WeChat's App Revolution
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The revolution is the fact that this is an app with an install base approaching one billion users (846M monthly active users as of Q3'16). Anything they do is potentially revolutionary by virtue of sheer scale. They are a platform as influential and powerful as Facebook is in the West. If they decide they want to compete with the platform's application store, they will provide strong competition.
WeChat has already beaten out most other payment methods in China for day-to-day commerce - credit cards, cash, cheque, etc. It has beaten out most social networks there (after the introduction of the "Moments" feature), and all other instant messaging services including SMS. Taking over other application functions is simply a natural progression for the rather unstoppable juggernaut at this point - and third party app developers will be happy to oblige.
note: am not a WeChat advocate.
edit: added English translation.
Glad to see Apple once again using its tight grip on its developers to look out for Apple.
tl;dw
The revolution alludes to the fact that one app is taking over everything from social networking, mobile payments, food, ticket sales, ride-hailing, financial products, bill payments, and much more.
Already the smartphone platform I use can do all of social networking, mobile payments, food, ticket sales, ride-hailing, bill payments, etc on ONE device. I just don't see what there is to be gained by pulling all this down into one app? Switching between apps via APIs is already automatic and rather fast, and will only get better over time. The NYT video makes a lot of mention of "you haven't left the app". Why do I care? As long as I haven't left my phone why do I care what app I'm in?
Having APIs for apps on a device to talk to each other allows for competition and variety - won't it obviously win out?
This isn't about whether you, one person, wants this. It's about the nearly a billion people that already live in it. Good for you that you prefer an open app ecosystem, I'm sure there are other people that feel the same way. But in China that approach has pretty much already lost.
Because one entity can control they way it's all integrated, they can bring UI consistency and convenience by enforcing some degree of feature de-duplication. E.g. Single sign-on, and a shared e-wallet.
>Having APIs for apps on a device to talk to each other allows for competition and variety - won't it obviously win out?
Nope, there's no guarantee. There are benefits to both approaches. Different people have different priorities, normies don't care this much about freedom.
If this is the future you want, you need to fight for it.
On the other hand, if WeChat eventually opens up its "app" to other developers and companies, then it will effectively become the operating system and platform. At which point (1) this is "isomorphic" our current system and offers exactly zero advantages (we are just changing where we place the label "operating system") (2) it will be competing with iOS and Android, not with other apps (3) they will have to release a phone that runs the WeChat OS
The real takeaway is "That's a long-term threat to iOS and Android, as well as any company that makes phones to run them"
"As it becomes more powerful and self-contained, Chinese phone consumers will stop asking what phone and operating system they should buy, and start contemplating what phone best runs WeChat."
For a user, easy to use is how many barriers s/he has to deal with. Many of the barriers are not only reduced by better technologies and products.
Don't get me wrong. I personally expect better-tech-leads-the-way.
WeChat can make these moves because they know they have their back covered by the government. Even if Apple wants to do anything about it, they know they need to play nice with the Chinese government, and overall it makes more sense for them to let WeChat do whatever just so that they can sell iPhones in China.
Facebook can't do something like this easily. If Facebook went a bit too far to do something like this, Apple will definitely stop them.
With WeChat it's not that simple.
My point is, there are many reasons why something works or doesn't work, and many people tend to just see a single facet of the entire situation and decide. Like how these American VCs idolize WeChat and other Asian tech phenomenon and try to emulate them. "Who's the WeChat of America?" is the stupidest question to ask when trying to build an innovative company.
We need the Web to win in order for platforms to stay open, and innovation to flourish, and power dynamics to be more healthy.
Here is me pontificating at length about it in a video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WzMm7-j7yIY
Only the people who you want to share your ids on other services with will know. Such as your friends. You might tell only a few people that you are CrackerJack on porn.com, but you might tell everyone that you are FooManChu22 on Instagram. It's all up to you. And it should be seamless and automatic – when you arrive at a new service, you should already have the ids of all your friends on that service who shared it with you by now. You send this list to the service in order to connect with those friends. And you can also get notifications when a friend joins a service.
This is truly decentralized, private, secure, and social. Here's a diagram: https://qbix.com/diagrams/groups.png
And if you want to learn more, go here: https://qbix.com/platform or email me.
As far as I can tell, the so called "Mini program" are just webpages? If so, how can it "call up useful features like photo filters"? One would need to
1. take a photo,
2. upload to website,
3. review the result and
4. Repeat 1-3 if result not satisfied?
Am I missing something here?
Granted, there are plenty of problems with apps and security as it is, but at least you can have separate registrations for each and one sketchy app doesn't necessarily compromise your whole system.
Maybe the article doesn't make the point well or I'm just missing it.
