Slashdot Mirror
WhatsApp To End Support For BlackBerry, Nokia, and Other Older Operating Systems (whatsapp.com)
nerdyalien writes: While everybody is immersed in the Apple vs. FBI case, WhatsApp has posted a blog entry that could potentially alter the mobile landscape as we know it today. By the end of 2016, WhatsApp will no longer support many older mobile operating systems from BlackBerry, Nokia, Android and Windows Phone. Moving forward, WhatsApp will only support the latest and greatest iPhone, Android and Windows Phone platforms. With over 1 billion active users, and the backing of Facebook, is WhatsApp finally reducing the mobile landscape to a three-horse race ?
With over 1 billion active users, and the backing of Facebook, is WhatsApp finally reducing the mobile landscape to a three-horse race ?
Seriously Windows phone is less than 3%. The only thing keeping it in the vicinity of relevant is the money that Microsoft spends marketing it.
The modern app appers at AppApp know that ONLY apps can app apps, so they're simply not supporting LUDDITE operating systems like BlackBerry!
Apps!
Is the submitter claiming that WhatsApp retroactively killed Blackberry's market share with its decision to end support for the Blackberry platform now?
#DeleteChrome
So they've removed their own horse from the race.
Another "messaging" app that somehow messages differently than regular text messages? Somehow, I doubt that their target market of dim-witted 10 year old kids is going to decide which phone OS's continue into the future.
I don't respond to AC's.
No, you're wrong. Whatsapp may be relatively small in the US, where most people pay so much for their mobile connection that the providers could afford to deliver free sms with the subscription. In most other countries the providers have treated sms (and certainly mms) as a cash cow, and are now repaid with the popularity of internet message services that remove the need for sms. WhatsApp is the largest of those services, and the most widely used one too. Others like Wechat or Line are mostly used in China resp. Japan. I use sms onbly as a last fallback, when I need to message someone with no mobile internet or an old prone.
Not quite.
It's the de-facto replacement for stupendously limiting and expensive text and picture messages, which outside of contracts can run into thousands per Mb of actual data.
All with an app that cost 69p per year, free for the first year, and has just recently been made free forever.
It's like loading up MSN Messenger on your phone so you don't have to send a text. It just so happens to have made a brand name for itself in the process.
If telcos didn't charge ridiculous amounts for picture messages - especially from abroad - their business model would be dead overnight. It basically uses your data connection to do what the telcos should have been doing all along, but would rather sting you.
WhatsApp doesn't need to do anything. Reality has already reduced mobile to a two-horse race.
Do you have ESP?
WhatsApp's claim to fame originally was its ability to run on virtually anything, including the J2ME phones popular in the US and Europe in the mid-2000s. Those phones at least were still prevalent in many African and middle-eastern countries just a couple of years ago.
Have these markets also developed such that they are basically Android or iOS now?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
No, you're wrong. Whatsapp may be relatively small in the US, where most people pay so much for their mobile connection that the providers could afford to deliver free sms with the subscription.
"Could afford"? SMS is 1 packet
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Early days of the internet: all standards fully and publicly documented, easily supported on any make and type of device that could be connected to the net, not controlled by any single entity, could be implemented by anyone who has a compiler, choice of many possible programs to use.
Modern internet: no standards, private company able to control which devices are allowed to use "their" messaging scheme used by billions of people and which devices should be excluded, also able to decide what content is acceptable, not implementable by anyone who has a compiler, only a single company-proprietary app can be used making ecosystem more vulnerable.
That's sure an improvement.
They didn't say that, they are actually supporting older versions, just not REALLY old versions
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Messaging is about being notified when you receive a message, and auto-login on boot.
Both of these essential features are not available (or greatly diminished) within a browser.
... that is so complex that a simple messaging app can't support older versions of an OS? All it does is send text and picture data which AFAIK was supported by phones 10 years ago before smart phones even came on the market. So WTF excuse can they come up with that sounds genuine?
"they don't offer the kind of capabilities we need to expand our app's features in the future."
Oh riiiight. So they can't be bothered to continue current support even though it means NO EFFORT on their part. They just want everyone to see the New Shiny when it comes out. Idiots.
I'm not sure why you're trying to make the first point. I'm sure somehow whatsapp will get along with it's billions of users and somehow manage the few users here and there that don't use it.
The last two points ignore network effects. All these chat programs pretty much just talk to themselves. If all your friends have whatsapp, and your phone can't talk to whatsapp, you're not talking to them. You can get all your friends to switch to a new talk program (good luck with that) or you can switch phones.
As far as the last point, you're asking a developer to put money into developing for a shrinking userbase, or they can put money into developing for a growing platform. Which would you pick?
With over 1 billion active users, and the backing of Facebook, is WhatsApp finally reducing the mobile landscape to a three-horse race ?
