WhatsApp launches Status, an encrypted Snapchat Stories clone | Hacker News Reader

WhatsApp launches Status, an encrypted Snapchat Stories clone

techcrunch.com

138 pointsmcjiggerlog135 comments

This individual feature isn't so bad, but I still dislike the precedent - WhatsApp is an amazingly fast, efficient app right now. It'll be a shame to see it descend into the usual junk as they pack in feature after feature no one really asked for.

My parents use WhatsApp on generations-old phones - it performs great and it's simple enough to understand. Why can't we keep the more complex stuff over on Snapchat? Or Instagram. Or Facebook Messenger. Or...

I guess WhatsApp will replace Facebook Messenger in a few years. Why should Facebook waste their time on developing two different apps that do nearly the same? Also, WhatsApp's userbase seems to consist of a lot of people that don't use Facebook anymore and Facebook wants them back.

Ugh I hope not, Messenger is exactly what I don't want WhatsApp to become.

I'm trying to stay away from Messenger but it does have one significant advantage over WhatsApp - it can be used on multiple devices seamlessly, which is useful when I have a work phone and my personal phone.

Almost impossible to square that requirement with strong end to end encryption.

You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient.

But it's why I don't use Whatsapp as well, personally. I prefer the cross-device seamlessness of Hangouts (and FB Messenger) to E2E crypto.

> You can figure out ways to do it, but it's pretty kludgy (messages addressed to you have to be encrypted with the keys of each device you've authorized) and you can't scroll back prior to when a device was authorized and its key was communicated to other participants, which users might not find convenient.

Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints.

> Apple seems to do OK with iMessage and it faces the same constraints.

Always had an impression that iMessage is not end to end encrypted.

It is, but it requires the sender to encrypt the message for every one of the recipients devices.

What isn't encrypted is iCloud backups, which are what provide the ability to scroll backup on new devices.

It's just overburdened and cooked at this point honestly. WhatsApp feels fresh compared to it.

It reminds me a little bit of Google+, they're willing to ruin every product they have so they can look more like the fresh new thing.

Why does it want them back? It really just cares about the social graph. It doesn't need to know what you're saying, just who you're talking to. I've already seen that information used in Instagram: people I chat with more often in WhatsApp have their content (stories and posts) surfaced at the top of my feed.

I hope not. I prefer Messenger by far. I want my conversations everywhere I compute, and WhatsApp seems very averse to that. I understand why, but it's not what I want in a messengong product.

Because different market have different choices. In developing world more people like to use WhatsApp as their messaging solution while on the other end in some countries WhatsApp is not popular and messenger is more popular

How will they harvest data from encrypted chats?

Because Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground. That is why they are trying to steal all of their users to their own messaging apps. Instagram Stories has done that some but they want more. There are also some users that would prefer to just use one app than have 5 to switch between. The carrot is 'You already use WhatsApp and now you can do Snapchat without leaving. Cool, huh?' I'm not sure I agree but I think that is the attack vector.

> Facebook wants to run Snap into the ground

I think it's more Facebook wants what Snap's got. Snap has visibility into bits of time social graph Facebook doesn't, and the latter doesn't like that. Vindictiveness isn't a good long-term strategy; ruthless territoriality is.

I think this is Facebook's 9th or 10th thinly-veiled attempt to siphon users away from Snapchat. Previous direct attempts at cloning included Poke (2012) and Slingshot (2014), which didn't work at all, so they've settled for slowly cloning and integrating Snapchat features into Whatsapp and Instagram.

Have to agree with the conclusion of this Guardian article that has documented the phenomenon:

"With attempts six and seven coming in the same month, and eight, nine, and 10 coming in the same weekend, it’s clear that Facebook’s attacks on Snapchat are accelerating. Some back-of-the-envelope maths suggests that at the current rate of acceleration, there will be more Facebook clones of Snapchat than there are atoms in the universe by the year 2030. And yet Snapchat will probably still be more popular among teens."

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/31/facebook-...

facebook learned well the myspace lesson - users don't like to use on multiple social networks - and the generational nature of cool - and snapchat is having monster growth in the younger population

> I think it's more Facebook wants what Snap's got.

