WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users

BarbaraHudson writes WhatsApp is locking out users for 24 hours who use WhatsApp Plus to access the service. The company claims they brought in the temporary ban to make users aware that they are not using the correct version and their privacy could be comprised using the unofficial WhatsApp Plus. "Starting today, we are taking aggressive action against unauthorized apps and alerting the people who use them." Is this a more aggressive rerun of "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer"?

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a more aggressive rerun of "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer"?

No, it's saying that the other app maybe be stealing your credentials, logging your convos, etc. It's not remotely the same thing.

Re:No

[OrangeTide]

No, it's saying that the other app maybe be stealing your credentials, logging your convos, etc. It's not remotely the same thing.

It's FUD, where is the proof of such things? They have access to the binaries of these apps, they can certainly hire a consultant to reverse engineer it. Why bother doing that when libel is generally not actionable in the US.

Re:No

[Z00L00K]

And what prevents the standard "WhatsApp" from doing that? Just look at the EFF scorecard ( https://www.eff.org/secure-mes... ) reveals that there are better alternatives.

Re:No

[timmyf2371]

FUD? Perhaps they saw what happened to the Snapchat users who used a third party client which uploaded their photos to their own server and are acting now to ensure users only use the official version.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

As could the official one. Does AOL say shit like that about pidgin and other 3rd party applications?

Re:No

[wisnoskij]

Best viewed with IE is at least in some way not something the web designer arbitrarily decided. Particularly back in the day, loads of web programming only worked well on the browser it was specifically designed for. Using another could create a worst user experience. This is goign out of your way to make third party apps not work, and banning the user of said apps.

Re:No

[BarbaraHudson]

And Microsoft made their browser non-standards-compliant for the same purpose - lock-in of developers and, through them, users.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would WhatsApp want to steal your login credentials? And of course they log your convos, how else do you think you have your chat history? The difference is that people choose to allow WhatsApp to log their chats by agreeing to use the service. The other app maybe be doing additional things that the user did not agree to. Sort of like those 3rd party SnapChat apps that were logging off people's chats when the user at the other end was not expecting that.

Re: No

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the mobile app, the chat history lives locally.

Re:No

[Richard_at_work]

Why should they? Its WhatsApps service, if they want to regulate what uses it then that's their prerogative and they can do it in whatever manner they wish to do it.

Re:No

[Richard_at_work]

Not really, back then it was par for the course - Netscape Navigator was no different (infact, it was a fucking pain in the arse to write for, as minor versions have major differences in how it rendered stuff). People just remember the legacy that we were left with from that era - IE6 - because Netscape died a death and saner individuals took over. It was during that time that standards took more of a front seat in the browser world (there were always standards, but 99% of the stuff standardised was done so through being introduced into either of the main browsers first).

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

The Whatsapp company operates a bunch of servers. It's totally their right to control who accesses their servers.

Comparing it to a "company store" situation is absurd. Because any other company can set up their own messaging system (from scratch) and put it on the internet, without leeching off other any other company's resources.

Re:No

[sjames]

Mostly in the form of OMG that pixel is the wrong shade of RED, DOOM AND GLOOM!

It was a rare case where spoofing the browser ID didn't get the 'internet explorer only' page to work reasonably well.

Re:No

[Richard_at_work]

A company should be allowed to have a monopoly over its own product.

Re:No

[jrumney]

The main reason it is not remotely the same thing is that the web was not set up by Microsoft exclusively for their browser and reverse engineered by others to provide alternative browsers.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same thing. It got laughed at the first time.

Logging into Hotmail (Microsoft) with a browser other than IE is a concern a 3rd party could steal your login credentials.

No difference.

Re:No

[jbolden]

And if it doesn't have that code on January 25th what stops it from having that code on January 26th? They can't certify anything.

Re:No

[jbolden]

How is WhatsApps living in a word of dozens of major and hundreds of available chat applications having a "monopoly"? A comparison might be something more like A&P not selling WholeFood's brand generics.

Re:No

[jbolden]

That was a good history. Netscape didn't believe in standards at all. Microsoft believed in flexible standards. A real belief in standards was the Open Source community: Mozilla Suite, Konq, Galeon...

Re:No

[allo]

And Firefox can be as well. Especially as Firefox supports insecure (just like secure) extensions.

So what? The User chooses the client and is resposible for any bullshit the client may do.

Re:No

[allo]

and i operate quite a few servers. Yet i still do not block everything which has no MSIE in the useragent on them.

was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

i was banned two days ago for using plus. what irritated me was if you're going to ban, why not send out a warning first? it's an asshole move to outright ban without a notice. also, bring themeability to Whatsapp and i won't use another app for that missing feature.

also, this is Facebook warning users about their privacy. LEL

Re:was a warning too much to ask?

[lucm]

"Mommyyyyyyy, I want theeeeeeeeemes in my whaaaatsaaaaaaaaaaap"
    -You

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

The warning is in the terms you accepted when installing WhatsApp. Also you aren't banned for 24 hours; if you install the official client, the ban ends immediately.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[tepples]

if you install the official client, the ban ends immediately.

The practicality of that might not be guaranteed. Are there platforms that have the unofficial client but no official client?

Re:was a warning too much to ask?

[meerling]

Valid point.

Re:was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

SnapChat apparently uses the warning model. Someone signed up for SnapChat using one of my email addresses (their ability to do this and use the service without actually confirming their email address is a separate rant). I got a couple of emails over the past week warning that they were using a third party app, and doing so could lead to a ban. Of course that person didn't actually see those warnings because they came to my email account. A couple of days ago a message came in saying the user had received a temporary ban for continuing to use the third party app. Seems like a decent approach to use, warn first (several times) and then do a temp ban to really get the user's attention.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesnt end immediately. And it is easier to say it is written in terms and conditions. Any person can blabber about terms and conditions but I bet none of us have read it. A warning message was necessary. We are paying for their service. They have no bloody right to ban anybody without notification.
Since their official developers are lazy to implement such features they rather ban the competition with some lame excuse of privacy.
And all those who are commenting here does not know shit about whatsapp plus. It's been around for more than 4 years. Made by a developer from xda developers. The source code is openly available. A proper developer will know there are no risks. So refrain from commenting shit.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are fine with this user stealing your identity for a image sending program that can get you into very real troubles?

I don't use it but if the accounts are password protected doing a password recovery would seem more prudent

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[gerddie]

The practicality of that might not be guaranteed. Are there platforms that have the unofficial client but no official client?

FirefoxOS has an unofficial client and no possibility to run the official one. Sailfish OS also has an unofficial client, and to run the official one you have to use the Android emulation layer.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a person who was banned, I can categorically state: no. I had the full 24 hours even though I caved and installed the official client.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[fluffynuts]

I, and others, welcomed the power of the theming engine to overcome the distinct lack of accessibility features in the official client. When your friends and family converse over a common platform, you try to find a way to be a part of that. When a third-party client enables people with suboptimal vision to use the service, that's a good thing. Whatsapp should have rather contacted the plus author to work with them instead of pulling an Apple. One of my friends basically can't use the service any more. All of us are willing to pay when we're finally asked to, so we're not looking to be freeloading brats.

