Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WhatsApp Now Has a Desktop App, Available on Windows, OS X

Posted by msmash on from the desktop-chatters-camp dept.

WhatsApp is now also available as a native desktop app on Windows and OS X, the Facebook-owned instant messaging and voice calling company announced. The app supports desktop notifications, keyboard shortcuts and a range of other features. For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries, but it has a large user base of active users in the emerging markets such as India and Brazil. In fact, earlier this year, the company announced that it has hit one billion monthly active users. For those interested, you can download the app for your desktop (or any other device) from the company's website.

166 comments

  1. No thanks! by butzwonker · · Score: 5, Funny

    I prefer email on Linux, but I nevertheless appreciate the effort.

    1. Re:No thanks! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      lots of ways to 'message' someone.

      but I also fail to understand why. email works. its interoperable. its one port to leave open and secure, not a bazillion. the protocol is understood, it can be secured at least as well as any other (more than most), it does not require ANY special hardware or phone; ie, it can work on slow text terminals as well as fancy fast gfx based ones.

      all my messages are in the same folder. I can search. I dont' have to worry about which app this person sent me a notice on.

      and of course, the trendy apps come and go; but email is STILL with us.

      yeah, GOML. but still, other than 'instant' messages (email is pretty close to instant these days, though) - I'm not seeing any real reason to switch from email to (name of fad that is currently popular) comms.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E-mail leaves a paper trail. Fail.

    3. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And WhatsApp is both proprietary and spyware.

    4. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with a paper trail? I never say anything that I don't mean, and if I'm wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

      Going the other direction, paper trails have saved me many times. Eg,

      You told me t do that

      I did not

      Here it is in your email. Did you share your password, that is against company policy?

    5. Re:No thanks! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      You could hypothetically make an email app that looked and acted like an IM app. I'd personally give it a shot! But email isn't set up for things like read receipts (admit it: it's nice to know your wife actually saw, then read, your message) or status indicators ("Joe's offline right now", or even "Joe's typing a response"). It's not designed as a realtime protocol, even if message deliver tends to be very quick.

      Again, I'd totally try out an IM client that used SMTP transport, but I'm skeptical that it could act as nicely as a purpose-built IM client.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read receipts can be disabled in every IM client I have ever seen. I never have them enabled because _I_ will decide who and when someone gets to know I read their message.

    7. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      E-mail leaves a paper trail. Fail.

      And a proprietary messaging product run by Facebook to be datamined for advertising purposes doesn't? Prove it.

    8. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot prove a negative, dumbass.

    9. Re:No thanks! by allo · · Score: 1

      Why Read Receipt? ICQ didn't have one?
      Online Status? Do it like Whatsapp "last message from X" (a bit different, but fair enough). Allow to explicitly tell "send i-am-online to X".

    10. Re:No thanks! by allo · · Score: 1

      you're thinking about mail, not about an IM implemented with SMTP/IMAP.

    11. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non sequitur much?

      I'm talking about IM clients, following the flow of conversation from the post preceding mine. What exactly are you thinking about?

    12. Re:No thanks! by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      Good luck calling someone from you email like WhatsApp can.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    13. Re:No thanks! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Until your boss, with whom you are corresponding through IM while working from home, treats your "_I_ will decide who and when someone gets to know I read their message" attitude as "not being a team player".

    14. Re:No thanks! by tepples · · Score: 1

      You can analyze a behavior of a program that is free software.* But because WhatsApp is proprietary, there remains a possibility that it leaks your logs to a third party.

      * Please no arguments from the halting problem. Rice's theorem requires generality, and a practical decider is allowed to instead return "Too complex; please refactor".

    15. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing the boss or becoming your own boss seems like the right reply to that.

    16. Re:No thanks! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      Perhaps something that used relays. That way people could 'chat' a bit more live than e-mail. You could even run your own server locally or join any number of other Internet chat server relays.

      We could call it Live Chat Internet Relays (LCIR). If people wanted to they could even create a protocol so that different clients and servers could operate with each other. It could be a very simple protocol with shorthand like "PRIVMSG" so that you didn't waste a lot of band width on all of SMTP overhead.

      One day I look forward to a group of forward thinking people coming up with some sort of LCIR service. Until then I guess we are stuck with proprietary chat implementations.

    17. Re:No thanks! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but we were discussing email.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    18. Re: No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we were discussing instant messaging and a possible implementation using email protocols.

    19. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lots of ways to 'message' someone.

      but I also fail to understand why. email works. its interoperable. its one port to leave open and secure, not a bazillion. the protocol is understood, it can be secured at least as well as any other (more than most), it does not require ANY special hardware or phone; ie, it can work on slow text terminals as well as fancy fast gfx based ones.

      all my messages are in the same folder. I can search. I dont' have to worry about which app this person sent me a notice on.

      and of course, the trendy apps come and go; but email is STILL with us.

      yeah, GOML. but still, other than 'instant' messages (email is pretty close to instant these days, though) - I'm not seeing any real reason to switch from email to (name of fad that is currently popular) comms.

      How easy is it for you to establish an end-to-end encrypted communications medium over SMTP to anyone and everyone you would like to communicate with seamlessly when most email users can't even spell encryption, or even understand why they need it?

      Seems you've quickly forgotten the main reason WhatsApp has a billion users today. Wake up.

    20. Re:No thanks! by tepples · · Score: 2

      Context for moderators: WhatsApp is an instant messaging application. Someone doesn't like instant messaging because he doesn't like automatically notifying others when he has read others' messages. But some bosses prefer instant messaging with their telecommuting employees specifically because of this sort of notification and may use failure to notify as grounds for punitive measures. Anonymous Coward #52091613 replied:

      Changing the boss or becoming your own boss seems like the right reply to that.

      To change the boss, you have to first quit. It's harder to (legally) quit if you're a contractor than if you're an at-will employee, and telecommuters are somewhat more likely to be contractors. Besides, once you do quit, you aren't necessarily guaranteed to find other work in your specialty, and even if you do, your new boss may impose the same requirement of notification on read.

      And to become your own boss, you need enough experience in the industry that suppliers are willing to deal with you. For example, suppliers in some industries (such as video game development) are known to offer required tools only to professionals with verifiable experience. You also need enough management experience to run your business. In addition, the clients of your newly formed company may impose the same requirement of notification on read.