You know, you can do both. Even though FB can get its users make stories in its apps, the teens/millenial audience which Snapchat has is what FB want.

The more I think about Fb's strategy, the less I'm convinced they are worried about Snap's dominance in the younger crowd.

Instagram Stories is FB's direct shot at Snapchat and from my understanding, it is doing pretty well and growing.

WhatsApp is barely used in the US but heavily used outside the US. I think WhatsaApp Status is FB's play to bring Snapchat to the millions of users not in the US - stifling Snap's international growth through network effects.

My bet is they'll add SMS ( maybe + RCS) support to WhatsApp soon as well and then more slowly go with the WeChat model of becoming your everything app.

I am intrigued. What messaging app do people in the US use? SMS? Or iMessage? What cross-platform messaging is the most common in US? I mean to ask "used overall" and not by a particular age group.

Here in India I used to think it's only WhatsApp pretty much then I realised there are many apps which have substantial user-bases e.g. hike messenger (hike.in). I was surprised that Viber still has decent number of users in India and then of course there is Fb Messenger.

people I know from US mostly use, Line or iMessage. And yes whatsapp is not much known in US to many people. Strange but true.

Teens aren't millennial. They're gen z.

Different users of the "Millenial" label start the cohort, by birth year, anywhere between 1976 and 1984 and end it anywhere between 1994 and 2004, with some assigning no end point yet or suggesting a potential later end point than 2004. [0]

Depending on the which of those end points is taken, either all teens, late teens, or no teens are Millenials.

[0] A (probably incomplete) breakdown is available on Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials#Date_and_age_ran...

Not cool, imagine sending your x-rated shit to grandma or dad. You could with one app, harder to do on different apps.

heh

Facebook is just never going to get the same demographics as Snapchat. Period. Snapchat is currently seen as something that is used exclusively by teens and younger people while everyone and their grandma is on facebook, making it "uncool". I'm curious to see what happens when the older generation moves into Snapchat.

You're making that assuming from a US viewpoint. In Germany every kid in school is on WhatsApp, as my teacher friends tell me. The same is probably valid for other markets.

In The Netherlands everyone is on WhatsApp, and instead of sending a text message or something like that, it is common to hear "Ik zal even een appje sturen" (I will sent you an WhatsApp message), or "Ik app je wel" (I'll WhatsApp you).

It got shortened... to just "app".

Brazil too. Everybody use WP.

But, to be honest, I think this is a horrible move. Make clear that WP will move more in the direction to become more Social. I have thousands of contacts saved that I have no intention of having any social interaction that is not straightforward. My mechanic, the person who cuts my hair, my gardener, a girl I met yesterday, the person I sold my car to. With all these, I interacted using Whats app. But with none of them, I want to share what I share with my friends, my relatives etc.

My facebook is frozen exactly because of this. WP, especially its groups, was a territory of segregated interaction, this was spectacular. Facebook inc could kill this by including functions like that.

I remember when MSN, Skype, and others message programs have tried put a feed inside their app. They failed.

Possibly a good point, but alternatively, take a look at what's happened with WeChat in China. http://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/

It was originally a chat app, but is now a standardized authentication, payments and UI for tons of services, like booking a doctor, getting a taxi, etc. Truly seems like we're missing out by not having it.

The payment processors will NEVER let something like this happen. They will fight each other to the death before giving up a unified payment system to Apple, Verizon, etc.

> My parents use WhatsApp on generations-old phones - it performs great and it's simple enough to understand

WhatsApp dropped support for legacy phone platforms (Symbian, Android 2.2<, iOS 6, WinMo 7) at the end of 2016 in pursuit of fancy features.

> While these mobile devices have been an important part of our story, they don't offer the kind of capabilities we need to expand our app's features in the future.[1]

I miss the independent, $1/yr WhatsApp, it was all features and no bloat.

1. https://blog.whatsapp.com/10000617/WhatsApp-support-for-mobi...

> it was all features and no bloat.

Isn't Status a feature?

As with many things, the distinction between "bloat" and "feature" varies from person to person. That out of the way, Status is not a feature I would want or use, it's increasing system requirements with no benefit to me, therefore qualifies as bloat in my book

Especially ironic considering that they had promised that they won't venture beyond SMS when they were bought by FB, they backtracked on each promise I guess.

which commercially motivated shop would keep up its promises?