This summary is entirely backwards. The mobile market is already a 2 horse race (with Windows phone only still on the track because of the insane money Microsoft has poured into it). WhatsApp is only responding to that fact, not driving it. There is no point in them supporting outdated products with < 1% of the market and no future. WhatsApp support (or lack thereof now) will have absolutely zero impact on the market.
They want to remove support because they can't or won't port their new Axolotl encryption library to thiose OSes. And they want to remove the option to send unencrypted messages completely to give the FBI, NSA, BND and similar organisations the finger.
Yeah, I went to their homepage to see what the app is and this is their first paragraph,
WhatsApp Messenger is a cross-platform mobile messaging app which allows you to exchange messages without having to pay for SMS. WhatsApp Messenger is available for iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, Windows Phone and Nokia and yes, those phones can all message each other! Because WhatsApp Messenger uses the same internet data plan that you use for email and web browsing, there is no cost to message and stay in touch with your friends.
Maybe this is still relevant internationally but here in the US we are no longer charged for SMS and are actually charged for our data. This app makes no sense to use for anyone I know. I guess that makes their decision to drop older OS support even more asinine because the people on those older phones are the ones most likely to still being charged per SMS maybe?
I certainly don't care.
Well, on Symbian S60 there is not much else. The old Skype version on that OS is killed off by MS, iber will on;y run on some of tha last Symbian S3 models and now WhatsApp is killed off. SMS and MMS is in most of the world not a real fallback due to costs, chatting through sms will cost quickly more than a cheap Android phone.
Now I understand why Facebook has a separate app for messaging... we only recently got around to getting smart phones but I recall thinking about how smartphones had eliminated charging for SMS since it was trivial to use the internet and whatever people use these days instead of AIM/ICQ/etc. I didn't realize that the majority of the world still paid for SMS; I always assume our networks and services are inferior here in the US to Europe, but I guess not in this case.
I think They should make a real statement and drop windows mobile 10 support as well. It has a market share comparable to Symbian.
Am I right?
No, you are wrong.
It is just a messaging app. No idea what can be "over hyped" in that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For the price Americans pay for internet I could send all my messages via sms/mms as well. However, for the approx $20 I pay now for unlimited internet and 100 call minutes I can not.
I think you're confusing what it's actually worth and what the telecommunications cartel could manage to charge for it.
You can get all your friends to switch to a new talk program (good luck with that) or you can switch phones. ... have only one contact there, so I don't really use it and don't remember the name ... forgot the name as I have only one contact there
Not that difficult.
Most use several chat programs simultaneously.
WhatsApp
Viber
iMessanger
Facebook Messanger
Threema (the one you should all prefer)
Hangout
Kik - or is it Kiq
Another Android one, like Hangout
I for my part have no problem installing a new chat client (10MB?) for a single person. They are all grouped on my iPhone in a group and a number pops up regardless which chat client got the message(s).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, it does make sense in that sms is completely unencrypted and subject to mass surveillance. WhatsApp is implementing the Axolotl end to end encryption protocol on all systems, and dropping those where it can't be implemented properly so the unencrypted fallback option can be removed. About costs: I know a lot oof people with a smartphone without a data plan (quite common outside the US) who use iton Wifi only.
It's over hyped in that I keep seeing articles about it, but know nobody that uses it or needs it.
It's difficult for us in the US to give a crap about something that is completely useless to us. Sorry about that.
WhatsApp is forcing older OS owners to move to Telegram.
Summation 2
I haven't loaded the Facebook app on my phone, and do not want the app for this either. Because it is Facebook-owned. And the privacy issues have already been reported a couple of years back (see e.g. the Wikipedia article).
In fact, I have the data on my phone turned off most of the time. No need for $HANDSET_COMPANY to spy on me and drain my batteries.
Also, no need for constant interruptions.
I just tell my friends that want me to also use it No. They can send me whatever via good old e-mail, etc. Will get it at the same time, whether e-mail or Whatsapp - at the moment I activate the data. Or of course phone me or SMS me. Yes, the fact that it costs a trivial amount of money is a desirable feature in my mind. I get enough drivel as it is.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Sort of, if you live in some third-world banana republic where MMS is outrageously expensive, but for the rest of the civilized world can I get a resounding "Who gives a shit?".
No one in the real world uses this crap. Can you imagine if you told your boss you were going to send him a "WhatsApp" after the meeting? Or tell your girlfriend you're going to "WhatsApp" her where to meet for dinner. Maybe you can "Sextapp" her too while she's at work.
No, in the real world we use SMS and MMS, email, and at least at my place of business, iMessage. Occasionally we'll use Skype for an overseas call or a quick video call. But seriously? A facebook-owned kiddie message toy is dropping support for some devices that the kiddies aren't using anyway? Yawn, as with anything facebook or twitter related, who cares?