    21. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's my computer, it's my software, it's my internet connection, it's my home. I do decide and if that imaginary "boss" that you dreamt up doesn't like it, too bad. There is nothing he/she could do about it.

      FYI, I work solely as a contractor and have done so for the past twenty years when _I_ decided that I wouldn't be a wage slave ever again. Secondly, even if I were working for companies instead of alongside them, I would never accept a position at a company filled with douchebag philistine control-freaks like you described.

      "Team player", what a fucking joke.

    22. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Context for moderators: WhatsApp is an instant messaging application. Someone doesn't like instant messaging because he doesn't like automatically notifying others when he has read others' messages. But some bosses prefer instant messaging with their telecommuting employees specifically because of this sort of notification and may use failure to notify as grounds for punitive measures. Anonymous Coward #52091613 replied:

      My contract (the one that I personally drew up with my lawyer) makes that impossible. I work at deadlines, not constantly being hawked over.

      To change the boss, you have to first quit. It's harder to (legally) quit if you're a contractor than if you're an at-will employee, and telecommuters are somewhat more likely to be contractors.

      Again my contract states that either party may terminate the contract at any time and for any reason. If I don't like someone that I am contracting with, I simply tell them to fuck off.

      Besides, once you do quit, you aren't necessarily guaranteed to find other work in your specialty, and even if you do, your new boss may impose the same requirement of notification on read.

      Oh boo-fucking-hoo, I might have to actually lift a finger and screen potential clients before agreeing to do work with them. Colour me completely fucking unconcerned. I have a large pile of money in my bank account that is enough to last me 10 years of work-free, comfortable living.

      And to become your own boss, you need enough experience in the industry that suppliers are willing to deal with you.

      Uh, no. To be your own boss you just have to have a product (or be marketing scum) and an internet connection. Welcome to the 21st century, Rip Van Winkle.

    23. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have this thing called a "telephone". It allows people to talk to each other even if they are very far apart.

      Look it up, it'll knock your socks off.

    24. Re:No thanks! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You mean like XMPP with server-to-server federation? Or maybe someone could fix the mess that was Google/Apache Wave.

    25. Re:No thanks! by allo · · Score: 1

      People (including you) do not like to send MDN. But for a messanger based on SMTP/IMAP it's not like a MDN, but like a blue checkmark in Whatsapp. So you cannot compare the two features.

    26. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not talking about MDN, SMTP or IMAP. We're talking about instant messengers.

    27. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email and any other IM system require a different unique identifier for recipients, be it the email address or a unique username. WhatsApp uses the international phone number, which is already a unique identifier of a recipient - there's no need to add another one. Plus it's one that people who communicate with each other already need and have.
      This is why it worked and gained popularity when email and other IM apps such as Yahoo Messenger, AOL, MSN, Google Talk etc. were already crowding the market.

    28. Re:No thanks! by allo · · Score: 1

      that's the point.

      a IM client based on mail would want to have some MDN, but not in the way you're thinking about. More like a "last answer received" timestamp (which would not acknowledge the last message you sent, but all before).

    29. Re:No thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what I responded to:

      I'd personally give it a shot! But email isn't set up for things like read receipts (admit it: it's nice to know your wife actually saw, then read, your message)

      Which I responded to with this:

      Read receipts can be disabled in every IM client I have ever seen.

      So yeah, learn to read.

      Oh and MDN has nothing to do with email. My PC does not have an MDN.

  2. Apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps guy will love this news.

    1. Re:Apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he'll appreciate the trojan spyware.

  3. I don't get it by gmack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I was in Spain, everyone used WhatsAPP and I just found the whole thing poorly designed.

    As a cheap SMS replacement it's good, but it's really not much more than that. Notifications don't follow you on whatever device you are using and it really does not take phone number changes very well. All the people who had me in Spain? Now that I am back in Canada, If they try and WhatsAPP me, they will get no notification that I will never see the message.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost everyone i know in UK and friends in Europe use it. Most people have family and friends all around the world (e.g. Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong are common for the UK) so it is an easy way to keep in contact. It is also easy to add groups of friends too; I did a stag do recently to Spain and it was invaluable to be able to chat when we broke up into smaller groups and easily share photos/messages of various shenanigans. I know their is an elitist attitude on Slashdot to these things, but regular people are just happy with whatever works and is popular.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I play a text based strategy mmo called utopia. Most of the kingdoms use whatsapp to message amongst ourselves, including the ones that tend to have more Americans. We also use an IRC channel but only a subset of the kingdom members are willing to put up with using IRC on their phone, which is the primary place to play this game anymore.

    3. Re:I don't get it by ledow · · Score: 1

      Actually, they'll get one tick (successfully sent to server) but not the second tick (successfully read by recipient) on their message - and it will be a slightly different colour. They might not even get the first tick if WhatsApp know that number isn't a WhatsApp one.

    4. Re:I don't get it by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is simply a replacement for SMS/MMS.

      I never used it in France because I had unlimited texting/messaging with my 2EUR/month plan. Moved to the US, got the cheapest-yet-horribly-expensive plan and didn't have unlimited texting, so I started using whatsapp, and ... it works.

      I guess whatsapp is just popular in countries where data is cheaper than texting/messaging, but that's just because the carrier have stupid pricing. The day they stop this nonsense, maybe whatsapp will no longer be needed.

    5. Re:I don't get it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If they try and WhatsAPP me, they will get no notification that I will never see the message.

      There's those little check marks at the bottom right of each sent message. Double check mark means 'message received'. If they turn blue, it means they were read.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:I don't get it by gmack · · Score: 1

      The problem is that because the number used to have WhatsAPP, it will still get the first tick. They will see that I haven't read it yet. but there is no way to know I will never get it without waiting a week and noticing I still haven't read it.

    7. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works great for me in the US and anywhere I've traveled. Free phone calls, group texts, etc. interface is much faster and more convenient than email. Almost my only means of communication now that I'm not paying for phone service on my phone.. I do however believe the guy about it not handling phone number changes well. I've had mine pegged to a non existent phone number for a couple years now and I think that has prevented any problems..