The innovation here, imo, is that WeChat is essentially a web browser that looks and feels very different from traditional web browsers. It's a big deal given the conditions of today; i.e. cloud-based and browser-based applications are becoming the norm. Interesting, for sure. I see a future in it, anyway.
What's the problem?
not sure what's the difference between having million apps and functions hidden within one app instead of having them separated between more apps which also helps with diversifying risks and it's easier to organize
the thing is, people in West actually value their privacy sort off, while people in China are not even offered this option at table, so you end up with one gov approved app which they are monitoring and censoring
Besides, I don't want to migrate everything I do online to a smartphone (it would have to be Android or IOS then, because that's all they support of course — vendor lock-in is not so great for innovation) or a sanctioned PC OS. In fact, most of the time I don't even want to run some service's software, except for those that run in the sandbox that is my web browser (i.e., websites and web applications).
Actually, all things considered we already have that one app that does it all; the web browser.
When I say "app", I mean all software including websites. The main problem to tackle is not a technical one, but a design one. It's with the UX fragmentation that I have a problem. A native mega-app that contains mini-apps with different UX is not better than what we have today.
The web browser is even worse than native apps, as there's not even a minimal set of guidelines that help unify the web experience.
Undesirable for most, harmful for many, and lethal for some.
I live in a fairly tolerant society as far as Earth standards go, but some things I will only share with a select few. Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd. It would ostracise a lot of people even in a nominally free society. In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime).
Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way.
> […] as there's not even a minimal set of guidelines that help unify the web experience.
Good. Our culture thrives by diversity. Innovation stagnates without it.
We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers.
You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet.
As I said, there is work to do before we can go fully transparent. It will ultimately be harmful only to those who deserve it.
> Should my medical records be open to anyone? My banking statements? My sexual preferences and fantasies? That's absurd.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Why do you assume that's absurd? Why do you insist on keeping secrets? The world would be a lot better if all those things were communicated publicly.
> In some less enlightened jurisdictions some of these will get you executed or lynched (ask any gay person in a Muslim country, or anyone critical of their government in a repressive regime).
That's a problem that will only get worse as privacy is maintained. Privacy skews our perception of reality and makes people/government think that some ideas/flaws/actions/crimes are rare when the reality is that most people are able to conceal them. Those who get caught suffer from exaggerated punishment that's only sustained through the ability of others to hide. The democratization of privacy is not the solution to this problem.
> Yet I might want to chat about some topics with like minded individuals (again, assume for the sake of argument that all of it is legal in my jurisdiction) under a pseudonym or anonymity; the internet is a wonderful place where this is possible — partly because I'm not doing everything through one megacorp's 'app'. I'd like to keep it that way.
Anonymity is overrated. It's only good at restricting details that could otherwise become a distraction, as a way to focus on content rather than form. This can be achieved through other means that don't restrict access to information or make a person believe their reputation is immune to bad actions. Again, the only reason you want privacy and anonymity is because it's the norm, not because it's best.
I have never implied that such an "app" would be owned by a mega corporation. It will be fully open (again, transparent), free and distributed.
> We standardise where necessary for mutual benefit and cooperation (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript; Unicode; or accessibility standards), and often we will imitate or copy what works (e.g., the 'hamburger menu', or sensible typography) but that doesn't mean every site or service or application should look the same and connect to the same set of identity providers.
These standards, while better than nothing, are mediocre at best. They're also very low-level. I don't want my grandmother to program in HTML/CSS/JS.
> You present a very radical viewpoint, and I applaud you for your fervour, but I suspect you are either very young, not a developer, or you haven't experienced the downside of the monopolistic behaviour of the world's Apples, Googles, and Microsofts yet.
I'm 25. I'm a developer. I fully appreciate the limitations of Google/Apple/Microsoft, hence my request to make something different.
It is not absurd as a thought experiment, merely impossible to implement without sacrificing one of the defining aspects of our (global) culture. I won't rehash the many arguments fore and against the idea of total transparency — I'll leave that to the science fiction writers and activists — but the concept of privacy is so fundamental to our concept of self that I cannot imagine that people in a society without privacy would be happier.
Personal opinion aside, your view is so radical, that the adoption of a technical solution such as the one you propose won't happen until the notion of total transparency gains more adherents. To do so you would have to come up with convincing answers to the (many!) arguments posited against the notion of total transparency; often formulated as the if you've got nothing to hide fallacy — which I believe applies here. We'll be very old or dead by the time society has shifted that far from its current believe in privacy — then you can start working on a technical solution (this may answer your initial question).
Since I don't live in China, should this bother me?
There may be several possible steady states, one might be a pervasive totalitarian surveillance state and another might be a liberal democracy with individual freedoms and a system of checks and ballances. But while both such systems exist in the world, it's possible that one or the other might establish dominance over the other. In fact one or the other winning out seems inevitable in the long term.