Yes, but the commercially motivated shop should not actively add features which most of its userbase doesn't care for? My mother uses whatsapp, I don't, she doesn't give a rat's ass for disappearing messages leave aside setting status that too disappearing, this is what happens when the parent company shoves down strategy on your throat!

I can see facebook trying to turn it into the west's wechat.

Time for the weekly reminder that if you don't have reason to believe that powerful adversaries are after you then you can use Telegram. If you feel just fine publishing on twitter or HN under you real name I guess you qualify.

Bragging about E2E encryption while feeding the Facebook data monster IMO is a bit like bragging about how you transport your slaves in armored vehicles:

Yes, they are safer against robberies.

No, [given my current threat model] I'd still prefer driving something less secure that isn't abusing my every action [and every action of everyone I communicate with] for the profit of Facebook.

Edit: clarifications, in square brackets and below

It seems no doubt that Whatsapp is safer against an 3rd party adversary.

My points are only that

- I consider Facebook an adversary at this point,

- I don't belive they bought Whatsapp and removed the fees because of the goodness in Mark Zuckerbergs heart,

- I don't believe they would update their privacy policy if they somehow thought they could get away with what they are planning to do under the old privacy policy.

Can you use Telegram to talk to friends on Whatsapp or Messenger?

Wouldn't that defeat the point?

Then the advice to "just use Telegram" is useless. It cannot replace the chat services we rail against because it's literally asking people to ditch their friends.

No, we are asking friends to try a better messenger.

Either I am a very good salesman or it isn't really hard.

I have participated in getting hundreds of people to ditch Whatsapp for Telegram (family + a few local groups I am member of).

I just started by using it to communicated woth my wife, then with close friends, then recommending it as enthusiastically as I used to recommend Whatsapp.

When "everyone" find they are using Telegram foreverything but a few groups then they will start bugging the rest of the members and suddenly even big groups switch.

Not Whatsapp, not officially at least. They will go after anyone who reverse engineers and publicizes an API.

I think at some point they had the (IMO possibly good) idea that they would make the client free of charge and make money by charging for API access for businesses etc but that was before (IMO as usual) they decided to go all in on scooping up user data and trying to copy Snapchat again ;-)

Can you use Whatsapp to talk to friends on Telegram or Messenger?

We're in a period of closed chat ecosystems (Joe Schmoe doesn't use Matrix, IRC or XMPP) and fairly spacious smartphone storage, which in my circles means that people tend to be quite willing to install an extra app for chatting.

A bunch of my friends use Signal, and the ones that don't I communicate with on WhatsApp.

I've found the exact opposite, there's no way I'm going to get all my friends and family to install Telegram and set up an account just for me. That's why it's pretty unreasonable to casually propose Telegram as a replacement for solutions like Whatsapp. Unless it lets me talk to users on other platforms (how would it even do that?), Messenger and Whatsapp are here to stay.

Just start by installing it.

Chances are you'll see a number of your friends have it installed already as others have noted in this thread.

Then talk about it to your friends, show them the stuff you know they will love. For some it is bots. For others it is themes. Hashtags to follow topics. The possibility to have a chat with yourself (I run a journal like thingy where I note when I check oil on my car, when I changed my contacts etc, all hashtagged so I can retrieve it by tag later.)

I don't get why you would give up on E2E when you can just switch to Signal, unless you use Telegram for some features that Signal does not have (I don't know if there is any TBH), but you do not list them in your three points.

It would also make sense if more people are already on Telegram (so that you have less people to convince to switch), but again you don't mention this reason to prefer Telegram over Signal.

In my case, as usually advocated by security expert, I prefer Signal, and I fallback to WhatsApp whenever it is too big a hurdle to make people switch.

I don't get why you would give up on E2E when you can just switch to Signal,

I have accepted to use Telegram the same way I have accepted to drive a car that isn't the safest in the latest tests.

It is a tradeoff. Someday I or some of my passengers might get killed where we could have survived in a new Mercedes or Volvo.

Someday my messages might get intercepted where I could have avoided it.