    8. Re:I don't get it by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      If you change your real number (and not reinstall/reset whatsapp), then surprise surprise, SMS will stop working , you won't receive messages from your contacts unless you tell them your new number.

      Same thing happens with whatsapp. This is a design feature so you don't need to remember user names, emails and passwords

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
    9. Re:I don't get it by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      You're not alone buddy. Allthough I sometimes think I am.

      My standard answer by now is: "No, I don't use WhatsCrapp/FaceBook/Twitter/Instagram, I'm a computer expert. Here's my card with my email address."

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    10. Re:I don't get it by hvdh · · Score: 1

      In Germany, I'd say at least 80% of all private smartphones have Whatsapp installed. SMS is limited to short text. Whatsapp has emoticons (some people cannot communicate without 'em), sending pictures, video, and you current location, if you want to meet e.g. in a big park.
      Phone number change afaik works, you just have to link old and new number somewhere in the options. With SMS, this doesn't work.

    11. Re:I don't get it by hvdh · · Score: 1

      Oh, and it has group chat!

    12. Re: I don't get it by Malc · · Score: 1

      It's good because it's cross platform unlike iMessage, and it never falls back to SMS/MMS and unexpectedly costs you money. Then again one of the bonuses of the EU is they're kicking the phone company's arses and makin European roaming much cheaper.

      Downside is it's a crap app, it's another app, it's owned by Facebook and it totally butchers photos by downscaling and recompressing them.

    13. Re:I don't get it by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      I read that 98% of smart phone users in Spain use WhatsApp. It is so common, you have it everywhere, on TV, on websites as a way of contact, on radio shows. Note that WhatsApp only requires your mobile phone number as your ID (it is verified via SMS), and it grabs all of your contacts. No need to remember IDs, passwords or anything else.
      A popular feature is the group messaging. Most people I know are in many of these groups, be it the parents of a classroom, work colleagues or old friends. Most of the time I hear people having to silence notifications from many of these groups - people tend to share their findings on the internet and their memes a lot. It is also common to create groups with something in mind, like organizing a trip, but keeping the group for ever and ever.
      Another popular feature is that the client is available in competing marketplaces. It started with BB when it was popular, then it went to Apple, Android and Windows Phone. Not that it matter anymore, though.

    14. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually a replacement for both SMS and MMS. I use it with my relatives to send not just messages - for which SMS would have sufficed - but also photos and sometimes short video clips. Yeah, one could use iMessages or Hangouts or Skype, but two of them are just there on one platform, and would require everyone to have the same phone platform. WhatsApp is there on most of the phones, so is good for people no matter what their smartphone

    15. Re:I don't get it by pljvp · · Score: 1

      9,4 ×10^6 out of 17,0 ×10^6 people use WA in the Netherlands, according to http://www.marketingfacts.nl/b... I use both WA and WA GB (for testing on my dual sim ;-)

  4. Useless by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

    So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

    1. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure, that's pretty brain dead.

      Generally I could understand a "mobile first" strategy, but for What's App, "mobile only" was completely brain dead. It's way more convenient to type messages on a real, physical keyboard on your computer. It's the main reason we ruled out What's App when choosing a chat platform.

    2. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You get to use your keyboard and have access to stuff on your local drive that you might want to share.
      Then again, their browser interface does that, too.

    3. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. This is the exact same issue with the web-app. If my phone looses Internet connection (which is more common, because I turned on the power-saving features that includes killing the wifi), I cannot do anything with the web-app. What a waste of bits.

    4. Re:Useless by LichtSpektren · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      So you don't have to pick up your phone repeatedly while you're on your desktop.

    5. Re:Useless by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      Keyboard, mainly. Far more convenient for browsing and writing messages if you happen to be sitting at a computer.

      I think it's pretty interesting how the WhatsApp stuff was put together, more like POP3 than the modern way of thinking about messaging. It's essentially massively decentralised, for privacy (apparently), and it hugely reduces their cost. All their servers do is hold messages in transport and deliver them to a single device. It's restrictive for the end-user but it's meant they could scale far faster than a normal startup for less money, and it maintains privacy of messages since they don't actually exist on their server.

    6. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      When I am at work or at home on my desktop or laptop I don't want to constantly be going back and forth between my smartphone and the larger screen. And I don't know about you, but I can still type far quicker on a desktop or laptop keyboard than a virtual one on a smartphone.

    7. Re:Useless by Geeky · · Score: 1

      The web version has been around a while though. I'm not sure what a desktop app would give over a web interface

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    8. Re:Useless by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      And if the web version does not require a smartphone then why the hell would a proper program require one?

    9. Re:Useless by psmears · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if the web version does not require a smartphone then why the hell would a proper program require one?

      The web one does require a smartphone, too.

      --
      Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
    10. Re:Useless by war4peace · · Score: 2

      I don't think that information is correct.
      I use WhatsApp Web while my phone is turned off and it works.

      With that being said, the "New" WhatsApp Desktop application is not well thought-out.
      First: you can't minimize it to system tray or get it out of the way. I like my taskbar clean and I infrequently use WhatsApp - it has no place on my taskbar at all times. There's no setting to minimize it to System Tray.
      Second: it adds nothing in terms of value compared to the browser-based solution (WhatsApp Web). It provides no incentive to switch. WhatsApp Web runs in a browser tab, doesn't occupy an extra slot on the taskbar, fields notifications too. WhatsApp Desktop has the same functionality but worse UX.

      It might get better sometime in the future, but I generally see IM applications are notoriously static from an UX evolution point of view (read: they very rarely get a new version released).

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:Useless by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, to use the same encryption keys and keychain as the app on your phone since your private key is not on whatsapp's servers. Otherwise there would have to be some, probably messy, way to transfer the keys and keep them in sync. While techies probably wouldn't have an issue, it would create friction for the muggle masses using the platform.

    12. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably they get a lot of requests for a desktop app, and they want to shut those people up by proving that no matter what they ask for WhatsApp can can eventually provide in the most unhelpful way possible, just like they did for the utterly pointless web interface, which you can't even access without using WhatsApp on your phone at the same time.

    13. Re:Useless by tepples · · Score: 1

      Then why does the master device for an account's private key have to be a smartphone? Why can't the desktop be the master device?