Stop and think for a moment before farting out such a childish response.

Re: was a warning too much to ask?

[lucm]

Stop and think for a moment before farting out such a childish response.

You managed to put "farting" and "childish" in the same sentence. That's impressive. Did you build up your dialectical skills by exchanging messages using your rip-off (themed) app?

Really?

[American AC in Paris]

To be clear: "WhatsApp Plus" is an imitation app that uses the WhatsApp name.

Go out and make "Internet Explorer Plus" and see how well that works for you. Maybe you can get Timothy to post something about it to Slashdot.

Re:Really?

[tompaulco]

Not even remotely the same thing. Of course you would get in trouble for making Internet Explorer Plus. However, these are users. They did not MAKE Whatsapp Plus. They merely used it. Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated. The appropriate target is the creator of Whatsapp Plus. Targeting the user is detrimental to WhatsApp's cause.

Re:Really?

[ArmoredDragon]

I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app. Unless they didn't file a trademark, which would be an incredibly stupid thing to not do.

I don't use whatsapp though.

Re:Really?

[marcello_dl]

I hereby announce slashdotplus. It's like slashdot but without stories. Nobody reads TFS anyway.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the results. If they get people to use their platform and their client, it's a net gain.

How many WhatsAppPlus users will be offended that they're blocked and stop using WhatsApp?

That's where the question of detriment comes in.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.microsoft.com/1997/10/27/microsoft-internet-explorer-plus-now-available-at-retail/

Re:Really?

[ihtoit]

one word:

LINDOWS.

That is all.

Re:Really?

[unrtst]

However, these are users. They did not MAKE Whatsapp Plus.

The users are being banned, rather than the "Whatsapp Plus" distribution channels and such. IMO, this reminds me of AdBlock and AdBlockPlus and the other very similarly named programs... there's a real problem there.

Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated.

...and this seems to be one of the most direct ways to let those users know. If the users aren't using teh official Whatsapp app, then they can't communicate with them through it. And it appears they can't get the clone off of the stores... not that it would help (wouldn't let anyone know).

Personally, I think the API and Protocol should be open, and others should be free to make compatible apps. However, the Whatsapp name should not be used. This is VERY clearly an unauthorized and inappropriate use of the name. If Whatapp Plus was renamed.... well, I think we could get into some more interesting discussions then.

Re:Really?

[Frosty Piss]

I hereby announce slashdotplus. It's like slashdot but without stories.

Slashdot has stories? When did this happen?

Re:Really?

[wisnoskij]

It worked out pretty well for all those mns messenger apps, including one that used the same name.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it comes on Beta Plus...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hereby announce slashdotplus. It's like slashdot but without stories.

Slashdot has stories? When did this happen?

Try the beta version, the stories just slide off the margins and ads.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just looked it up, WhatsApp Inc has 2 registered trademarks for WhatsApp, filed in 2009 and 2011. So yes, they could easily sue the company that's obviously infringing on their trademark.

Re:Really?

[BarbaraHudson]

The actually do have 2 trademark registratons. You can search here.

Re:Really?

[MLBs]

In the case of Lindows, Microsoft sued, lost in court and in the end settled by buying the name Lindows for $20M. Doesn't sound like a bad deal for the other company.

Re:Really?

[ArchieBunker]

Still no clue as to what WhatsApp actually does...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've still got some Lindows disks sitting around somewhere. Forgot about until you reminded me.

Re:Really?

[reikae]

It only takes a few seconds to find out it's an instant messenger, but I agree it wouldn't have been a bad idea to add those two descriptive words at the beginning of the summary. WhatsApp's popularity AFAIK is largely thanks to the fact it works on cheap "feature phones" as well as beefier devices. I like to keep things simple so I run WhatsApp on Android-x86 which in turn runs in Virtualbox on my desktop computer. :-)

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Than why even bother commenting? The developer of whatsapp plus is not a company, it's a hobbyist who wanted to enhance the whatsapp client and used the official client and enhanced it with themes, emoticons and other functions as hiding online status and blue ticks. That something that whatsapp doesn't provide their users. I myself are a programmer and who'd do the same if I wanted to enhance an official app. Clearly the developer did infrig the rights by using the whatsapp name but if he used another name nobody would give a shit either. Most of you just use the normal whatsapp and are clearly just average users who don't use their brains. If you gave it a try you would instantly see why whatsapp plus is preferable. And who said that whatsapp doesn't do same you guys are suspecting the third party client of? Hmmmm tell me. Before suspecting try it out to have facts and not rumors. If whatsapp wants to undo the ban than they'll have to talk to the developer of whatsapp plus if they want their users to stay. End of discussion.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The API's are open source so enhancing is easy. On the other hand whatsapp plus is and was never available in the play store or any other official store. It was and is only available outside these stores. Not aware that they're using a client that's not affiliated with whatsapp? They know 'cause on opening whatsapp plus, the terms of use says it clearly that the app is not affiliated with whatsapp and that using it is at your own risk. About the name infrigment I agree with most of you but enhancing an app that is licensed under the GNU or GPLI license with open source Api's is free. These laws clearly state that if you use someone other's source and enhance it you need to refer back to the original creator to give them credit. In a way the developer of whatsapp did that by stating in the updates that the client is up to date with the latest whatsapp in the play store and stating what is enhanced in his client app. So I really don't get all the fuss. From a developer's point of view it's called improvement. Since they only ask donations just to go further with the development of it.

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

Quick question: In what way is the user targeted? They aren't. The app itself is targeted. They are not disabling WhatsApp accounts, they are not leaving users high and dry. They are simply saying that if you want to use WhatsApp then use the official client.

Skype did this, ICQ did this, MSN did this. I remember multiple times over the years where Jabba clients, trillian, etc broke because the service provided decided they are not providing free access to 3rd party apps. And really why should they!

Re:Really?

[tlhIngan]

I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app.

Probably because WhatsApp Plus is distributed outside normal channels (otherwise it would be quickly removed from say, the App Store or Google Play) and is one of those where the developer just doesn't make themselves easily known.

Plus, sometimes it's easier to just cut access to it than to try to launch a lawsuit which costs a lot of money with little to show for it since there will probably be 10 more clones after the lawsuit is over. Just cutting off access is easier and cheaper.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all the people who use whatsapp plus also are added to the users of whatsapp only...it is not a different app...so in a way it just got more users ..thanks to whatsapp plus...whatsapp should try to make their app better than banning the better modded versions...

Re:Really?