I just checked Crackberry.com The android version still works on BB10. In case you just can't give it up delete the BB10 version and load the Android one.
http://forums.crackberry.com/b...
in Brazil, by mobile phone operators: up to the app was blocked by a day, on Dec/2015 (but backing up almost immediately, after popular rage)
While as a Blackberry fan I'm always sorry to see a company cease BB support, this won't matter too much. The Amazon app store carries WhatsApp, and BB10 devices can install Android apps through the Amazon store as easily as native apps.
Even if you regard that third horse as barely in the race (which it is, it's already more of a two-horse race as you point out):
Regarding the question, "is WhatsApp finally reducing the mobile landscape to a three-horse race ?" - No, they aren't. Because that would require it to be more than a three-horse race currently. It isn't. It's barely even more than a two-horse race.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Someone stop them! (?)
That's what WhatsApp is implementing too. Even better, Blackberry has explicitly stated they prefer to be able to give shady law enforcement departments access to your messages while WhatsApp CAN'T do that with encrypted messages. And, WhatsApp uses not the pgp model with the same encryption key for all messages but perfect forward secrecy with a new key for each mssage. So even with a confiscated phone someone will not be able to decrype messages that are already deleted on the pnone but intercepted in transit.
iOS is next? I don't think so...
WhatsApp is prety popular here, in Brasil, where various mobile phone operators offer "free WhatsApp plans"...
because off the "free whatsapp plans" offered here in Brazil, the "call" feature was overtaking the "normal" call, which made mobile phone operators to sue WhatsApp (for something they started...) * the sue made a judge block WhatsApp only for a day (because of popular rage, that made it back...)
something like it is happening here (in Brasil), where mophile phone operator offers "free WhatsApp" plans commonly
Never heard of it before...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have been thinking that if Facebook dropped their support for Android, that could be the most effective way to kill the platform. It sounds like they just might agree!
If it's not obvious, the reason I think Android should be "killed" is because I observe that people really set themselves back by (trying to) use it. It doesn't seem to work as advertised and the security problems are going to come home to roost at some point.
By reducing the amount of Android phones in active use, Facebook could strengthen the economy by encouraging other developers to spend their time making great iOS (and watchOS and tvOS) apps instead of trying to make decent Android apps.
And still, operators charge you as if those packets were made of solid gold. Some plans here in Italy charge 15 (euro)cents for a text. Assuming 140 bytes, that makes over 1000 EUR (or more than 1100 USD) per Megabyte.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Not that I'm an Android developer, nor do I have any experience with WP, but I had the impression that Android apps can only run in the background as a service, and any app that wants to do so uninterruptedly will need to announce itself in the notification bar. So, they can run in the background forever, but not without you noticing. I don't see why this aspect makes Android less secure than WP.
And I have no idea what you mean by implying that Android apps can "cross over to mess with other apps". Android apps can't see each other's data.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
for grandparent: it (WhatsApp) can make voice calls...
â15 a month for 1Gb internet (enough for me - I have WiFi at home), and 300 texts (or 300 minutes, but I text more). I use hangouts to talk to just about everyone else. I haven't had a need for WhatsApp.
This app makes no sense to use for anyone I know.
For one thing, you can send photos (downsized to For another thing, you get lots of emojis (Unicode smileys and other pictograms) that will look the same between the sender and the recipient (unlike how native Android would render an emoji sent from an iphone).
Before you accuse me of being a 16-year old with ADD: I'm in my fourties. Even my mother-in-law uses these features.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
If you think it's virtually unused and unheard of in the US, you're living in an isolated bubble.
It's hard for anyone in the US to give a crap about anything. That's how you end up with Trump and Hillary as the front runners for President. So, I'd not exactly take it as a good thing that Americans are apathetic idiots.
You do realize you're defining the needs of the 1 by how 99 other people (people they don't know and will likely never meet) are choosing to satisfy different needs until different circumstances?
"The" market isn't just how 99 people satisfy their needs, it's how all 100 people satisfy their needs. In a good market, all 100 people achieve satisfaction.
"The" market as viewed through the corporate lens of WhatsApp is a different thing, of course.
In some aspects of my life, I'm part of the 99, in other aspects (because of a long standing sleep disorder), I'm definitely part of the 1 (and sometimes part of the 0.01).
Probably thirty percent of the 99-hugger sheep find themselves becoming the 1 some of the time. If they're not very smart, the presume that all the unmitigated extra difficulties caused by 99-hugging is the machinations of a perverse universe; if they're more insightful, they realize that they're own 99-hugging has an ugly cadmium lining.
They might even go so far as I did, and push the entire lot of 99-huggers over a cliff, so far as my voluntary personal associations are concerned.