    14. Re:Useless by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      Again just guessing, since they already have millions of users on mobile devices making the mobile device the master was the "low hanging fruit". Seems like a future enhancement could be to add making the computer be the master device. Or adding a secure synchronization between multiple devices owned by the same account.

    15. Re:Useless by yes-but-no · · Score: 3, Insightful

      web interface lets one use their desktop/big screen n full keyboard/mouse. It's much much more convenient than the touch screen of a phone (at least for a large majority of population I would guess). Of course you can use your favorite browser (chrome, say). And you can do the usual browser things like large cut n paste, book marks, downloads. So can't see why it's 'utterly pointless'. Whatsapp needs a phone. no point is bringing that to say web interface is useless. What I fail to see now is what desktop app brings new over the current web whatsapp.

    16. Re:Useless by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      They have a web version for that purpose!

      So yes, the desktop client is utterly useless.
      There's many people still who don't own a smartphone for one reason or another (e.g. privacy), as such I was hoping this would allow me to use it as a replacement for Skype. Most people are utterly fed-up of skype and have moved away to whatsapp or viber or telegram (all smartphone apps).

    17. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      For better profiling you, of course. Cross your phone app cum number plus desktop browser metadata shit et voilá: its really you without a shadow of doubt!

    18. Re:Useless by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Also, native device encryption is less common on PCs.

    19. Re:Useless by beuges · · Score: 1

      It adds nothing of value over the browser based solution because that's exactly what it is. This "desktop client" is a wrapper around an embedded browser that launches WhatsApp Web by default. From the looks of it, it's Chrome Embedded Framework that's been used. I'm guessing they chose that route to make it easier to support both Windows and OSX without much difficulty, but it does raise the question of how they plan to handle updates and patches to the Chrome core... while they might not need any new features that get added, they would definitely need to keep up to date with security patches, even if it's a single-purpose browser.

    20. Re:Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WhatApp's user model is based on 'unique phone number = unique user', and assumes that every account is associated with a reachable phone number. They decided to extend that to the desktop, at the cost of not enabling desktop-only users, to keep the uniformity of their installed base.

  5. Neat? by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This week's newest messenging service for people without unlimited texting plans. Aren't there about a thousand (at least) of these by now?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Neat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WhatsApp has been around for 6 years now and it's more popular than SMS in most of the world. Except in USA and Europe, apparently (who knew?). There are a few other services floating around, but none of them have an even remotely comparable userbase.

      The lack of a desktop app has always been its main failing. Unfortunately this addition seems to be at least as useless as WhatsApp Web

    2. Re:Neat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatsapp is end to end encrypted. SMS is most definitely not.

    3. Re:Neat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whatsapp is end to end encrypted. SMS is most definitely not.

      ... but whats also worrying, is what is happening at the other end, i.e. the Whatsapp end...

    4. Re:Neat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Whatsapp is one of the ends. They can view any message in plaintext, this was proven a few months ago.

      TL;DR: Never use Whatsapp if you value privacy.

    5. Re:Neat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours might not be, but my SMS most definitely is end to end encrypted.

    6. Re:Neat? by Tolkienite · · Score: 1

      Except Whatsapp is one of the ends. They can view any message in plaintext, this was proven a few months ago.

      TL;DR: Never use Whatsapp if you value privacy.

      Except for, umm, you know, up-to-date facts. https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp-complete/

  6. Almost like Telegram by Maquis196 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Telegram has had desktop apps (including Linux) for a while now, including the obligatory web front end which I find invaluable at work. It says Whatsapp isn't popular in Europe? I don't know about the mainland but everyone I know in the UK uses Whatsapp, technical and non-technical alike. Telegram is slowly being pushed onto my friends, but critical mass is a hard thing to break.

     

    1. Re:Almost like Telegram by mridoni · · Score: 1

      It says Whatsapp isn't popular in Europe? I don't know about the mainland but everyone I know in the UK uses Whatsapp, technical and non-technical alike.

      It's just about the same in Italy, the only people I know that don't use Whatsapp just don't have a smartphone but something simpler (e.g. old Nokias)

    2. Re:Almost like Telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for this. What are they talking about? Literally every one I know has Whatsapp here in the UK.

    3. Re:Almost like Telegram by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, the Telegram crypto is shit. At least WhatsApp integrated Signal's protocol. Now if they'd allow federation between Signal users and Whatsapp users, and more than 3 devices per account (really? I have a dozen machines I use) then we'd have all the platforms covered and a choice of clients outside of silos.

      Nah, that would be too useful for the spymasters to allow. Better that the tech companies all keep trying to maintain their failing messaging monopolies than work together and do something about the massive societal problem.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Almost like Telegram by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Telegram is well prepared for 2016 then. It is the year of the Linux desktop.

  7. Not very popular in European countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If WhatsApp is "not very popular in European countries", how is it that every German I know uses it (and it already had 30 million users two years ago in a country of 80 million people)?

  8. Too late by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Why do companies only do stuff like this when their application is already in decline? A lack of a desktop app was the primary reason I ignored What's App until now.

    Last I checked, What's App's popularity has gone into decline, so I see this as too little, too late.

    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where exactly did you.. "Check" that?

      According to http://www.statista.com/statis... They currently have 1,000 million users, up from 900 end of last year.

    2. Re:Too late by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      Well remember, Lord Jobs told everyone the desktop was a dead man walking. I too avoid services that ignore the desktop, and while I am sure there are others that do, I am getting the impression that there are more people that look for this than these companies think. People are also straddling more "ecosystems" more often than ever. Half my office is Win/Android and there are only a handful of apps that will stay in sync across win desktop, win app (that's a thing now!) and android app. Which is a damn shame because I believe there is a sizeable enough market for this kind of integration. Problem is that now everyone says you "failed" if you aren't #1 in a week. Gaining a niche and pulling in a little change is hard to do when most investors want the big cash, and people define themselves by being on the most popular service.

      I'm going to cry at that last sentence, because it really upsets me that this is where we are.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    3. Re:Too late by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      That's probably just because Brazil blocked WhatsApp for a weekend because they wouldn't decrypt messages or something.

    4. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably just because Brazil blocked WhatsApp for a weekend (...)

      No. That was only 26 hours.