[gerddie]

Quick question: In what way is the user targeted? They aren't. The app itself is targeted. They are not disabling WhatsApp accounts, they are not leaving users high and dry. ...

Actually, at least some of the users of Mitakuuluu, the native SilafishOS client, got their phone number banned.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking to yourself ? /end of discussion

Re: Really?

[gitano_dbs]

For really tick in Slashdot Beta Plus

Re:Really?

[jbolden]

They aren't selling anything. It is hard to argue a trademark if a transaction has never taken place. Also WhatsApp Plus tries pretty hard to make it clear they aren't the "official client". If WhatsApp Plus were selling then they might be in trouble.

Re:Really?

[allo]

which is a point in taking some action against whatsapp-plus. not against its users. If someone claims the name firefox is theirs, i can still use my firefox version, even when mozilla is only allowed to distribute watersquirrel afterwards.

Re:Really?

[allo]

come on baby run linspire. (search for it)

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He was providing valuable commentary to people like me. You just happened to be nearby and wanted to appear witty.

Carnegie Hall is in the other direction.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. I love the extras whatsapp plus has to offer. Privacy options, themes, you can choose not to compress photos when sending them, popups when contacts come online and so much more. These guys are average users they just won't understand.

Re:Really?

[Pi1grim]

Don't remember third-party Skype clients and look how well it turned out for ICQ and MSN.

Re: Really?

[unrtst]

The API's are open source so enhancing is easy.

AFAIK, that's not a thing. You don't open source an API, as an API is a documented interface, not source; Similarly, see java's API battles with Google - reimplementing someone elses API is fair play. This doesn't make it "open source" though.
Regardless, where is the WhatsApp API documented? I couldn't find any mention of it on their site. The closest I got was: https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/e...
That's 2 ways for an iPhone APP to integrate with WhatsApp, which is not a full API, but just a way for an app to send messages by triggering WhatsApp.

On the other hand whatsapp plus is and was never available in the play store or any other official store.

I don't know how accurate that statement is. I just looked, and there are things like "Install WhatsApp Plus+" app on the google play store, and (possibly not exactly the same thing) there's WhatsApp Pro and WhatsApp_World on the amazon store.

About the name infrigment I agree with most of you but enhancing an app that is licensed under the GNU or GPLI license with open source Api's is free.

WhatsApp is not available under the GPL.
In addition, when forking a GPL'd project, you must still change the name. See netscape/mozilla/firefox, or openoffice/libreoffice/etc. There's loads of examples, but you don't steal a name because that's similar to saying you wrote the thing (or that they wrote your thing). You can use a related name, but it should be clearly different.

From a developer's point of view it's called improvement. Since they only ask donations just to go further with the development of it.

Ok, so I tried to find WhatsApp Plus+, assuming the source would be available since he's just making improvements and such. Where is it!?! There's loads of different sites with downloads for it, and they all look pretty shady and have very short FAQ pages (like 3-4 entries with nothing of real value). Where is its real home page? The version on uptodown.com seems to be the top page for it, but uptodown.com is just another play store and even has loads of random downloads for windows, mac, linux, android, etc... that's not the developers page.

Better Link

[OzPeter]

WhatsApp issues 24 hour ban for WhatsApp Plus users

I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action. What I do find amusing is this classic FUD argument:

Why am I banned for using WhatsApp Plus and how do I get unbanned?

WhatsApp Plus is an application that was not developed by WhatsApp, nor is it authorized by WhatsApp. The developers of WhatsApp Plus have no relationship to WhatsApp, and we do not support WhatsApp Plus. Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.

Re:Better Link

[cheesybagel]

They can sue them for trademark violation that's what they can do.

Re:Better Link

[BarbaraHudson]

Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.

Let me fix that for everyone:

Please be aware that both WhatsApp and WhatsApp Plus contain source code which cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.

Let them release the source for their clients and servers ... then we'll see. Ditto for Facebook. I looked on the WhatsApp site, and while they claim to have contributed to open source, they have not released THEIR source.

Re:Better Link

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed,

This is not about reverse engineering. This is about terms of service. You're arguing that they should be forced to provide services to people under terms not of their choosing, where the services are not mandatory utilities.

Re:Better Link

[Gaygirlie]

I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Companies providing an online service are perfectly within their legal rights to deny users of 3rd-party applications, it has nothing to do with reverse-engineering. They can't deny you from reverse-engineering stuff and using that stuff on your own, but they can deny you access to their services, then.

Re:Better Link

[Bogtha]

reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Just because reverse engineering is legal, it doesn't mean WhatsApp are legally obligated to provide their services to third-party clients.

The legal matter here is the blatant trademark infringement by WhatsApp Plus.

Re:Better Link

[lucm]

Let them release the source for their clients and servers ... then we'll see. Ditto for Facebook.

I would be curious so see Facebook's source code. I'm sure it's elegant and sophisticated.

Re:Better Link

[wiredlogic]

could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Does anyone have a contract with WhatsApp to provide guaranteed services? No. They provide a free service and have the right to do anything they want with it.

Locking out apps that don't meet their requirements is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Blocking users outright is heavy-handed but none of them paid a dime to use the software and have no basis for a lawsuit.

Re:Better Link

[hackertourist]

Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization

That's rich coming from them.

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they did with FakeBlock?

Re:Better Link

[Lunix Nutcase]

I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.

Under what statute exactly? Reverse engineering for interoperability is legal but WhatsApp has no legal obligation to make it easy nor to provide service to these reverse engineering clients.

Re:Better Link

[AK Marc]

Let me fix that for everyone:

Your fix is wrong. WhatsApp can verify the code of WA, but not WAP. Theirs is true. They may not be saints, but they know what their code does. Only WAP knows what WAP does, and the fact it's infringing trademark to "sneak" in puts them in a higher risk category.

Re:Better Link

[AK Marc]

A trademark case would be slow and expensive. They are being faster and more innovative in their solution.

Re:Better Link

[kenshin33]

1st year is free : http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/ge...
99 cents/y may be cheap, but certainly not free

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

They should. And there's nothing wrong with limiting access to your own service. You might piss off users and third parties, but it's their service. They have no obligation to allow others.

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this just XMPP with a cosmetic gui?

Re:Better Link

[BarbaraHudson]

Let me fix that for everyone:

Your fix is wrong. WhatsApp can verify the code of WA, but not WAP. Theirs is true. They may not be saints, but they know what their code does. Only WAP knows what WAP does, and the fact it's infringing trademark to "sneak" in puts them in a higher risk category.

The same can be said for WhatsApp Plus - "WhatsApp Plus can verify the code of WAP, but not WA. Only WA knows what WA does."

Re:Better Link

[AK Marc]

Yes, but as I said, between WA and WAP, WAP is proven to have already acted in a fraudulent manner (by infringing on trademark to confuse users), so WA is more trustworthy than WAP, unless more information is known.