Meanwhile I try to drive safely.

unless you use Telegram for some features that Signal does not have

I use bots, large groups, desktop client, hashtags, @replies, answers, channels and possibly more that I can't remember.

I might be wrong but I though Signal lacked several of those.

Happy to be corrected if not :-)

Don't know why you were downvoted.

I at least felt you were contributing constructively to the discussion and have upvoted you.

Beause many people on HN work for FB. It is also the reason hy every react-post gets to the top stories

Thanks!

Seems I am getting off the hook easily with my campaign against Whatsapp then.

I'm at a double digit upvotes and that is even when I have seen a few downvotes in a row : )

My biggest gripe with this has been how some of our cryptography stars IMO has a very one-dimensional view on this:

"E2E good, anything else bad."

IMO, E2E message encryption only buys you so much, i.e. as a thought experiment one could consider if you would like to use an E2E protected system run by NSA. Or by FSB. Or by our bosses, wives, parents etc. Whoever you don't want to make statistics on who you contact and when.

For me who like to think I am smart to keep as much data as possible out of the hands of FB - and by that - out of the hands of

- whoever buys the windfall when Facebook collapses or

- whoever manages to hack them thoroughly or

- whoever sends them a valid subpoena or

- (slighly evil here) pays them enough

OK, Facebook guys - let me cut you a deal: you start acting trustworthy and I start liking you. I want to like Whatsapp. I want to pay you money. I want to pay you more for API access. I want to have a brilliant messaging platform to communicate with my stubborn family.

I just don't want you to ruin product I loved. I don't want you scheme so hard to datamine me that you need to update the privacy policy.

Or better, switch to Matrix. Also E2E but without the lack of features (like multiple devices and a desktop app without a phone proxy) and odd obsession with phone numbers that Signal has.

Hopefully this pressures Snap to offer end-to-end encryption within their app. WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted by default[1][2][3].

It's embarassing that a major app like Snapchat—built around ephemerality and privacy and often handling sensitive data—still doesn't have any form of end-to-end encryption.

[1]: https://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/28030015

[2]: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/

[3]: https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap...

Snapchat isn't supposed to be private, it's supposed to feel private.

I don't see how those two conflict with each other.

Average users don't care about end-to-end encryption. Majority of people on HN probably do but majority of people on HN are not majority Snapchat users.

Engineers and software developers care about encryption, and if Snap wants to hire the best of them, they'd better care too.

1. The encryption method for the company whom I work for is extremely low on my preference for who I want to work for to the point that it is practically negligible. I'd bet a lot of money that most software developers feel the same way.

2. Snap does not need nor is it worth the cost for them to pay for the "best" developers. Their technological implementations and scale at which they work with can give credence to that.

I'm kind of hoping this comes to my phone really soon. Three reasons:

* I miss having status lines as a visible message to the world. I know this isn't exactly the same thing and that Whatsapp/Gtalk/etc. have those, but they have been de-emphasized, so saying "man, I'm excited about $this" isn't likely to reach my friends.

* I'm always conflicted between using Facebook for "thoughtful" stuff (that won't embarass me in six months' time) and just posting from random whimsical observations ("I saw a pretty butterfly!") and moods/feelings. My Facebook network is too wide now, too.

* I did install Snapchat to check it out, but it's just not for my demographic. Younger people take to the internet to complement and boost their meatspace life; we 30-somethings gradually drift apart from friends but want to keep some semblance (or even illusion) of a friend base that is alive.

Overall, I've been using Facebook as a degenerated blogging/syndication platform, but miss the social features of a social platform. Hey, when is the update getting to international iPhone App Stores? I want to try it!

I dislike the trend of all apps having to be Snapchat. It adds bloat, and even if well coded and running on a powerful phone, it adds bloat to the interface. Not every app has to be a jack-of-all-trades. I've particularly found it frustrating how Facebook Messenger is no longer a clean list of conversations sorted by most recent. Now I have to scroll through games, rooms, their Snapchat clone, online now, suggested friends, etc. just to get back to my friend I talked to yesterday.

On the other hand, Snapchat is an awful piece of software, and some competition to prod them into fixing it would be useful.