    5. Re:Too late by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I can't remember. I found several different stats sites. Based on what I found, What's App is very popular in the east, but North America their popularity is actually shrinking.

  9. The open-source Telegram had them long ago by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    WHat a joke?! Telegram, which is pretty much feature-comparable to Whatsapp (and is not tied to fucking Facebook) had desktop apps for like ever. It also has a web-app and a Chrome extension. It covers practically all usage scenarios.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Careful with labelling Telegram as "Open Source", it is not completely open source by any measure.

      Have a look at their website.

      How is this being funded? Take a look here. They claim that it is free and will always be free.

      I just don't understand the angle here. Is it just a honeypot? Is it a long-term investment?

      They primary concern I have for both WhatsApp and Telegram is that to use either you *must* disclose a telephone number. By definition that number is tied to some kind of billing account and is traceable. Even if you buy a pre-paid SIM (depending on jurisdiction you may have to provide ID) the number can be traced and located trivially. I've looked into it and there is no way to create an account with either service without using a telephone number. It's almost strange, and I have some grave reservations about what's really going on here.

      Anyway, here are some interesting bits from the Telegram FAQ, but I would recommend reading all of it before installing and using the service.

      -------------------

      Q: Who are the people behind Telegram?

      Telegram is supported by Pavel and Nikolai Durov. Pavel supports Telegram financially and ideologically while Nikolai's input is technological. To make Telegram possible, Nikolai developed a unique custom data protocol, which is open, secure and optimized for work with multiple data-centers. As a result, Telegram combines security, reliability and speed on any network.

      While the Durov brothers were born in Russia, as were some of the key developers, Telegram is not connected to Russia – legally or physically. Telegram's HQ is in Berlin.

      Q: Will you have ads? Or sell my data? Or steal my beloved and enslave my children?

      No.

      Q: How are you going to make money out of this?

      We believe in fast and secure messaging that is also 100% free.

      Pavel Durov, who shares our vision, supplied Telegram with a generous donation through his Digital Fortress fund, so we have quite enough money for the time being. If Telegram runs out, we'll invite our users to donate and add non-essential paid options to break even. But making profits will never be a goal for Telegram.

      Q: Why not just make all chats ‘secret’?

      While all Telegram messages are always securely encrypted, messages in Secret Chats use client-client encryption, while cloud chats use client-server/server-client encryption and are stored encrypted in the Telegram Cloud (more here). This enables your cloud messages to be both secure and immediately accessible from any of your devices, you can also easily find them using server search — which is very useful at times.

      The idea behind Telegram is to bring something more secure to the masses, who understand nothing about security and want none of it. Being merely secure is not enough to achieve this — you also need to be fast, powerful and user-friendly. This allows Telegram to be widely adopted in broad circles, not just by activists and dissidents so that the simple fact of using Telegram does not mark users as targets for heightened surveillance in certain countries.

      Q: Why not open source everything?

      All code will be released eventually. We started with the most useful parts — a well-documented API that allows developers to build new Telegram apps, and open source clients that can be verified by security specialists.

    2. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by NoZart · · Score: 1

      But whatsapp has the ladies.

    3. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by Ayanami_R · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, telegram is useless for me. Private chats won't sync to multiple devices, and I have 3 or 4 I use regularly. Sucks have 5 different private chats with the wife, one for each device.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    4. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by Black+LED · · Score: 1

      Check out Cryptocat too.

    5. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      I have Telegram on various devices, and chats are always synced on all of them.

      Did you sign up with the same phone number you used on the first device? This works very well on non-phones (laptops, tablets), too: a confirmation message containing a code is sent to your primary phone number. Once you insert that code on the device to be installed, all your chats on that device will be in sync with the chats on your "first" device.

    6. Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      Same everything, chats sync but PRIVATE chats absolutely will not.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
  10. Requires Windows 8+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously some Metro crap.

    Plus you still have to have your phone connected to use the desktop app, just like you did with the website. I haven't tried the desktop app, but with the website you'd visit a page, then you'd have to connect with your phone, starts Whatsapp, scan a QR code and leave your phone connected while you used the site.

    In other words, it's completely useless.

    1. Re:Requires Windows 8+ by _133MHz · · Score: 1

      Runs fine on my computer with Windows 7 x64 SP1.

  11. No00oo000oo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will never again know peace

  12. Yet another XMPP hack? by Kludge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatsapp is just a modified implementation of the XMPP (Jabber) standard. I will stick with standard XMPP and choose from the dozens of applications that support it. Thanks.

    1. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Excellent, you stick to Jabber with the other 9 people still using it. The other 1 billion active users will probably stick to whatsapp and not care very much about not being able to contact you.

      While I agree with your sentiment and laud your commitment to opensource, there are no global systems with a userbase worth mentioning that you can communicate with using basic XMPP.

    2. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh ever hear of Google Talk/Hangouts? I can use any XMPP client I want with it and far more people use it than this "WhatsApp" also-ran crap that only teenagers and the mentally challenged use.

      Also, enjoy having the contents of your PC and phone stolen by marketing companies and hackers with your proprietary spyware shit.

    3. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by Geeky · · Score: 2

      Whatsapp seems to have the "real people use it" momentum. Yeah, IT friends might use other things but there's a critical mass of non technical people using Whatsapp. Many seem to be former iMessage users who've either moved to Android or want to communicate with people who have.

      I only caved in when one particular friend got it, and then found that most of my friends were already actively using it. As soon as I was on there, they switched from SMS to Whatsapp when messaging me.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    4. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your sentiment and laud your commitment to opensource, there are no global systems with a userbase worth mentioning that you can communicate with using basic XMPP.

      While there is no perfect solution satisfying your criteria, some are clearly worse than others. iMessage comes to my mind, because it only works on Apple products. Whatsapp was also a crappy solution with no desktop client. It still suck, because it is based on phone number as an ID.

    5. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google hangouts doesnt use XMPP and Google Talk (which does use a proprietary customised version of XMPP, just like whatsapp) is a discontinued (or never launched) product everywhere except the US and Canada. Even for the US and Canada its end of life and being discontinued this year, with accounts being moved to hangouts.

      So what your suggesting is to swap one proprietary XMPP based protocol for another proprietary XMPP based protocol. But the one you recommend isnt available to most people in the world and wont even be available to you in 12 months. Very clever...