So as long as an oppressive totalitarian surveillance state exists in the world, there is a risk that it will become the steady state for the whole world. China has such a system. WhatsApp is thoroughly subverted by the Chinese government and is an integral part of their surveillance and censorship apparatus. It might even become the key component that enables complete and permanent stability for the Chinese totalitarian system.
Then imagine yourself using one of the apps contributing data to that system, even if from outside the country. Oh well, maybe we're already using many of them and we didn't notice.
Lets not get the two confused.
Has no one tried it yet or are Western users somehow hostile to these kind of apps?
it's mostly because WeChat has gov protected monopoly over China, while Western chat apps operate in fragmented environment so it's really difficult to convince user to switch to them for payment if half of your contacts can't receive your payment and same goes for other functionality and building this features require critical mass of users which is just not possible in open market (well it's not possible on Android since Google seem to be suicidal regarding chat, is perfectly possible with iMessage)
WeChat is majorly filled with bot accounts which do most of the stuff. And the webpages/requests are loaded to either fill the message box or load a webpage within the app to conclude the request.
As most of it is kind of local (banks, home security, grocery, etc) the bots are mostly locally available and so they haven't really flourished or even made for outside China.
A really better article to understand what WeChat provides was on the VC Andreessen Horowitz blog[1].
People seem to be very much hating how hostile it looks and feel but China's internet is a walled garden, WeChat falls perfectly inside the firewall to provide everything within the app. And that is the reason why such chat app won't work anywhere is because the world. We have access to internet and its apps completely, we have the power to choose whichever app we like unlike for China's user base which has been living with the habit to only look for apps and services which the government approves.
The article really is trying to convey that how WeChat has become the onestop for everything in China, which gives them that much reason to launch a OS around WeChat and not care about the other App Stores.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a phone from them in near future
Once Apple opens Siri to a greater extent, we'll have even more flexibility & power. I could delete so many apps if Siri could handle the few, basic functions that I actually need. Currently, SiriKit is limited to particular domains, like messaging, payments, or reservations, so it's not capable of a whole lot [1]. The Alexa Skills Kit [2] is ahead of Siri at this point, only because it's more open to developers.
One day, this is what Siri will do:
Siri takes a photo of my checks, handles my banking logins, and submits the photos for deposit processing. I delete my banking app.
Siri records my voice, sends it to Google Translate, and returns the appropriate translation. Then I delete Google Translate.
With the IntentsUI Framework, apps could include a visual experience, too. There's plenty of room for growth and customization.
Siri even lets you activate Google Now, Alexa, or a different voice assistant that is more intelligent. Sorry Siri, but you just aren't as good :(
Siri would handle security and API stuff. It would store my logins and account information, and then it would appropriately handle my Intents. I could download particular functions and increase the capabilities of Siri, like how iMessages has its own App Store.
One selling point with Firefox OS was the Adaptive App Search, where relevant apps would be available as you needed them. Searching for coffee? A Starbucks web app would appear, and you could use it on the fly, similar to the Progressive Web Apps with Android. In either case, the purpose was to limit installed software and prioritize what was actually needed at the time [3].
But Siri, or Alexa, or any voice assistant will push this further when all of the APIs Just Work™. I don't know how soon this day will come, but I could delete so many apps if Siri could process my data and communicate with 3rd parties.
[1] SiriKit: https://developer.apple.com/sirikit/
[2] Alexa Skills Kit: https://developer.amazon.com/alexa-skills-kit
[3] Firefox Adaptive App Search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9zwf0VMVDI
Didn't know why this is hyped so much, and there is nothing revolutionary about this. It makes the Chinese internet even more becoming WeChat's own walled garden.
And just because of that, most of the businesses and companies start to live off of wechat's user base and features. For example, there are subscription accounts where you get subscribed articles regularly so you don't need to build a news app anymore for content, and individual content producers can also publish just as easily, so the spiral gets deeper and deeper into the wechat system. And when payment started to come around on WeChat in 2014 (iirc), even Alipay is taking a hit, because now you literally can just keep WeChat open on your phone.
I think that, if you build an IM product and suddenly become the only app people ever use, this is just amazing.
Well, not me. I'm Chinese and I hate hate hate WeChat. It's a cluttered, privacy intrusive app and a very close eco system.
WeChat became this popular is by no means because of the app per se, but because of it is made and heavily promoted by Tencent.
Before WeChat we had much more elegant and simple apps like Talkbox and WhatsApp.
pretty much every photo sharing website is blocked
Chinese "internet" is essentially using white list, it's easier to say what's not blocked than list everything which is blocked
Says who?
> and if you consider them as such then the west has exactly the same problem as the one you have just described.
What? So, "the evil west" considers social media and news sites "not internet" and blocks access to them?