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

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.

Comments

No thanks!

[butzwonker]

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

Re:No thanks!

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

Re:No thanks!

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Re:No thanks!

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:No thanks!

[tepples]

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.

I don't get it

[gmack]

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.

Useless

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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?

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Useless

[LichtSpektren]

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.

Re:Useless

[jareth-0205]

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.

Re:Useless

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

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

Re:Useless

[psmears]

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.

Re:Useless

[war4peace]

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).

Re:Useless

[yes-but-no]

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.

Neat?

[DogDude]

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

Almost like Telegram

[Maquis196]

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.

 

Not very popular in European countries?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)?

Yet another XMPP hack?

[Kludge]

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.

Re:Yet another XMPP hack?

[Geeky]

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.

Windows 7 not supported

[asavage]

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.

Popularity

[ledow]

"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.

Re:VERY popular in Spain

[NoZart]

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

Re:VERY popular in Spain

[fph il quozientatore]

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. :)

Not popular in Europe???

[tigersha]

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.

Re:The open-source Telegram had them long ago

[Ayanami_R]

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.

NOT discontinued

[DrYak]

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.