    6. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      I just read the Whatsapp desktop client requires a cell phone (turned on, with signal) to operate. Therefore it is almost worthless. Whatsapp didn't gain much today.

    7. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      Indeed, what a massive disappointment for everyone wishing to move away from skype to a platform used by so many.
      I really don't understand their dumb reasoning for releasing a desktop app when they already have a website for people with smartphones?!

      (as I value my privacy, I don't use a smartphone).

    8. Re: Yet another XMPP hack? by Malc · · Score: 1

      I use web.whatsapp when I'm on my computer. I much prefer typing with a keyboard

    9. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      You may have missed: "Google Abandons Open Standards for Instant Messaging"

      https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

    10. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by InsectOverlord · · Score: 1

      It used to be. It's not anymore. Now it uses its own proprietary protocol.

    11. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must just imagine flawlessly using Miranda IM with Google's servers on a daily basis then.

    12. Re: Yet another XMPP hack? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but why do you need a phone number and a powered on, connected smartphone to use the service? Why can't it work like Facebook Messenger and Google Hangouts, to name a few?

    13. Re: Yet another XMPP hack? by Malc · · Score: 1

      It is an annoyance, but it's still more convenient than no desktop interface.

      I find this whole diversification of messaging methods really irritating, and it's got to the point where it's now reducing communication for me. I can't remember who's on what system. I don't want to be running half a dozen apps, so it is useful that I can at least access things Facebook messages through a browser (after I see the email notification) without having to install another buggy, battery draining, privacy violating Facebook app. Then there's things like WeChat which is my only regular contact with friends from my time living in China simply because of Chinese government restrictions.

    14. Re:Yet another XMPP hack? by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      That's nice, but if the people you are trying to contact are using WhatsAPP you're not going to be able to contact them. And generally, it's overwhelmingly more likely a person is using WhatsAPP.

  13. Windows 7 not supported by asavage · · Score: 2

    WhatsApp is pretty popular in BC, Canada. It is odd to release a Windows application that is Windows 8 or higher though since most use Windows 7.

    1. Re:Windows 7 not supported by BinaryTB · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming they probably just wanted to release it on the Windows Store, which is Windows 8 or later only.

    2. Re:Windows 7 not supported by nvm_my_comment · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it goes through the "windows store" netflix did the same thing

    3. Re:Windows 7 not supported by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      It's absolutely ridiculous. I think you would actually have to go out of your way to write a W8 only application, so I wonder what the angle is. Did Microsoft pay them to do this? I wonder if it's a part of Microsoft's forced migration?

    4. Re:Windows 7 not supported by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      It is most likely written as a Windows Universal app. Which means that it is installed via the Store and will run on all MS platforms including Xbox and mobile (in theory).

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Windows 7 not supported by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      And... of course I meant to say "All MS platforms higher than version 7"

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:Windows 7 not supported by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "Windows Universal App" looks like it will burn out just like "Silverlight", and to some extent "Windows Presentation Foundation" did .

      What I meant by going out of their way, is that to do this they had to find a dev team with some experience with WUA, or train their current team on how to use it. This is in comparison to the scores of programmers already experienced with C++ Win32 development or .NET. Either of which will run on all Windows versions from XP upwards.

      Furthermore this would just be a simple GUI application with a custom networking protocol.

      I guess WUA gets them into the Microsoft Store: Why does that matter for something that you are giving away? ...maybe I just don't get it.

    7. Re:Windows 7 not supported by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      *UWP, sorry, Microsoft calls it UWP.

  14. VERY popular in Spain by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries

    Yes, it's very widely used i Spain. Almost everyone with a smartphone has it installed.

    I have also noticed that in London, on the tube, maybe half the people using their smartphone are "Whatsapp"-ing.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netherlands too, everyone with a phone has it installed practically. Who's saying "it's not popular in Europe"?

    2. Re:VERY popular in Spain by tepples · · Score: 1

      Does "everyone with a phone" in the Netherlands have specifically a smart phone? Or are cellular data plans far cheaper in the Netherlands than in the United States?

    3. Re:VERY popular in Spain by NoZart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Austria, also. I don't really understand where this comes from, as whatsapp has killed traditional SMS around here.

    4. Re:VERY popular in Spain by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Add Italy to the list --- virtually everyone under the age of 50 uses it. Though I don't know anymore if Italy counts as "Europe" or "developing countries" nowadays. :)

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    5. Re:VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A basic data plan (0.256Mbit/s) costs around 5 euros per month here in Finland, and a 50 Mbit/s costs around 20 euros. Both have unlimited data usage. And coverage is pretty good.

      The basic data plan should be more than sufficient for WhatsApp, so 5 euros per month for unlimited text messages, if you don't use it for anything else. I find it perfectly sufficient for my outside-wlan-range usage.

      Might be a bit more expensive in the Netherlands, but I doubt it's anywhere near the US levels.

    6. Re: VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here in austria, you get at least 1-2gb of data with even the cheapest mobile contracts (about 12â/month) - i guess it's similar in the netherlands. that should be enough for whatsapp (which everybody uses, despite the 1000+ texts that come free with your tarif)

    7. Re:VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, yes and yes.

    8. Re:VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know a grand total of 2 people without a smartphone (i live in the netherlands) neither of those are my grandparents funny enough. Besides those 2, im the only person without whatsapp ive met in years

    9. Re:VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The drawback being you have to live in a frozen, dreary wasteland like Finland.

    10. Re: VERY popular in Spain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you record yourself saying "Get to the chopper!" and upload it somewhere?

  15. Popularity by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and E"uropean countries"

    You're kidding right? Over half my contacts are on WhatsApp - it's basically free texting, including internationally.

    Anyone, especially who travels in Europe, who isn't using it already is just one friend away from being invited to it.

    More people I know use WhatsApp than Facetime, or Skype.

    1. Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use WhatsApp and neither do most of my contacts. There's maybe about 5 of them that do and I don't even talk to them regularly anyway. It's redundant when my phone already does SMS without a third-party app or service.

    2. Re:Popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use WhatsApp and neither do most of my contacts. There's maybe like 5 of them that do and I don't even talk to them regularly anyway. It's redundant and I don't see the point when my phone does SMS natively without a third-party app or service.