Be conservative in what you send, generous in what you receive, and—ideally—exclude no one. This can almost always be achieved with less feature bling (which for me is a usually a good thing anyway, because I only end up trying to ignore or defeat the new shiny in any case).
WhatsApp just made themselves less relevant to the 1, and all of us who care about the 1, and the moral principles behind this.
Fair enough. It's their dog. But at least we can count the costs against the correct denominator.
I find it hard to believe the US has no use for a cross-platform instant messaging app. It's a lot more versatile than SMS, in that you can send pictures and videos etc. You can also make voice calls (so it's essentially like iMessage + FaceTime, but not restricted to iOS only).
I'm in the US and I find it useful. Not all my friends have the same type of phone, after all.
The rest of the world may still usually pay for SMS, but their monthly plan fees are usually also far lower. So you can argue the US is ahead because you don't have to pay for SMS, but then, you're also paying 3x as much per month just to have the plan in the first place.
I'm in Australia and I do have to pay a hefty amount per-SMS (which is why no-one sends SMS anymore - they use iMessage, Viber, WhatsApp, etc.). But then, I'm only paying ~15 USD a month for calls and data...
phone networks long ago quit charging for SMS messages on most contracts.
This is only true on the more expensive plans. I am on a much cheaper plan and I get only 100-500 msgs per month without going to the next tier. In developing markets, getting the monthly fee to the lowest possible number and then overcharging for overages is the more profitable business model. In the US, you just pay extra by default for features you may not even be using.
SMS and voice calls OVER INTERNET, and you can use a keyboard (copying and pasting links, for example) to send TEXT in the web-based client. Need more reasons?
WhatsApp is not nearly a "well designed app" (taked ages for it to support web-based clients [up to now, it's restricted to some browsers...]): it stinks this way, it's popularity is AD-driven ^^
Maybe that's true for most people (I have no idea if it is), but it's definitely not true for everyone.
I just checked, and some of the plans at virginmobile still have limited texts or explicit charges for text at the lowest end. (Before I had a work supplied phone, I had a very very inexpensive virgin mobile phone as an emergency phone. You could get it down to $5/month with auto-pay.. It looks like they no longer have that.)
They stop supporting me (Blackberry 10) so I stop supporting them. Not to mention they're not truly secure, vulnerable to the USA's increasingly lunatic and overreaching legislative, executive and judicial branches and value ad revenue over a paid subscription. Besides, it's become increasingly apparent that any centrally-controlled system, (creating a unique account on yet-another-walled-garden command-and-control server), is becoming obsolete in favour of distributed systems like Ricochet.im. WhatsApp is just going to become the dafault IM app for Facebook, so for those of us outside that particular cult, time to find another alternative.
I have to pay for SMS - I declined. I barely send even 1 sms per month. Now, teenagers, they were texting a whole lot. No more - whatsapp has replaced texting completely in that age group. In other groups it has added a communications ability that is very useful.
Ever since I have whatsapp I use it for work, for family, for leisure, and for the neighbourhood stuff. And if I have to ask someone a quick question, it's through whatsapp rather than mail. The kids sportsteam uses whatsapp as well so we and other parents can coordinate things through it, like who's driving and who has my shirt. Even with 100 SMS a month I'd rapidly go through it.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
1 billion users beg to differ.
While that's not always a good sign, I recommend you give it a try. It's MUCH better than SMS.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
This is quite ironic, given that the Whatsapp acquisition was purportedly worth $22B for the very reason that it would run on the oldest J2ME featurephones used by Masai warriors and Tibetan monks at the corners of the earth.
Most people don't care about web-based clients. Only some computer proffessionals do.
Yeah, I went to their homepage to see what the app is and this is their first paragraph,
WhatsApp Messenger is a cross-platform mobile messaging app which allows you to exchange messages without having to pay for SMS. WhatsApp Messenger is available for iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, Windows Phone and Nokia and yes, those phones can all message each other! Because WhatsApp Messenger uses the same internet data plan that you use for email and web browsing, there is no cost to message and stay in touch with your friends.
Maybe this is still relevant internationally but here in the US we are no longer charged for SMS and are actually charged for our data. This app makes no sense to use for anyone I know. I guess that makes their decision to drop older OS support even more asinine because the people on those older phones are the ones most likely to still being charged per SMS maybe?
I certainly don't care.
There is one major thing. SMS does not have the capability to send pictures or video or audio, unless one starts doing MMS. That is supported by iMessages, but iMessages is not the standard for either Android or Windows Phone. That's where Whatsapp really comes handy. Whatsapp also allows the creation of groups - I have a host of relatives in different parts of the world in a group, and we regularly chat. I'm not aware of that capability in SMS.