Re:Better Link

[BarbaraHudson]

You're really stretching it by claiming that WAP has "acted in a fraudulent manner by infringing on trademark to confuse users)" has anything to do with whether either one can be trusted. At this point, there is no reason to trust either one. And given the lame way they're implemented their web app, I wouldn't trust WhatApp to get the code right.

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but people are trying to purposely use WA, you feckless moron. WAP is intentionally trying to confuse users into using it. Only a blithering idiot or unscrupulous bastard would even try to pretend that WAP is as safe to use as WA simply because both are closed source applications. Only the heir to throne to the kingdom of idiots would bother trying to continue pushing that argument in a technical setting where people actually know what "third party" means.

In short, go away and stop lowering the IQ of this thread.

Re:Better Link

[BarbaraHudson]

That's not what a lot of the comments are indicating. To the contrary, a few even say they'd switch back to WhatsApp if WhatsApp were to include the missing features - so they certainly know the difference between the two. You assume they don't know the difference, but there's no proof of that, and after this week, also no way to make that claim.

Re:Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

"First year is free" is the tagline to hook you in. Then when your first year is up, it turns out they are in the middle of a funding round and losing users is the last thing they need, so when you ignore the warnings that you need to pay up until the last minute, they go and extend that free period for another year. Then at the end of the second year, they are in the middle of negotiations with Facebook to buy them, and the same thing happens. I'm just waiting to see what happens when the third year is up...

Re:Better Link

[wvmarle]

Would be lovely to study. It must be at least as elegant and sophisticated as the root system of a small tree.

Re:Better Link

[kenshin33]

, is that from experience? (never used it, SMS is free and universal more importantly does the job for me )

Re: Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatsapp plus code is open source. If you dont know please stop commenting. Have you even used whatsapp plus. Once a news breaks in it is easier to comment any shit. Have you heard of xda developers? Head over then and try to be aware of things. This was a mod project, not a spy project.

Re: Better Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point actually. In the UK at least, SMS does not do the job, because a picture message COSTS MORE THAN SENDING A PHYSICAL PHOTOGRAPH THROUGH THE POST. That is why WhatsApp got big so fast.

Re:Better Link

[jbolden]

What legal action? "We don't want to sell our service to people using it in ways we don't approve of so we aren't."

Re:Better Link

[jbolden]

Facebook has done releases. To pick one that's pretty good: http://prestodb.io/

Re:Better Link

[lucm]

Did you read the testimonials from the Airbnb and Dropbox guys?

We're really excited about Presto. We're planning on using it to quickly gain insight about the different ways our users use Dropbox

It's like those book reviews on Amazon where people say: "I've only read the first two pages so far but I'm excited about this book". Very convincing.

Re:Better Link

[allo]

they even needed to rewrite php for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Re:Better Link

[allo]

why should i distrust some app, which broke trademarks? This does not imply any insecurity.

Re:Better Link

[allo]

it is.

Re:Better Link

[jbolden]

This isn't fluff. Though I can see why Dropbox just cares about the results.

You asked for a complex application with good quality source from Facebook. Presto is one notable example.

Re: Better Link

[kenshin33]

ah I see. Because here (Canada), the last couple of years, both SMS and MMS are free (for any destination at all, as long as it is sent from withing Canada)

I hate it ...

[p4ul13]

... when my security is "comprised"

Re:I hate it ...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Right. It's better when my moral standards are compromised. That way I only feel bad about it in the morning.

Re:I hate it ...

[BarbaraHudson]

Right. It's better when my moral standards are compromised. That way I only feel bad about it in the morning.

So next time get up earlier and avoid the whole "walk of shame" thing :-)

As for WhatsApp, the intelligent thing to do would be to include those features in WhatsApp Plus that people obviously want. Hey, when someone else does your market research for you, consider it a freebee and don't get in a snit or throw office chairs around because a competitor is doing it better than you are.

Look how long it took Microsoft to add tabbed browsing, after insisting that nobody really wanted it, and everyone was switching to tabbed browsers. "Head-in-the-sand not-invented-here syndrome.

Fault of the walled garden

[Lirodon]

If you really value your privacy and want the RIGHT to use a service in any way you want, don't use closed messaging platforms like that.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, don't use the service that all your friends are on. That's just silly.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

if your friends are requiring you to use dubious software are they really your friends?

captcha vanities

Re: Fault of the walled garden

[dnaumov]

Yeah, good luck with that in the real world.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said my friends weren't idiots. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Paradise Pete]

if your friends are requiring you to use dubious software are they really your friends?

If start with "If they were really my friends they wouldn't do X" you end with no friends.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Monkey]

Ha! You mean like Twitter?

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that you Sheldon Cooper? :)

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[ihtoit]

if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Lirodon]

this is why we need some sort of breakthrough to popularize XMPP in this mobile-centric world of messaging.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[lucm]

Maybe if it was a flash mob suicide. That would make a hell of a youtube video.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know what a proprietary protocol is, you shouldn't use it. This is how we -- the geeks -- could have made a difference, because the early adopters of WhatsApp were almost certainly geeks. Most people are not stupid, just tell your friends why you won't use it and let them make an informed decision.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

says a guy from twitter.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[tolydude]

if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?

See the relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1170/

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I avoid reading Slashdot comments that are 3+ deep

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?

If the neighbors are also friends running off the cliff then you'd better. It depends on who's peer group is more important.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[AK Marc]

Yes. If all my friends were jumping off a cliff, it's probably because they are jumping in a body of water to avoid a forest fire bearing down on us. So I'd be dumb to not follow.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

XMPP is poorly designed for mobile devices. Besides the fact that its focus was so much on the extensible side and so little on the standard side as to be a pseudo-standard. For example there is no way to get a list of users on a system that is guaranteed to work across all XMPP implementations. That's pretty basic functionality.

We need a new protocol that is open, better defined, and won't eat a battery so quickly.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

How many apps,that are capable of accessing twitter's service, have been been targeted in the same way. It's open in that they allow third party access, but apparently whatsapp also does, otherwise whatsapp plus shouldn't work.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[danbob999]

Yes, don't use the service that all your friends are on. That's just silly.

These friends don't have a phone number or an email address? If so, I agree, whatsapp is proably the only protocol to reach them. To bad there aren't any open ones available.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[danbob999]

If start with "If they were really my friends they wouldn't do X" you end with no friends.

Yeah, that's why I am currently jumping off the bridge to follow my friends.

Re:Fault of the walled garden

[ihtoit]

you're a rum one, I'd first look at the direction they came from to see if I could spot smoke, alien spaceships or giant lizards I really should be running away from. If not, then I'm staying put.

Re: Fault of the walled garden

[Fnord666]

if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?

Yes, but that's because we are all BASE Jumpers. Ditto for the bridges too.

Re: Fault of the walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're not with us, you're against us?"