    3. Re:Popularity by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      ITT we see tech gurus downplaying and app when they find (late) that said irrelevant App practically rekt all SMS and other IMs globally.

  16. WhatsApp Benefits by residents_parking · · Score: 1

    I started using WhatsApp last year when I visited China. Although *everyone* out there uses QQ, WhatsApp is not blocked (like FB) and works over Wifi so I was able to keep in touch with my kids including sending hi res photos, videos and the rest. It was very convenient.

    People like it because it doesn't eat into their data or text allowance, as long as they have WiFi.

    1. Re:WhatsApp Benefits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're a dumb ass. Did you actually get to know any Chinese people? They use QQ on the computer. They use WeiXin (aka WeChat) on their phones, which if you had actually used it you would have realized it totally blows WhatsApp out of the water.

  17. FB Approved Replies? by Pitawg · · Score: 0

    Do they filter the messages to everyone, like the news feeds?

    "Did you not pick up your nephew? I told you he was waiting in the rain!"

    "I guess Facebook agents felt he would be fine."

  18. Not popular? What are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries."

    Like WTF are you guys smoking that you actually wrote that?

    http://blog.appannie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/02-Top-Messaging-Apps-Q3-2015-Monthly-Active-Users-MAU-iPhone-Android.png

    The only people I know not using WhatsApp are people doing messaging from the desktop, due to the way it has previously been bound to a phone.

  19. I love WhatsApp... by gosand · · Score: 1

    I have been using it for a few years now, a group of friends I have across the country invited me to a group chat and I use it mainly for that. I like it because I can catch up on the "conversations" that happen when I am not monitoring it. It also supports pictures, videos, and voice messages much better than normal texting. (e.g. higher size limits, multiple images more easily) I will often have normal texts that come through out of order, or get lost (t-mobile) but WA always works. They've made consistent improvements along the way as well.

    The ability to use it on my browser is great. You may wonder why... but if I am at my computer I can get messages there, and if I have images that I want to share I can do so easily. Not sure why you would need a dedicated PC app since the web version does everything I need, but I run Linux so I guess I won't know.

    I didn't know they were owned by FB, which makes me kind of sad as I have avoided that platform up to this point, but I will continue to use WA.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  20. I still can't use it by tepples · · Score: 1

    A desktop version still doesn't help me. I own a PC, an Audiovox 8610 flip phone, and a Samsung Galaxy Tab A tablet running Android "Lollipop". I can't install it on my PC because according to the download page, "WhatsApp must be installed on your phone." I can't install it on my phone because an Audiovox 8610 is not listed as a compatible phone on FAQ #20951556. I can't install it on my tablet because according to FAQ #20951556, "We currently do not support tablets or Wi-Fi only devices, and do not plan to do so in the foreseeable future."

    1. Re:I still can't use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't install it on my tablet because according to FAQ #20951556, "We currently do not support tablets or Wi-Fi only devices, and do not plan to do so in the foreseeable future."

      There is workaround for tablets, as long as you can install the apk. You just need a phone number you'd like people to find you with. Basically, instead of direct activation per SMS, you let them call you on any phone and read you an activation code. I set it upon my Android Tablet a while ago using this method: http://www.pcnexus.net/2013/11/how-to-install-whatsapp-on-android-tablets.html

  21. Strange ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries, but it has a large user base of active users in the emerging markets such as India and Brazil.
    And why is everyone I know using WhatsApp?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  22. not news but a commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a commercial.
    Better commercial:
    Signal Private Messenger already had a desktop version in december (beta), through chromium. Much more secure, open source and no gathering of (meta)data by one of the worlds worst big data miners... Just migrate one friend at a time.
    Instant messaging actually originated on the desktop. Then it moved to smartphones, and now it is news that it covers desktops again? Even when similar apps already do this...Tsss.

  23. Still needs the phone... by Torp · · Score: 1

    ... they can't afford to hire someone who knows how to open a socket directly to their servers?

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
  24. Not popular in Europe??? by tigersha · · Score: 2

    What? Get real. I am neutral about it, but ALL of the parents in my daughter's school class use it, so it is good to keep of track of carpooling. Also, my wife's colleagues? All of them. My cow-orkers (lots of business travel at conventions)? All of them. Whatsapp is more used here in Germany than email. certainly waaaaaaaaay more than SMS.

    I don't mind Whatsapp, it gets the job done, but I don't know what makes it so popular.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    1. Re:Not popular in Europe??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mind Whatsapp, it gets the job done, but I don't know what makes it so popular.

      In a nutshell: FOMO

    2. Re:Not popular in Europe??? by Nationless · · Score: 1

      You answered your own question.

      Why is it popular? Because everyone uses it.

      Just like every other method of communication in the world.

    3. Re:Not popular in Europe??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it became so popular on the smartphone because the average person is not able / too lazy to properly maintain an address book (putting in name, e-mail, phonenr, birthdate, address etc). The thing they do store on their phone are the phonenrs of their friends and family. Whatsapp smartly takes advantage of that by using it exclusively. So all the contacts are there + an easy threaded/chat interface + the ability to send pics within the stream and there you go!

    4. Re:Not popular in Europe??? by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      WhatApp has 2 reasons it is popular, especially outside the US

      1) It is incredibly convenient, no pass words, no logins,

      2) It is CHEAP. Ever seen what most carriers charge for international texting? Unless you specifically are paying the extra in the plan for international texting, its like 20 cents a text. I have 2 people I do game modding with, one in the UK and one in Singapore. So I would either have to sign up for a more expensive plan for international texting or pay 40 cents every time I sent them both a message, and 20 cents to receive from them. So either way, I would be paying a lot more compared to the previous 1 dollar a year.

      WhatApp is basically the Skype of texting, breaking the traditional carrier setup and undercutting it hugely by going over data instead of the the approved communication channel. As far as I'm aware, Skype grew big to begin with because of its NAT punching (making it brain dead easy to use and no firewall fiddiling) and being able to do international calls cheaply

    5. Re:Not popular in Europe??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know, the only place Whatsapp is not wildly popular is the US. And that is because its one of the few places where SMS is fre or very cheap.

      In Europe, a short phone call and a single SMS cost is roughly the same. Only weirdos use SMS anymore.

