4 ms·

19bn $. No way anyone else at FB could have built this app and given it away for free for years for that price. No way. Totally worth it. 19bn $. Sequoia's d

19bn $. No way anyone else at FB could have built this app and given it away for free for years for that price. No way. Totally worth it. 19bn $. Sequoia's deck on the amazing sclaing of 32 devs supporting that many users? well, guess what, they did it through taking shortcuts. Who would have guessed. Totally flabbergasted.

acchow 13y ago
It's also a highly-simplified backend. No multisession (synchronization is hard), no back-end message history searching (search and graphs are hard). They took a lot of shortcuts, which turned out really well for them. Simplification made for a very fast client and a low-latency, low-bandwidth protocol.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Being slim to deliver only essential functionality is one thing, but playing fast and loose with user data is not a shortcut that should be rewarded so lavishly.
  - acchow 13y ago
    Whoops, I was probably confusing. I meant to say they got to $19bn with shortcuts that worked. A leaky DB is bad and reprehensible corner-cutting.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Playing fast and loose with user data === entire android ecosystem.
- 1337biz 13y ago
  So they have no ability to sniff through my messages on the server? That's not a bug that's a feature for me!
  - yid 13y ago
    Not exposing a client-facing search service has no bearing on their ability to search through your messages on the server; they most assuredly can search through your messages.
weixiyen 13y ago
So much jelly in this comment. They obviously made good product decisions to get to this point. A few blips along the way will happen, when you are focusing on much more important things. Your entire SMS history is available to any app with permissions. Most people don't even know that, or are not bothered by it. This is literally feature parity with default SMS. WhatsApp is about messaging that is simple and functional. Security is not even a main selling point. If you want security, there are apps for that. Good luck getting your friends to use it.
- doktrin 13y ago
  >Security is not even a main selling point. Didn't the founder specifically cite growing up under an oppressive regime as a key motivation behind WhatsApp?
  - visakanv 13y ago
    Hrm. I'm torn both ways. I think a world with whatsapp is less oppressive than a world without whatsapp, even if people can spy on it, tap into it, etc- because it allows people to communicate where they previously might not have been able to. A world with secure whatsapp would, of course, be even better than a world with insecure whatsapp.
    - doktrin 13y ago
      > I think a world with whatsapp is less oppressive than a world without whatsapp, even if people can spy on it, tap into it, etc- because it allows people to communicate where they previously might not have been able to. That's a fair stance. I don't have strong feelings vis a vis WhatsApp, so this is more of a general statement : I think the illusion of secure communication is more dangerous than insecure communication. People who think they can't be spied on will expose themselves in ways they otherwise wouldn't.
      - visakanv 13y ago
        I agree with that. I think it's important to always assume that your communications are insecure.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
gregsq 13y ago
Might have a few flaws, but hey at 19b $ it's probably 50% less buggy than this 12b $ piece of firmware. So value for money. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm

acchow 13y ago

It's also a highly-simplified backend. No multisession (synchronization is hard), no back-end message history searching (search and graphs are hard). They took a lot of shortcuts, which turned out really well for them. Simplification made for a very fast client and a low-latency, low-bandwidth protocol.

sentenza 13y ago
Being slim to deliver only essential functionality is one thing, but playing fast and loose with user data is not a shortcut that should be rewarded so lavishly.
- acchow 13y ago
  Whoops, I was probably confusing. I meant to say they got to $19bn with shortcuts that worked. A leaky DB is bad and reprehensible corner-cutting.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Playing fast and loose with user data === entire android ecosystem.
1337biz 13y ago
So they have no ability to sniff through my messages on the server? That's not a bug that's a feature for me!
- yid 13y ago
  Not exposing a client-facing search service has no bearing on their ability to search through your messages on the server; they most assuredly can search through your messages.

weixiyen 13y ago

So much jelly in this comment. They obviously made good product decisions to get to this point. A few blips along the way will happen, when you are focusing on much more important things. Your entire SMS history is available to any app with permissions. Most people don't even know that, or are not bothered by it. This is literally feature parity with default SMS. WhatsApp is about messaging that is simple and functional. Security is not even a main selling point. If you want security, there are apps for that. Good luck getting your friends to use it.

doktrin 13y ago
>Security is not even a main selling point. Didn't the founder specifically cite growing up under an oppressive regime as a key motivation behind WhatsApp?
- visakanv 13y ago
  Hrm. I'm torn both ways. I think a world with whatsapp is less oppressive than a world without whatsapp, even if people can spy on it, tap into it, etc- because it allows people to communicate where they previously might not have been able to. A world with secure whatsapp would, of course, be even better than a world with insecure whatsapp.
  - doktrin 13y ago
    > I think a world with whatsapp is less oppressive than a world without whatsapp, even if people can spy on it, tap into it, etc- because it allows people to communicate where they previously might not have been able to. That's a fair stance. I don't have strong feelings vis a vis WhatsApp, so this is more of a general statement : I think the illusion of secure communication is more dangerous than insecure communication. People who think they can't be spied on will expose themselves in ways they otherwise wouldn't.
    - visakanv 13y ago
      I agree with that. I think it's important to always assume that your communications are insecure.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

gregsq 13y ago

Might have a few flaws, but hey at 19b $ it's probably 50% less buggy than this 12b $ piece of firmware. So value for money. http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/78.htm