> Facebook Messenger is no longer a clean list of conversations sorted by most recent

That's what I see. The only new modules were "Active Now" and "Favourites", both of which I've hidden.

I also have Shared Days, suggested rooms, groups, and probably some others that I have to hide every week. Shared Days cannot be hidden at all.

Facebook seems bent on taking the wind out of Snapchat's sales before their IPO, even if it means adding bloat to their apps. At the moment, Snap is their only serious competitor.

Time to move to Signal I guess. Seems like they will turn WhatsApp into bloated mess like Facebook Messenger currently is.

The hard thing to do is to make other people change to or install your new IM as well.

I'm always surprised people use WhatsApp at all. It consistently puts messages out of order or doesn't include them all together.

Granted, this is mostly me using it from the web ui, but it happens almost once a session.

edit: I'm not knocking it specifically, just saying i'm surprised it's so popular - for me it has common issues with basic functionality (above).

Here in brazil, people use whatsapp because of the MASSIVE network effect.

For what it's worth, Facebook's Messenger Lite app is really light on bloat, although it's not officially available in the US.

Interesting - hadn't heard of that one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.m...

>This app is incompatible with all of your devices.

:'( Why do they feel this is a useful thing to do?

Not available in Australia either - I guess there's always apkmirror.

FTFY: Time to move to Wire I guess.

Time to move to [new flavour of the month messaging app]

Facebook, to me, has reached it's peak. It's waiting to be disrupted.

I used to wonder how Facebook planned to monetize WhatsApp, I am beginning to find the answer :

> Status could also open up new advertising opportunities for WhatsApp. If it followed Snap and Instagram’s lead, it could insert full-screen ads in-between friends’ Statuses.

I really liked WhatsApp's business model before the aquisition : user's pay a small annual fee to use the app. What was cool to see was that the network effects were so strong that people who had never paid for an app or subscription service paid for WhatsApp. If they kept the service paid I doubt it would have reached the 1 billion users mark so quickly, but just humour me here : with 1 billion users they would have atleast 1 billion dollars in ARR. That would have been cool. They could have focused on what they do best : provide a no BS end to end encrypted messenger which respects the user's privacy. (Yes, I am aware of Signal and I use it).

I am curious to see how Facebook balances the need to monetize vs to the need to maintain WhatsApp's reputation as a service that respects users' privacy.

"1 billion users they would have atleast 1 billion dollars in ARR"

You meant at most. Apple takes ~30%, Google take ~15%

"You meant at most. Apple takes ~30%, Google take ~15%"

.. Google takes 30%

source: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

Did they ever actually charge people? Were me and all my family in a weird A/B test bucket that constantly gets our subscription renewed without paying? I never paid, I just occasionally got told I didn't need to yet, and my family were the same - I never understood it.

Happened to me in the beginning but I think I actually paid twice near the end and I was so happy because I was supporting a sustainable, privacy-respecting company.

(I used to love it and be a walking billboard for it, which is possibly why I dislike it so strongly now.)

I would prefer if they would add useful features instead of just addictive ones. For example, polling like Threema.

https://threema.ch/en/blog/posts/threema-poll-feature

Let me add:

- bots

- hashtags

- simple working multi device setup

- an option to not feed your and your friends social connections to Facebook

- Payments of some kind

Someone like the pinboard.in owner (founder?) could give make such an app/service (and hopefully keep it open based on some open standard) and keep it paid and simple right from the beginning. Probably the reason I like pinboard as much as I liked it in the beginning is that it didn't push changes down my throat that I never asked for and were obscenely absurd (e.g. pocket, firefox, and now whatsapp)

The point is not to create a service, there already is [0]. The point is to decrease friction by integrating it.

[0] http://doodle.com/

I think it's very easy for Facebook to add stories to each of their apps. It's a single code base I believe!

Stories are now in:

    - Instagram 
    - Messenger 
    - WhatsApp
    - Facebook (soon, I've seen the beta)

They are going after $SNAP in each and every warfront!

How are stories in Messenger?

It's called "My Day"

Snapchat is weak in the very markets that Whatsapp is strong. Snap's argument for why is that their bandwidth heavy product does not do well in developing countries. This is a direct challenge to that reasoning -- is it the infrastructure (phone/bandwidth) that is holding people back or the lack of a network effect?