Telegram

[nightfire-unique]

Telegram is better. Open API, open source clients, multiple concurrent connections, end-to-end encryption availability..

Though it doesn't have WhatsApp's userbase (yet), they do have over 50m active users and growing by the day.

Help us displace WhatsApp once and for all!

Re:Telegram

[OrangeTide]

...and their privacy could be comprised using the unofficial WhatsApp Plus.

Same could be said about the closed source WhatsApp as well. We are expected to trust them? No thanks.

At least with an open API and open source clients the community can continuously audit privacy and security.

Re: Telegram

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the iApp ?

Re:Telegram

[jonbryce]

With Whatsapp Plus, you need to be able to trust both.

Re: Telegram

[SeaFox]

Where's the iApp ?

Uh, It's right on the page he linked.
Does this make it easier for you?

Re:Telegram

[kenshin33]

or textSecure?

Re:Telegram

[BoberFett]

Really? Using what server? Run by who? If you want guaranteed privacy, keep your data off a network.

Re:Telegram

[wvmarle]

One serious issue with that one - the same issue with WhatsApp:

It's free forever. No ads, no subscription fees.

Now how're they going to pay their developers, their (cloud) servers, etc? These apps don't come into existence by themselves. They don't maintain themselves. Those servers also cost real money to run and maintain. Doesn't sound sustainable to me.

WhatsApp was supposed to be free for a year, after which you were to start paying a small yearly fee. Apparently even that part they dropped, as I'm using it for well over a year and have never had to pay anything. Now how WhatsApp is paying for the service they provide me I don't know - they don't sell ads on the platform, and they claim at least they don't sell my personal information (message content, whatever) to third parties.

Re:Telegram

[Anonymous Coward]

You should *not* use Telegram! Telegram rolls their own crypto and has really weird "challenges". You shouldn't consider them secure.

Use Textsecure instead. Free and opensource, and they use a variant of OTR -- i.e. standard crypto. Their design change has been vetted on the OTR mailing lists, and Marlinspike knows what he's doing cryptography-wise.

Re:Telegram

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's why you shouldn't use Telegram: http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-cryptanalysis-contest

Re:Telegram

[gerddie]

Really? Using what server? Run by who? If you want guaranteed privacy, keep your data off a network.

With client end-to-end encryption it shouldn't matter who runs the server, should it? And since the client is FLOSS, you can check that they really do use a secured client-to-client connection when they claim to do so.

Re:Telegram

[OrangeTide]

That's why we have things like OTR. OTR is especially handy because it works with any old IM protocol (I use it with AIM just fine).

I kind of wonder why we need things like Telegram and WhatsApp, when they could be services that live on top of several IM protocols. I just need to find you by phone number, I don't really care if my client then has to use ICQ, Zephyr or some other nonsense to contact you.

Any alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

What app can give you WhatsApp plus WhatsApp Plus's features?

Whatsapp is proprietary: App, Protocol and Service

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatsapp being proprietary is what us old fogeys have been warning you about all the time. Now that it bites you in the ass, don't pretend you don't understand the difference between the client for an open protocol with many implementations both server and client side on one hand and a proprietary service which is accessed through a proprietary protocol implemented in a proprietary client.

Re:Whatsapp is proprietary: App, Protocol and Serv

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet WhatsApp's reason for the ban isn't a breach of its service TOS, or a trademark issue, but deciding for you that you shouldn't trust a third party. Seems rather weak.

Damn it.

[fahrbot-bot]

There goes my idea for a fork named "WhatsApp Doc?" for physicians - and rabbits.

Unsupported platforms

[t0y]

What's going to happen to people running unofficial clients in unsupported platforms?

Re:Unsupported platforms

[johanw]

Either this verification is cracked (a first attempt seems to be made already by the builder of WhatsApp MD) and then all the other clients start working again, or they'll have to switch to another network.

Re:Unsupported platforms

[tepples]

or they'll have to switch to another network.

Which sucks for people who need to reach a family member who has chosen to use WhatsApp exclusively. Slashdot's comment search also sucks, or I'd dig up the citation.

Re:Unsupported platforms

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatsapp is tied to a phone, you could always SMS or call that family member.

Without saying that this isn't news

[Anonymous Coward]

This barely passes as news, as WhatsApp is simply a a marketing ploy to steal information from teenagers, one must wonder why they aren't just having the app pulled from all the App Stores as they are violating the trademark.

Diggdot.us

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else remember reading slashdot content on that site?

This reminds me a lot of that.

WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately while other companies embrace the web and third party clients such as Telegram which has a list of official and unofficial clients and a public API, WhatsApp is actively waging war against third-party developers and their users. Last year they issued DMCA takedowns to all popular Github repositories hosting third-party clients and/or libraries interfacing with their API.

WhatsApp provides clients for many platforms but not for all platforms. Users of webOS, Firefox OS, Maemo, Sailfish, Ubuntu Touch had to use third-party libraries and also users of other platforms where there is an official client preferred using a third-party client because of many reasons.

After the takedowns, WhatsApp started banning users that connected to their network using third-party client, a move so evil that deserves a post in its own and the reason I stopped using their service. Since the takedowns and the banishments people waited for the release of a web client that would enable other platforms to use their service thru the beautiful of the world wide web.

Well, they finally launched their web offerring but its such a poor offerring that one wonders if anyone at WhatsApp actually understand the power behind the web. Lets analyse some parts of their launch post from their company blog:

Mistake one - it only works on a single browser

...simply open https://web.whatsapp.com in your Google Chrome browser...

WTF!?!?!? There is Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer. All those with large user bases. I am not even counting the small browsers. And they chose to release only for Google Chrome? What year is this, 1995?

Sorry but if it works only on a single browser then its not a product, its a tech demo.

Mistake two - it requires the current WhatsApp client for Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone

You will see a QR code --- scan the code inside of WhatsApp, and you’re ready to go

and

we will not be able to provide web client to our iOS users due to Apple platform limitations

So, to log in (pair) you need to have the current client on an Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone.

If you just have a dumb phone or another platform, you can't use the web client. The web client is not an alternative, its a toy that only works if you already have a working up to date client on a blessed platform which is not iOS.

Instead of opening to new users by allowing registrations and usage over the web, they choose to maintain their walled garden. The web client is useless if you're not already using their mobile app on Android, Windows Phone or Blackberry..

If it doesn't work as a standalone client then its not a client, its an auxiliary toy, a second screen application, some buzzword but its not a client.

Mistake three - It doesn't work if your phone is not connected to the internet.

...Your phone needs to stay connected to the internet for our web client to work...

MAJOR WTF?!!??!!? So you have your web client but it only works if your blessed mobile client is connected to the internet. We all know that battery life on a mobile device owned by a heavy user of IM tools never lasts long. So imagine that user trying to communicate with some WhatsApp pal and her SmartPhone battery gives up, she could use her computer to keep talking to her pal but in reality she can't because the damn web client doesn't work if your phone is dead.

