Verified business accounts | Hacker News Reader

Verified business accounts

faq.whatsapp.com

51 pointsartsandsci43 comments

Isn't this related to an upcoming feature[1] for businesses to contact (some may read it as "spam") you on WhatsApp?

If so, the verified colors being "green" or "yellow" is really a minor detail.

A better submission would be a story of the "big picture" about businesses interacting with WhatsApp users. (E.g. Will the unsolicited commercial interactions make the platform better or drive people away?)

>If you'd like to stop a business from contacting you, you can block them.

I'm guessing users are not looking forward to the day when the smartphone imposes yet another housekeeping task on them.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

You can have businesses support without spam if they only allow the chat to be started by the user.

WhatsApp is missing out in a big way. In Brazil almost every business has a whatsapp number.

Where are the tools to make using whatsApp easier for a business? The fact that I still need my phone around to use the webclient just sucks. Telegram doesn't need it, why does whatsapp?

Agree 100%! I also find it weird that you can only be signed in to one web client at a time, and your phone MUST be connected to the internet for it to work. Telegram also has a really great developer experience while WhatsApp is locked down. Hopefully biz verification is the first of many new product features. I know making big changes with as many users as they have is really hard, but I would love to see some momentum.

They're moving slow, probably out of extra caution about scaring off users by commercializing it. It's not like they're unaware of the absolutely massive demand for brands and companies to get into WA.

Maybe it's also spam. You can't sign up for Whatsapp without a mobile number - landlines and VoIP mostly do not work to activate.

Google voice numbers work, and show up in contact lists as Grand Central, which makes me think they explicitly intend to support Google voice.

Interesting. I tried that earlier this year and WhatsApp rejected it saying it wasn't a mobile.

WhatsApp need it because of the P2P technology. On Telegram, your messages are stored on their servers, so it's less secure, but you can text on multiple devices.

I agree that we need business tools. The demand for customer service via WhatsApp where I work is much higher than the ability to a single operator answer them.

It's possible to store messages on the servers and be secure at the same time (I'm not saying Telegram in particular is secure). I think it's more because Whatsapp's model is much cheaper on server expenses (they only need to store messages on the server until it's delivered).

It can be secure, but it's less secure by definition.

While it's almost impossible to crack some cryptos, it's definitely impossible retrieve data that simply isn't there.

What I'm saying is I don't think Whatsapp designed it to be secure (P2P is more likely a byproduct of their design). They designed it to save server cost. After they are successful, it's straightforward to implement P2P crypto on that design, so they added that feature because they don't store the messages on server anyway.

WhatsApp is not strictly P2P and your belief that it doesn't store information on its servers, by claiming "it's definitely impossible retrieve data that simply isn't there", isn't true. It does store encrypted messages on its servers for up to 30 days while it attempts to deliver it. [1]

[1]: https://www.whatsapp.com/legal/#privacy-policy-information-w...

To the point, WhatsApp is designed that way. Wire [1], which also has end-to-end encryption of all chats, supports syncing across multiple devices and doesn't have this requirement of a master device. Wire also stores encrypted chats on the server for a limited time, just like WhatsApp does.

[1]: https://wire.com

> The fact that I still need my phone around to use the webclient just sucks. Telegram doesn't need it, why does whatsapp?

Basically why we can't have end-end encrypted communication for the masses.

> The fact that I still need my phone around to use the webclient just sucks.

Exactly, I never got this about WeChat and WhatsApp. If I have my computer (which has a 4G connection) with me, I shouldn't need to carry my phone with me.

I usually run WhatsApp and WeChat inside Android virtual machines to solve this major design flaw.

Isn't that what web.whatsapp.com for?

No, as far as I remember you need the phone and the computer to be on the same wifi.

Not the same wifi, but since web.whatsapp is pulling the data from your phone, they recommend that your phone be connected to wifi.

You don't. Your phone needs to be on the internet tho. Personally I like this setup, it's simple and just works. And no issue about missing some messages or duplicate notifications (which is sometimes the case with multi endpoint apps).

web.whatsapp.com requires you to scan some silly QR code with your phone instead of just inputting a username and password. The point is, I would like to not have to carry my phone.

My basic tenet of computing is that every device I own should be able to do ALL tasks that it is computationally capable of, without relying on other devices. When I'm sitting in front of a 4K screen with a massive multi-core CPU and GPU desktop, that I own, there is NO reason I should be be required to also have on my person a 6" dinky piece of junk just to operate the desktop. Every device should independently handle everything it is capable of.

So in my case the virtual machine can just run WhatsApp and I can completely leave my phone behind when I choose to carry my computer with me. Same thing for WeChat. I want my most powerful computers to be able to handle 100% of my personal tasks, not 99%.

What about MFA?

You can feel free to disagree but I don't believe in the current incarnations of MFA; at least not those done with a phone. Stolen phone = insecure system. Dead batteries or dead SIM = stranded.

Biometric MFA, I'm slightly more in support of.

I should be able to identify myself to any electronic system I own or control, using only what's in my mind and body, and nothing else. For now I use pretty much only passwords everywhere. With passwords I can walk and move freely about the world without worrying about losing stuff or forgetting to carry stuff. I always hated physical keys, because I forget them and lose them, and I hate anything that resembles a physical key in that respect.

I love combination locks to apartments and bicycles, by the way. You can head out the door and get around town with exactly nothing in your pocket. Maybe just a credit card to pay for food, at most. It's refreshingly simple and awesome to not have to carry stuff.