As infrastructure improves, Whatsapp is making the bet that users will prefer to use these features on an app that is already their primary social network.

I'm skeptical of the paternalistic arguments on HN that people don't really want these features -- perhaps the reason Whatsapp users don't use Snapchat is that their social graph hasn't moved to it, not that they don't want to share 'stories'.

I hope they don't ruin WhatsApp they have already turned Messenger into a bloated pile of something and I have noticed my Instagram is a lot slower after the "stories" feature.

This is a big F U to snapchat after they refused zuckerbergs offer

They already did that by integrating a stories feature into Instagram that was a copy of the SnapChat one.

This is just another move into their territory.

I remember installing this app after reading this blog post - https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads?. How times and policies both change and how users change, or they get conditioned maybe - slowly over time.

Those were my "no compromise on privacy" days. Now I am kinda fine with it. Just that I find myself using SMS probably the first time in half decade and more than ever (use Signal on Android for SMS). Also I was successful in bringing around 20 friends on Signal, 3 on Wire which feels like supporting fragmentation on a personal level. I wish these new privacy conscious apps could talk to each other.

This is (mighty) Facebook trying to convey a strong point across to Snapchat by throwing knock out punches from all sides (ephemeral stories in Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp).

"Status could also open up new advertising opportunities for WhatsApp. If it followed Snap and Instagram’s lead, it could insert full-screen ads in-between friends’ Statuses."

If this is implemented, it'd be a shame, coming from a company that posted this - https://blog.whatsapp.com/245/Why-we-dont-sell-ads

One day, there will be a tech giant, that will let us disable all new, amazing, revolutionary, bloated features instead of forcing us to use them. One day...

One word: Telegram.

I've installed it today following this update and was surprised to find I actually have quite a few contacts on it already. Looks very nice. Will try and get my core contacts to switch over.

I generally love Telegram, but what bothers me is that they don't end-to-end encrypt my messages. Sure they do in the "private"-mode but this is not really usable to me, as there is no desktop client and my messages are often not arriving as reliable as the normal ones...

Really?

I loved it in the beginning. Then it started to do everything. Like really everything and the list is going endless. And for some reason all my telegram groups are so unbearably verbose that I don't keep it on my mobile anymore. Maybe because they had a desktop app right from the beginning that people found it really easy to type - a lot.

Stories in Messenger, Instagram and Facebook was clearly not enough.

I wait for the day I would be able to send money between friends via WhatsApp. It's so ubiquitous that it can have really serious impact on economy by making cash obsolete

I wonder how this will play out. When Instagram Stories were introduced my friends mostly migrated to using Instagram Stories and my engagement on Snap went down.

Remember eBay's bright yellow to white background transition ?

WhatsApp owned by Facebook which also owns FB Messenger, its only a matter of time for this transition.

So Facebook is on all out war to destroy $SNAP huh?

Facebook really wants to kill Snapchat

I've been using Whatsapp since 2010 and this is the first time I've considered dropping it; all I want is an easy to use chat client. What the hell were they thinking? I'm no expert but I would guess that >50% of their userbase does not want this feature at all. My grandma uses Whatsapp!

I think this could be the beginning of the end for Whatsapp's ubiquity. It's such a shame as Whatsapp has such insane market penetration here (UK/Spain) that it is going to be a huge mess to try to switch to an alternative. I literally haven't received an SMS from a friend in years.

What is wrong with regular SMS? i guess i can understand whatsapp popularity in developing countries where SMS is expensive...

SMS are not only being charged in developing countries. lol e.g. Spain has symmetric 300Mb (home) connections for ~50€/month but SMS are still being charged.

I can't go between my phone and a web browser (relatively) seamlessly with SMS.

Google Voice solved that one pretty easily for me, but point taken.

It's also worth mentioning that the countries where WhatsApp is most heavily used do not have Google Voice.

Some day we will start downvoting people who reminds us again and again that we are missing out on Google Voice - but not today.

