they blocked my entire business, my LLC, and anything tied to it. I have been trying to get hold of anyone or anything at Whatsapp. I've spent 6 months trying to navigate the bureaucracy. Facebook support claims they can't touch WhatsApp; WhatsApp support ignores the Facebook side. If you're building on WA, have a backup plan. If any Whatsapp employee reading this can look into my WBA Account 1117362643780814

rvnx 8mo ago
Telegram API is easier to handle as far as I know if that can somehow help (in case you want live ChatGPT or notifications for yourself in a mobile chat)
- harikb 8mo ago
  I will look into it. But my user base is either WhatsApp or plain SMS text messaging.
- yandie 8mo ago
  Yeah telegram is so easy to develop with - I was blown away. I was able to spin up a bot that checks for GE appointments with minimal effort.
- duskwuff 8mo ago
  Telegram's bot API is a lot easier to get started with for sure. It's got some rough edges once you start trying to do anything more complex, though, and the underlying MTProto API is nothing short of bizarre. I'd urge caution before using them as a component of your business, though. Their business strategy is pretty chaotic and has relied heavily on weird cryptocurrency-adjacent plays (e.g. TON / Fragment / gifts). They've made a couple of attempts to introduce business features, but I'm not sure they've had any substantial uptake.
  - 8mo ago

tremon 8mo ago

Advocate protocols over platforms. Have your government take an active interest in opening up closed communication systems and mandating third-party client access.

mfashby 8mo ago

Force interoperability one way or another. WhatsApp is a closed system, if I want to use an alternative I'm stuck with adversarial interoperability, so stuff like Beeper (which is great, but...) which might get my account banned. Or waiting for some legislation to force WhatsApp to open it's API and let me interact with my contacts there without being locked into their apps

darrenf 8mo ago
There is legislation in the EU, and BirdyChat announced compatibility. https://www.birdy.chat/blog/first-to-interoperate-with-whatsapp https://www.birdy.chat/blog/first-to-interoperate-with-whats...
- jraph 8mo ago
  BirdyChat, the existence of which we all first became aware at the same time as that legislation and which nobody can use yet, only join a waitlist... :-)
  - aaravchen 8mo ago
    And apparently requires explicit WhatsApp user opt-in to be available. Meta is of course going to maliciously comply as best they can, so they've made sure interoperability is off by default and requires a specific opt in.

nextaccountic 8mo ago

> What one should do about this? I mean, beside working on lowering that number. Every business in Brazil has an whatsapp to talk to their clients. Sometimes this whatsapp goes into the phone or computer of a real human being. Other times, it's manned by a bot (usually a dumb choose-your-own-adventure bot - I don't see business using LLMs for this here) Indeed I use food delivery apps (ifood here) only to check out the menu of delivery restaurants, then I search for them in Google so I can order directly from them through whatsapp. This won't work for some dark kitchens, but other than that it's pretty reliable and avoid the middleman

morpheuskafka 8mo ago

Well, you now have the right to use third-party apps to exchange messages with WhatsApp users, but apparently your law only covers it if the other user is in the EEA. So you are back to square one when communicating with India, Pakistan, and much of SE Asia, Africa, and MENA.