      And Whatsapp is the easiest free replacement for SMS. You only have to install it on your phone. No registering, no username, no importing contacts, no nothing. And it is free for everyone (unless you have an iPhone, or you are one of the few unlucky who they have forced to pay, and then the price is ridiculous).

  25. In Spain the world+dog uses Whatsapp, for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatsapp boomed in Spain when it was released mainly because SMS/MMS were outrageously expensive at the time. Every mobile company here charged like 15 cents of euro for every single SMS, and for MMS it was like 2 or 3 times that.

    By the time phone companies started to offer free SMS/MMS in their plans, out of pure despair, it was way too late, Whatsapp was already everywhere and SMS/MMS was already dead and buried.

    The ease for group chatting, sharing images and videos, and the integration with your phone number and your contacts list helped quite a lot too. Just install and you are ready to go, no account creation, no yetanotherpasswordtoremember, no need to send invites or request friendships or all that yadda yadda made it very appealing to regular users.

    I personally prefer Telegram, but I use both apps all the time, and find them extremely convenient for a mobile platform.

  26. Is this about the 1yr old firefox and opera addon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this about the 1yr old firefox and opera addon?

  27. Native app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just a small browser pointing to the Whatsapp Web service, so nothing you can't really do with Chrome, since that one also has notifications.

  28. NOT discontinued by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Google hangouts doesnt use XMPP

    *Internally* their server doesn't run a full-blown XMPP Service.
    That doesn't prevent it from being *also* accessible over XMPP.

    Google Hangouts and Google Talk people see each other, can chat with each other (and Google Talk is XMPP based).

    and Google Talk (which does use a proprietary customised version of XMPP, just like whatsapp) is a discontinued (or never launched) product everywhere except the US and Canada.

    Huh, nope.

    1. Google Talk runs on XMPP. They did add a few proprietary extensions, but still those are documented and several software are able to use them.

    2. Europe here. I'm still using Pidgin's XMPP protocole plugin to log into Google Talk and chat with my friends, some of which have moved to hangouts. It's still working as of today.

    Still WhatsApp is a worse piece of crap:

    - binary variant of XMPP (using a built-in phrase book to substitute XML keywords)
    - use a proprietary register/log-in system
    (- a teast has recently started to use SIlent-Circle-like cryptography. At least something not bad)
    - WhatsApp/Facebook actively hunt and kick-ban any user caught using a 3rd party software
    - WhatsApp/Facebook go at great lenghts trying to prevent any reverse-engineering/Re-implementation by suing the shit out of 3rd party developpers.
    - WhatsApp/Facebook are discontinuing everything except iOS and Andoird support. For anything else: sorry, you just lost you instant messaging chat.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  29. Telegram by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    Telegram is superior to Whatsapp in every way - open API, GPL'd clients, multiple simultaneous connections, better security, etc. Run by a nonprofit.

    It's less popular (probably around 100M users at the moment), but if you can convince those you communicate with most frequently to give it a shot, it's worth it.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  30. You still need tools to make the product by tepples · · Score: 1

    My contract (the one that I personally drew up with my lawyer) makes that impossible.

    Not everybody is at the same stage in their respective career. When you entered the workforce for the first time, were you likewise under a contract drawn up with your lawyer in a similar manner?

    Uh, no. To be your own boss you just have to have a product (or be marketing scum) and an internet connection.

    You still need tools with which to make the product, and you need a channel through which to make the product available to the end user. For example, in the market for video games for consoles, a gatekeeper controls the availability of devkits and the download store through which your game is made available for purchase.

    1. Re:You still need tools to make the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everybody is at the same stage in their respective career.

      Don't care. Everybody has their struggles to get through in life. It's not my responsibility or concern.

      When you entered the workforce for the first time, were you likewise under a contract drawn up with your lawyer in a similar manner?

      No, I was an at-will employee who could, and has, quit jobs without absolutely no notice.

      You still need tools with which to make the product, and you need a channel through which to make the product available to the end user.

      The tool is my computer. The channel is the internet.

      For example, in the market for video games for consoles, a gatekeeper controls the availability of devkits and the download store through which your game is made available for purchase.

      Nice cherry-pick. Too bad I don't do business with any entity with such one-sided terms. You might as well have told me that the mafia would kill me if I was in their employ and double crossed them.

  31. Happy with telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thank you I am happy with Telegram. It has a desktop client that works!

    1. Re: Happy with telegram by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telegram works without smartphone being online all the time too.

  32. Android version w\BlackBerry. No go with Wine. by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I have a BlackBerry Classic with 3rd party app access to the play store. WhatsApp works fine. Actually most Play Store apps work. Not having a Windows machine, I went straight for the Windows executable to see if it would work under Wine, which I have had a lot of success with lately. The install gives a .net error, then downloads and installs the version it needs. It appears to install .Net 4.5 then craps out on the WhatsApp install with the error "installation failed".

    My question is, as long as Wine exists, and is capable of running quite a lot of Windows apps, is it possible to design a rather simple app like WhatsApp to work on both after having been designed with not only Windows but Wine in mind? That's an actual question for the community and I am not suggesting every program approach development this way, but an end-to-end encrypted communications platform sounds just about right for Linux, Open Source or not. Perhaps us Linux users are just that marginal?

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:Android version w\BlackBerry. No go with Wine. by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Uh? just use the web view in any browser, you only need to be in the same subnet, can't get more cross platform than that.

  33. I use telegram.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Desktop app for Win, OS X, and Linux. Phone app for Android and iOS. Multiple concurrent device support. Large file transfer. Open source clients and API.

    And most importantly: Run by a non-profit foundation of rich Russian dissidents hell bent on REAL privacy, and not the *wink wink* yea your communications are secure Facebook borg!

  34. Whatsie by Waveevaw · · Score: 1

    I found a Linux desktop client called Whatsie which works well (there are Whatsie clients for OSX and Windows as well). https://github.com/Aluxian/Wha...

  35. Forget Norway by tepples · · Score: 1

    The drawback being you have to live in [...] frozen

    A lot of Disney fans would love to live in Frozen, which is set in Bergen in southern Norway, two countries to the west of Finland. Is the climate of Finland really that much worse than that of Norway?