Its even worse, imagine that office full of metal that behaves like a Faraday cage, or that office in a bad location sitting on the shadow of 3G coverage. Imagine all the reasons why your phone may lose connection to the internet. In all those cases, you will not be able to use the web client. Have a dead phone and you're travelling on a train with WIFI and want to use the web client, you can't! Are you sitting on a pub with free WIFI wi

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[BarbaraHudson]

Link to requirement for WhatsApp Web needing your phone to be on the internet for WhatsApp web to work. I was incredulous when I read the above post, but it's true. How moronic.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[johanw]

"Mistake two - it requires the current WhatsApp client for Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone"

Or Symbian, that one also works. But this is necessary - ubnless some other messengers, WhatsApp does not store yoyr messages on their servers for the NSA, FBI or DEA to grab. They are only stored on your phone, and when both participants use Android they are also e2e encrypted. You NEED your phone to acces those messages because that's the only place where they are, and I prefer it that way too.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that WhatsApp would be more lenient and generous considering that it has been bought by Facebook and there is a healthy stream of revenue from paid subscriptions.

I think they let their success go to their heads.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[Anonymous Coward]

A server could choose to send messages to all connected endpoints for a user. So this ridiculous isn't as necessary as you try to make it sound. BTW end 2 end encryption is a joke, is there a way to exchange/manage/verify keys of the other party?

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[thegarbz]

Does every product which doesn't have the features you personally want or doesn't run on the platform you personally want qualify as a Tech Demo?

Shit is Windows a Tech Demo because it doesn't run on PowerPC?

I understand what you're saying. The WhatsApp online client is a big WTF moment, but it is their client, their software and their service which they are under no obligation to provide.

You using a different service now? Well more power to you. Though you have convinced me, I was planning on looking into what'sapp but I think I'll give it a miss.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[Anonymous Coward]

ubnless some other messengers, WhatsApp does not store yoyr messages on their servers for the NSA, FBI or DEA to grab. They are only stored on your phone, and when both participants use Android they are also e2e encrypted. You NEED your phone to acces those messages because that's the only place where they are, and I prefer it that way too.

Bullshit. You are deeply infested with WhatsBook's marketing FUD. Of course they store your messages on the server while your phone has not yet collected it (or all of them for the group chats). And their E2E-encryption is just good as none because it's design is not disclosed.

What they did was to set an arbitrary client on top of the XMPP protocol and shove their ways down their users' throat. And then there's people like you who even try to sell it as a benefit.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[johanw]

I would have liked a more open protocol, on the other hand I can understand why they would like an own protocol which they can extend when needed without the need to wait for some commitee. I agree it woukd be better if they opened it up anyway. And of course they store the messages temporary - but still e2e encrypted if both users use Android. Since Moxie from Textsecure worked with them I do have some trust in the encryption. Of course, one could always try to decompile the Android apk to check - that's how the WhatsAppPlus maker got his "source code" as well.

Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you actually use the thing, the requirements make perfect sense. Apart from the chrome bit, that's just lazy but will probably change.

There is no whatsapp-in-the-cloud. This is actually sucking the data off your phone.

Whatsapp deliver the message to your phone. Whatsapp is inextricably linked to your phone, they require SMS verification and it can only run on one phone at a time. The messages sit locally on the phone. Lose that and the messages are lost.

This web interface allows you to search/scroll back through your messages by talking directly to you phone (well, through some whatsapp server) and sucking the data off their.

Whatsapp could change their whole model and store the messages in the 'cloud', which would make moving between phones far easy for the user, but they would have to start storing a lot more data.

Solution to the "Temporarily banned" problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://blog.superdevsteam.in/2015/01/un-block-your-whatsapp-account.html?m=1

Here is the step by step guide on how to remove ban from your Whatsapp account and it worked for me and most of my friends .

WhatsApp+ seems to be a skin for WhatsApp

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is not a totally unrelated product trying to use the popularity of WhatsApp. It is a skin on top of WhatsApp. I am not able to check how this works. It seems to be running the real WhatsApp in the background and work as a Man-in-the-middle between user input and WhatsApp app.

Technically it would be very difficult to stop an executable to run another executable in a sand box. Depending on how well you have understood the executable, you could do many things like step through debugging, poking and pushing memory etc. Debuggers work by "instrumenting" the executables, but they too act as man in the middle.

In this case Android executables are java which started out as an interpreted platform independent language. So it is a lot more "debuggable" than your typical linux or windows executable. So WhatsApp+ could theoretically sniff the memory locations and intercept communications, eavesdrop on the data and sell them to advertizers. One of the biggest thing about WhatsApp is, it does not eavesdrop, it does not sell ads. User are dumb to use this app.

WhatsApp itself should come out with a free version that would sniff the communications and sell ads and call it WhatsApp Minus. Or WhatsApp Minus Privacy.

Re:WhatsApp+ seems to be a skin for WhatsApp

[hjf]

and i think this is the whole point of it. These companies (Facebook, Apple, WhatsApp, Google, etc), all want you to use their dumbed down, one-size-fits-all product. There are no options to customize anything. Everything else is not available to the user, or is hidden. Firefox is also jumping in on this idea that people don't want any buttons, and that you should just remove everything from the UI. Now you can't even turn off JS from the GUI without a plugin (sorry, an add-on).

So, facebook comes in boring blue. All images are the same size. all text is the same color. You get out of your 9-to-5 work at a cubicle and go into your facebook cubicle.

But the thing is: a lot of people want to customize things. Guys just loooove slick blue-on-black. Girls love iOS omg white with cute handwritten font. But no. These companies don't let you take that decision. It's not up to you. Do people suck at "theming" their computers? GOD YES, "menu bar" background images are just horrible. but some people like it. Even if it's horrible, it looks good to them, and guess what? Just let it be. Let the user be able to skin their stuff. Why go all soviet on them?

So people find ways to do this with "alternative" apps that do more harm than good (like those facebook "plugins" that let you add emoticons and shit - guess what! Facebook had to incorporate that. )

And yes. I remember MySpace. I remember what a pain it was. how truly AWFUL those profiles looked like. Completely unreadable, just garbage. But that's how the owner of the profile liked it. So, let it be. What's next? Municipalities telling people what color they should paint their house? (oh yes, that already exists in some "communities" in the US)

Worst question ever

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is this a more aggressive rerun of "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer"?

That's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it.

Mh

[fisted]

I use whatsapp, but I don't have a smartphone. If the original client requires one, meh.

Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work

[tepples]

Mistake one - it only works on a single browser

...simply open https://web.whatsapp.com/ in your Google Chrome browser...

WTF!?!?!? There is Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer. All those with large user bases. I am not even counting the small browsers. And they chose to release only for Google Chrome? What year is this, 1995?