Authenticating yourself that way is fine. How do you propose to prevent other people from authenticating as yourself? How entropic are your memorized passwords?

How entropic are combination locks? And vulnerable to picking - I've had to pick a 3-dial Realtor lock before in an emergency. It's easy with an aluminum-foil shim and Youtube instructions.

> How entropic are your memorized passwords?

Quite entropic. And I use PBKDF-HMAC-SHA256 to generate other passwords from a master password on any machine I own without having to store or carry a database or keystore.

> How entropic are combination locks?

What is the attack vector here? A lot of key locks are easy to pick. My apartment door's key lock is a lot more insecure than some of the better combination locks out there.

If someone really wants to get in, they can smash the windows. At that point I think having a security camera system or alarm system would be a better investment.

And yet WhatsApp refuse to allow my work phone access to their network as they don't recognise the phone number as that of a mobile phone. After they asked to see documentation from my phone provider to show that it was indeed a mobile phone contract they ran out of excuses and fell back on "there's nothing we can do"

Yet surprisingly they allow Google voice numbers. Strange.

Not all of them. I was lucky because I ported my carrier number to Google Voice, so telecoms still think it's a cell phone number. However, you have to try a number of GV numbers before one sticks now. This is something they've changed recently.

Twilio numbers do not work, since they are now sending the verification code from a 6 digit short number, which Twilio does not support.

WhatsApp has also cracked down on a number of temporary phone number services including Burner.

This will work great in Mexico. Almost all businesses here allow you to order stuff over WhatsApp. I've bought everything from car insurance to street tacos on WhatsApp.

Businesses have both FB and WA icons painted on the outside, with the FB page name and the WA number.

Partially due to the heavy cash economy, all businesses' calls to action on social media (FB/Instagram) focus on getting people to message and then place orders via WA or Messenger (instead of clicking Buy links to CC forms online). The response rates are really good, within minutes for most places. It feels like a perfected version of "chatbot AI" sometimes.

As someone who uses WhatsApp to communicate with friends and family overseas, I could potentially see that as a nice support channel for businesses. However, there are several problems I see. First, you can't have more than one account linked to the app on your phone.

Second (and correct me if I am wrong), there is no way to create an account associated with a landline phone that I can figure out.

Third, it would be nice if multiple users could access the same account from their devices. Even if used as a sales tool this would limit interaction to one person.

Finally, without an API this is walled garden approach. Without being about to integrate with existing support platforms it is basically useless as a support channel.

In the end, I would like to see WhatsApp have a "business version" and would most likely be a consumer of such service, but verified accounts seems like putting the cart in front of the horse to me.

> Second (and correct me if I am wrong), there is no way to create an account associated with a landline phone that I can figure out.

In markets like India (one of Whatsapp's largest) landline phones have been obsolete for nearly a decade now. It's not a forward-looking feature.

Tons of businesses in India are already using Whatsapp here in India. It's a huge and critical part of the economy now.

I can appreciate that. Unfortunately, here in the US most businesses still all rely on some form of landline number. For many, this is more a virtual number(s) through some VoIP provider. It would be nice to see WhatsApp integrate with some of the players in that market as an "add-on" feature to their services.

Staples (UK) didn't allow me to set up a business account because my company didn't have a landline number.

TBH I think a previous contributor hit the Nail on the head. It must be part of a new business strategy because on its own it does more damage then good.

Whatsapp will now need to allow a team to go through business verification, double check more message flags and support business customers.

Also there is talk of not allowing the deletion of messages, this brings up several questions of encryption and privacy. Something that WhatsApp have recently got down.

All of the above cost money and add very little value. There is no additional service that is acquired by a business from using a personal account.

Therefore it would be crazy for them not to have something else coming. What I hope Is a fully synchronised system with whatsapp. When this happens whatsapp/Facebook joins the realms of the giants like WeChat

I'm curious as to how this will interact with things like state-mandated do not call registries. Currently I can register my phone number such that businesses are not permitted to cold-call me; if this were, say, Skype or Hangouts, then I would have to give ScamCo plc my account name and accept a request from them (or vice-versa), but since services like Whatsapp don't have any concept of mutual consent before contact, I don't get to be asked whether I'd like to hear from them.

I expect it also won't be too long before marketing execs start clamouring to be allowed to use "rich text" and images, and we'll all get to start receiving dodgy Javascript through Whatsapp. Ho hum.

Is whatsapp making a snail paced attempt at becoming WeChat of the west?

Never going to happen at this pace.

No API

No Money Transfer (Well, not yet)

Money Transfer is going to become a feature in India. They're using a payments API that works with all bank existing accounts, so anyone using whatsapp in India could transfer money to and from anyone who's set up their account for UPI.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/w...

WeChat of anything not China would be a better way of putting it. One of their biggest consumer bases is India and there it may actually manage to become like WeChat.

I think Facebook makes experimental developments to Messenger first, and then it develops what works really well on WhatsApp after that. But I don't use WhatsApp, and don't really see the fine details of their work, so I could totally have it assbackwards.

Now, Whatsapp should release API access to chats so that customers can automate chats. That'll allow them to scale to an Enterprise level.

Yes! I am working on a side project that currently integrates with email and sms; I would LOVE to hook into Whatsapp as well in the very near future.

It could really replace / augment the same type of integration Facebook Messenger supports.

I'm not sure if it costs money to have a verified business account but frankly, this is what Twitter should have done. Have paid verified business accounts. I'd easily pay $25+/mo and have a bunch of handy business features and maybe be promoted once in a while to a relevant audience. Missed opportunity.

TLDR: Copying WeChat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com