Slashdot Mirror


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"?

35 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:No by timmyf2371 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    3. Re:No by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:No by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:No by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

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

  2. was a warning too much to ask? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    1. Re:was a warning too much to ask? by meerling · · Score: 2

      Valid point.

  3. Really? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:Really? by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

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

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. Better Link by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Better Link by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    2. Re:Better Link by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Better Link by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Better Link by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Better Link by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:Better Link by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:Better Link by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Better Link by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't this just XMPP with a cosmetic gui?

  5. I hate it ... by p4ul13 · · Score: 2

    ... when my security is "comprised"

    --
    Paul Lenhart writes words!
  6. Fault of the walled garden by Lirodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fault of the walled garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    2. Re: Fault of the walled garden by dnaumov · · Score: 2

      Yeah, good luck with that in the real world.

    3. Re:Fault of the walled garden by ihtoit · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Fault of the walled garden by Lirodon · · Score: 2

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

    5. Re:Fault of the walled garden by tolydude · · Score: 2

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

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

    6. Re:Fault of the walled garden by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Telegram by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:Telegram by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      ...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.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  8. Whatsapp is proprietary: App, Protocol and Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    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.

  9. WhatsApp doesn't understand the web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:WhatsApp doesn't understand the web by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  10. The story behind whatsapp plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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