I opened it in Chromium on Xubuntu 14.04, and it still doesn't fucking work. I reserve my swearing for the most egregious cases of malice or incompetence, and this is one of them. I come in with a browser that's recompiled Chrome and they turn me away because I don't have Chrome.

Now as for your other points, some of them appear weak. I want to help make your argument against WhatsApp stronger and even more F-bomb worthy.

If you just have a dumb phone or another platform, you can't use the web client.

<sarcasm>
Of course you can. All you have to do is buy WhatsApp Enabler for $45.
</sarcasm>

Its even worse, imagine that office full of metal that behaves like a Faraday cage, or that office in a bad location sitting on the shadow of 3G coverage.

Then put your office's WPA key into your phone.

Have a dead phone and you're travelling on a train with WIFI and want to use the web client, you can't!

What device would you be carrying with which you expect to use a web application over Wi-Fi? Or do "normal" people still carry laptops?

Re:Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work

[Anonymous Coward]

What device would you be carrying with which you expect to use a web application over Wi-Fi? Or do "normal" people still carry laptops?

I do see a good number of laptops still when I travel. Tablets/phones are probably more common but I suspect most of those tablets don't have data plans (mine is wi-fi only).

Re:Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work

[Jesus_666]

What device would you be carrying with which you expect to use a web application over Wi-Fi? Or do "normal" people still carry laptops?

I'd ask "Do 'normal' people still carry tablets?" as the tablet-on-the-go fad seems to have cooled off quite a bit. I see a lot of people with smartphones and a sizable number of people with laptops but pretty much nobody with a tablet. Tablets are commonly found in homes but they definitely don't seem to be popular for mobile computing.

This might be because tablets suck for the two things I commonly see people do with their laptops on the train: Watching movies (big stationary screen, easy to view with more than one person) and working (big screen, physical keyboard and sometimes software that has no smartphone equivalent).

Re:Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work

[johanw]

Most Android phones can easily create a wifi hotspot so you only need one device with a data plan.

All about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatsapp ain't gonna let some new upstart siphon away that revenue from $0.99/year subscriptions.

We need an omni chat app supporting all these chat apps (e.g. Whatsapp, LINE, Wechat, Viber). Think along the lines of Trillian. They can keep their proprietary protocols, but using their client is optional.

Technical implementation should be easy, fighting off the lawyers will be a challenge.

no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think ill stay away from NSA messenger

A blow to those with visual impariment.

[n1hilist]

WhatsApp+ was a great solution for me and others with eye problems. Sure it's not a legitimate build and all that but sadly it was the only way I could use WhatsApp. WhatsApp Plus allowed me to customise the UI in such a way that I could easily see it, ie: white fonts on a black background, large text etc

The official app is very limited for changing the layout. It does let you choose a dark background, but you're still left with black text with white bubbles (backgrounds around text) - which does help but it's not enough for me and others to make it easy on the eyes.

I tried emailing their support twice, no replies.

Sure I could use other apps for messaging but since most people use WhatsApp in my environment, getting all your friends, colleges to switch to something else - not exactly going to happen.

It's not just WhatsApp that are unwilling to enable UI customisation, pretty much ALL the apps on Android (and other platforms) offer next to no UI tweaks.

You can invert the entire device's display but that means *everything* is inverted, which sucks for viewing photos.

It really angers me that, in 2015, we're living in a software ecosystem where bright white backgrounds are the norm and there's no easy way to change.

they will be aware now

[raymorris]

>. Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated.

They'll be aware now! Which is the point, according to Whatsapp.

Re: they will be aware now

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all got banned ;) there are ways to continue using improved functionality without the ridiculous ban.

The story behind whatsapp plus

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of comments here are clearly written by people who never have used Whatsapp or whatsapp plus. That's understandable since most users here are from USA, where whatsapp usage is practically zero.

I've been a user for the past 5 years, I use it daily to communicate with friends, family, coworkers... everyone really. Even my 82-years-old grandmother uses it.

So, as someone who lives in a country with 100% whatsapp penetration rate, and has been following the story behind whatsapp plus for a long time, let me shed some light on what whatsapp really is, and let me tell the story of whatsapp ugly cousin to you.

Whatsapp grew popular about 5-6 years ago because it replaced SMS, that cost about 0.15-0.30 euros apiece. Unlike other IM clients where you need(ed) to create an account, with associated username/password, with whatsapp it was simply install -> all your phone contacts appear on your whatsapp contact list -> message right away, no other hassles required.

It never grew popular in the US because most people have voice plans that include text messages, so a replacement was never necessary. And in the US, the sexting use case was later filled by Snapchat.

But in countries where SMS were expensive, whatsapp is now the de facto communication tool - why waste money calling or sending SMS if you can use whatsapp.

Now let me introduce two features of whatsapp which will become important later on in this story.

First, the "last seen". Whatsapp shows the last time you were online and connected to the whatsapp servers. This information is broadcast to anybody who has your phone number. This is because, unlike traditional IMs, there is no separate contact list; if I have your phone number on my phone contact list, you are a whatsapp contact to me, whether you like it or not. So I can check if you are online, and when you were last online.
In 2012 this feature couldn't be disabled. And it caused a lot of drama (“what were you doing yesterday at 3am, i’m leaving you, etc”)

Second, the "two ticks". If you send a message to someone, two ticks will appear in the message. One ticks means that the message has been delivered to the whatsapp servers, two means that is delivered from the servers to the recipient's device.
Note that "delivered" does not mean "read". However most users are uninformed and assumed that two ticks = read. This also caused lots of drama (“why didn’t you reply to my message? I know you read it”), broken relationships and marriages, whatsapp logs as exhibits in custody cases, and other issues that I will not describe here.

In 2014 Whatsapp introduced a new feature that when both ticks turn from grey to blue it now means "read" (this change made to the headlines of all the nation's newspapers). However, as of 2012 whatsapp only had the two grey ticks, that couldn't be disabled.

So by 2012, one android modder named Rafalense had reskinned whatsapp in order to change the icons from green to blue, and was distributing the APK of this reskin via the usual channels (free direct download, torrent, etc). He released this mod and named it Whatsapp plus or Whatsapp+ for short.

The mod started as a purely visual reskin with themes, and had a modest acceptance. What made it hugely popular was two additions to subsequent versions of the mod: 1- the ability to hide one's "last seen" time and 2 - the ability to stop broadcasting the 2nd tick from one's device.

Note that in order to use whatsapp plus, you have to connect to whatsapp servers, so you must continue to pay the $1USD annual fee to whatsapp; in no way whatsapp plus meant "free whatsapp" as some users claimed.