/jk

Not the OP, but here are just a few things that immediately sprang to my mind:

* Group MMS messages are a nightmare so people in my demographic often use GroupMe to facilitate them

* I'm not even sure if attaching images and other media on MMS messages is supposed to work consistently. I usually end up with an image that has been severely degraded in quality

* No read notifications, which can be useful if you goose to enable them on WhatsApp, Signal, etc.

* Poor security, I would assume that SMS is far easier for law enforcement to illegally bug

* Conversing with people who are in different countries as SMS typically invokes outrageous charges, and my mobile provider includes 2G data in most countries

* Can't use SMS on a computer unless through something like Google Voice, which isn't a pure SMS solution

* Message history backups are much better documented on WhatsApp/Signal, so that I've never bothered to figure out how to restore SMS history after I get a new phone or install a new ROM on my phone (Android)

Communicating across borders which is now usually included in unlimited SMS plans.

Too late to edit. Should be *not usually included.

Main benefits of whatsapp (or similar):

* Free international communication

* Read/typing receipts

* Faster and more reliable

* Sending of media

* Group chats that actually work

* Seamless usage across desktop/mobile

Going back to SMS is like going back to the dark ages after getting used to a proper web-based chat client. As far as I can tell pretty much the only place where technical users still use SMS is the US.

> Seamless usage across desktop/mobile

This isn't true for Whatsapp and was my main technical reason for leaving Whatsapp for Telegram.

(I have another post in this thread that explains my reasoning WRT security.)

Definitely works better on Telegram, agreed.

The problem is my mom, and non-technical friends are NOT on Telegram, so Whatsapp it is for the foreseeable future.

I got my in-laws over to Telegram and we migrated a large group that included lot of retired people over earlier this year ...

but my family is stubborn like myself and refuse to change.

Practical advice or anyone who decides to try:

- recommend it to friends at your age first.

- emphasize ease of use, not security (also I wouldn't even feel comfortable telling people that Telegram is more secure)

- both can be used free of charge so I am fine with communicating with my stubborn siblings on Whatsapp and everyone else on other platforms.

This is why I wish I could get my wife to switch to Signal with me. But she doesn't want to check two different apps for the same thing. Everyone else she would chat with would be using just SMS/iMessage. I really really wish apps like this would pick up more traction here in the States.

Couple things:

- Paying for domestic text messages

- Paying for international text messages

- Being able to add / remove participants from a conversation

- Paying for roaming charges (SMS v.s. chat app over wifi)

WhatsApp can be more than just a messaging alterative. So far they've added small features incrementally and it would seem have been successful with this approach.

This features genuinely adds to the user experience and its nice to have a way of sharing statuses with most if not all of my contact list as opposed to a select few that use snap chat.

My only gripe is the privacy concerns, I can't help but feel Facebook will combine all data one day and most worryingly in retrospect.

>> "This features genuinely adds to the user experience and its nice to have a way of sharing statuses with most if not all of my contact list as opposed to a select few that use snap chat."

This feature is now in TWO Facebook owned apps (WhatsApp + Instagram) and I recently read that they're also bringing it to Facebook (currently testing with some users). So now I have three identical products from the same company. It doesn't make sense to update the story in each app. Some friends will update one over the other and now I have three stories to check. That's the opposite of adding to the user experience in my opinion. Give them a bit more time and I'll have three identical Facebook apps just with different icons on my phone.

Facebook Messenger also has similar feature.

Based on the Legal policy update a while ago[1].They should be planning to do much more than social features. I (personally) expect something like the We Chat model.

[1]:https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/#terms-of-service

My wife and her friends use WhatsApp for community and event organization. I look at this as more of a response to user demand than overstepping by Facebook.

Here in Italy Telegram is slowly gaining traction. Even the municipality in my city uses it (for traffic notices and other warnings), very useful. Bonus points: bots, Gif search and stickers!

Seriously? I'm pretty sure they have a better grasp on who their userbase is, and what they want than a random internet commenter.

Why can't we have (FOSS) nice things that are e2e encrypted and not conglomerate owned...

We clearly do, it's called Signal, it's just not as convenient for you to use. Which is pretty much everything FOSS.

So facebook has both Instagram and WhatsApp doing similar things?

And SNAP's IPO is coming up!

Quite a bad name, considering there is already an IM client called status for Ethereum https://status.im/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com