Fast forward to 2013, whatsapp plus is being downloaded millions of times, is consistently the #1 downloaded android app in TPB and similar sites. Rafalense is becoming a celebrity in some circles. However, he always provided the app for free, but sites are constantly cropping up where the app is being sold without the approval o

Re:The story behind whatsapp plus

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the history piece. i was shocked when you said plus deleted people's camera roll album.
i searched google for this and nothing came up, do you have a reputable source?

Re:The story behind whatsapp plus

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for the history piece. i was shocked when you said plus deleted people's camera roll album.
i searched google for this and nothing came up, do you have a reputable source?

Nothing shows up on google because every Whatsapp plus forum in english was hit with a C&D letter. In any case, the cracked versions of whatsapp plus are not very popular with english speakers.
And bear in mind that we are talking about a cracked version of an app of dubious legality, so all the sources are disreputable by their very nature. (and in spanish or portuguese)

Here is the announce of the release of one of the multiple cracked versions of whatsapp plus:

http://www.appsmod.net/2014/11/whatsapp-643-cracked.html

Go to the comments section, there are posts about deleted images, and the creator of the crack himself reports that even him got the entire whatsapp folder deleted. (which includes all images)

Multipage thread in another forum about deleted photos: http://m.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?t=4018905. Some people talk about contacting the police...

Another multipage thread in a shady android developer forum: http://www.darksideteam.com/Tema-NOTICIA-Whatsapp-y-su-pol%C3%A9mica-actualizaci%C3%B3n-%C2%BFlegal-o-ilegal

Report in one android news page: http://andro4all.com/2014/11/fotos-y-videos-borrados-whatsapp-crakeado

Another report http://whatsapp-plus.foroactivo.com/t1103-rafalense-bloquea-el-uso-de-whatsapp-crackeados-o-modificados

Another report "solution to whatsapp deleted photos" https://getmovil.com/aplicaciones/whatsapp-plus-perdida-imagenes/

Another report http://www.taringa.net/post/noticias/18300881/WhatsApp-Plus-contra-las-cuerdas.html

Finally, This is the 'official' forum where Rafalense posted his updates, there are dozens of posts about deleted photos.
http://www.htcmania.com/showthread.php?t=922779.
If you go to message 1110 on that thread: http://www.htcmania.com/showpost.php?p=16235061&postcount=1110 here rafalense confirms that the deletion of images is intentional.

Note that Rafalense is banned in that forum. That's because, after that post, a poll was held on the forum and the users decided to ban him and delete all his messages. The messages were later reinstated. However as of today all reports of deleted photos on english forums are deleted.

Re:The story behind whatsapp plus

[johanw]

OK, this puts the whole story in a different light. So someone makes a Whatsapp rip with more features, asks money for it and then adds malware to it to battle piracy. And now he whines because Whatsapp responds to this by banning his client from their servers. After the malware stunt, Whatsapp could do little else I think. Rafalense blew it himself.

Re:The story behind whatsapp plus

[allo]

Okay, the new part was the "we destroy your data" DRM was new to me. A good thing WhatsApp is doing something against, as it seriously can damage their reputation. BUT they should not tell the user "YOU are violating our TOS" (even when its a correct fact), but tell them "your inofficial client does harmful things, better use the original one". And at least one user should sue WA+ for this.

For the "seen is not updated" issue you need to blame WA. A server should never trust user input. If the last seen should be updated when the last seen of another user is retrieved, then you need to update it when the other timestamp is retrieved. For the blue checkmarks ... you cannot prove somebody read it, you may only prove the window was open. So do it like threema: let the user send a "i have read it" message. Of course your client can send it by default, but you cannot rely on all clients to send it, so do not tell the users its reliable. its a feature, not a basic function.

Lucky me

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who used Whatsapp plus wouldn't reverse if the ban not implemented.

Rather than ban, they should emulate Whatsapp âz. Lucky for me, I'm not banned so far. I'm rooted.

whatsapp attention seeking whore

[Anonymous Coward]

If whatsapp would have offered their users the privacy and features they got from whatsapp plus in the first place then people would not have gone for whatsapp plus...

Not at all the same

[dgoemans]

The major difference is that Microsoft don't own the internet, WhatsApp do own their own XMPP service. Taking that even further, they pay to keep their XMPP servers running, WhatsApp Plus don't. Allowing third party access to such servers not only puts users at risk, but can also have an impact on normal WhatsApp users because of how WhatsApp Plus works and accesses their servers.

Re:Not at all the same

[gerddie]

Taking that even further, they pay to keep their XMPP servers running, WhatsApp Plus don't....

Actually, this is not quite correct: To connect to the WhatsApp servers one has supposedly pay for a subscription after the first year, and this subscription is bound to the account and not the client software; the official WhatsApp client is free on Android.

Upgrade then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres time when I dont want to talk to some people on my whatsapp. It was such a releaf to do to able to do this. Whatsapp just needs to upgrade and include this features.

The only real alternative is real XMPP

[allo]

You see the problem here? Centralization. Microsoft could never Ban a OutlookPlus user from E-Mail ... because the server is not theirs.

Okay, lets use another app. Maybe threema? Secure (maybe), encrypted, not hosted in the US of A. Sounds great, fuck you NSA.
Wait ... where do i configure the server? Nowhere, it uses its own. Maybe it will block other thirdparty clients? Maybe they will introduce a fee? Maybe they get insolvent and out of business? Who knows ...

Decentralization matters ... what else? Proven protocols and proven crypto. So XMPP and OTR ist the (only?) answer.

Have a look at Conversations.

Carriers interfere

[tepples]

Most Android phones can easily create a wifi hotspot

I tried that on my cousin's Samsung Galaxy S-something but the phone instead displayed an error message to contact AT&T about upgrading the family plan.

Meanwhile, Telegram encourages third party clients

[ZorinLynx]

....and it's a much better service overall, being available on many platforms, syncing conversations and best of all not owned by Facebook.

Disgruntled

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is the relationship or lack of such between the two apps. According to whatsapp, they have no dealings with WhatsApp âz so why are they concerned about security issues? Furthermore, when I purchased my phone I didn't know I had signed any agreement with WhatsApp to protect me. This is my phone. I should have the right to chose whatever app I want without being banned. That's unlawful and very disrespectful!!!

joking service

[Anonymous Coward]

this is not a joke which is done with users by whatsapp he bann me for 24 hours and again bannn me for 72 hrs+10hrs what the helll whatsapp deveoper doing this for bann the service

honestly I could care less about Themes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really dont give a crap about the themes. I loved whatsapp plus cuz it gave me the ability to talk to ppl invisible. So ppl that I dont want to talk don't bother me.

the gpl

[Anonymous Coward]

These people say that plus is logging convos and doing x amount of things but if you read the source code you can see that the only mods that plus does is the extra things it does. There is no modifications to the framework of communication of any sort. Im an ex android developer I read the source code

whatsapp

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really wanted the people to start using their application they should upgrade whatsapp to make it better than whatsapp plus