BirdyChat becomes first European chat app that is interoperable with WhatsApp
birdy.chat
birdy.chat
Unfortunately, as it's been implemented as opt-in on WhatsApp's side, this isn't really true. Honestly that decision alone means it's kinda dead in the water.
Spam prevention is a likely angle, however. EU should force it to be opt-out, not opt-in -- probably what people want anyway.
I am not even sure how this is GDPR-compliant (that app is European and thus must care about GDPR). They do not have my permission to have/handle my private data, and GDPR does not allow WhatAspp to hand it over without my permission either... My name (which whatsapp exposes simply with my phone number) is considered PII under GDPR and
And speaking about the other end: I have bad news about all the data you share with untrustworthy contacts on WhatsApp…
Quite practically, anyone that enables backups (which WhatsApp heavily nudges people to do) uploads a copy of all your messages and media sent to them to a cloud provider you have no privacy agreement with.
As for your second comment, updated first comment with:
I am not even sure how this is GDPR-compliant if that app is European. They do not have my permission to have my private data, and GDPR does not allow whatAspp to hand it over without my permission either...
Only to who you choose to make it available to. And if you choose “everybody”, I don’t see how you can reasonably expect this to mean “everybody not using third-party software”?
You should get to control how/ to whom your data is distributed, but also requiring these recipients to only use software and services of your choosing seems excessive. Platform lock-in at this point seems like the much greater harm.
I could see the case for a small indicator in the contact details that they’re using a third-party client, but anything more (green bubbles?) would be counterproductive.
Being able to reject spam , regions, specific people, specific topics, all makes sense. Wanting to approve/reject the program used to make the connection is a pretty useless way to segment communications - how will you determine “questionable” clients, and what when there’s a person you want to chat with and a person you don’t both using the same client?
You did have to initiate the call, but you still didn’t have any kind of agreement about it.
If you are bored and have a computer, you can add every possible phone number as a contact. Not many people do that, but some did.
> old telephone lines did not disclose info about me with merely my phone number.
Did you call that drug dealer every Tuesday evening? Looks suspicious. Did that criminal call you the day before he robbed a store not far from your home? Looks suspicious. Do you call Pakistan twice a week? Looks suspicious. Have you ever called a suicide prevention hotline? A bank other than your own? A mosque? An independent political party?
Your POTS phone was always revealing information.
The regional limit makes it pretty much useless. The only reason I keep a whatsapp account is to stay in touch with my family in law and a few relatives who live in another continent.
Sounds like an easy fix. Europe just has to convince the rest of the world to ditch the 15 year old popular US apps ingrained in pop culture and with network effects, and have them switch to their own EU made apps, this way we can all communicate together. :hugs: Until then, let's keep chatting on $US_APP so we can debate on how we're gonna achieve that switch.
Maybe it was tongue in cheek and I missed it.
There have been several alternatives, and people didn’t switch.
WhatsApp strikes a good balance of usability and security. Telegram is too insecure (no E2E by default). Signal is too secure (no chat exports).
Nobody has even bothered to make an app that stands toe-to-toe with WhatsApp, even without the network effects.
Getting the 2 billion users is the hard part. But that is marketing not coding.
it's the network effect.
If normies who don't care for things (which is most people tbh) don't decide to switch, do you, as a techie/early adopter, just turn off whatsapp and disconnect with your normie friends? You are unlikely to be important enough in the friend group to force a switch, not to mention that this needs to happen enmass for a swing in the network effect to happen.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Imagine all your friends love pizza, as do you. Suddenly you decide sushi is better so, naturally, you tell your friends to try out sushi at the next dinner. Assuming some of your friends are not absolutely against sushi, yes, you’ll have that sushi dinner. But what if they don’t like it that much? They will revert to pizza or accept sushi, occasionally, when they want to see you, while still prefering pizza for all other interactions.
There has to be a perceived advantage for changing habits. If few people see the benefits of Signal or other non-Whatsapp apps, they will not change their minds.
You just have to check the one they use. Also, both of the apps would support notifications when something has happened in that app.
> But what if they don’t like it that much?
There is no real advantage of WhatsApp over Signal except that some people are already using it, and a significant privacy disadvantage. Once someone already has Signal then the advantage of WhatsApp is gone and only the disadvantage remains.
Signal trades some decreased convenience (for example in terms of backup) for some added security. Whatsapp has more “cosmetic” features (polls,…).
If you value privacy over convenience and other features Signal is a great choice. If you value convenience and other features over privacy Whatsapp is a great choice.
I think it’s safe to say that different people have different priorities which result in different choices.
This can't be a barrier to adoption in practice because most people don't even know that it's a thing in order to consider it as a difference, and anyone who both does and cares about it from the outset would have no trouble setting up automatic backups with Signal, and then appreciate the privacy advantage.
> Whatsapp has more “cosmetic” features (polls,…).
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/9971667844506-S...
> If you value privacy over convenience and other features Signal is a great choice. If you value convenience and other features over privacy Whatsapp is a great choice.
There is no actual reason to use Whatsapp except for the network effect.
and only those who actually succeed being unreasonable is remembered. The other unreasonable people simply get forgotten or ignored - the vast majority.
Also, you're promoting defeatism. If it's just you and you succeed 1% of the time, it still helps a little. If it's millions of people -- even if that's a small minority of the population -- and they each succeed 1% of the time, that's actually a lot of groups getting converted. And it's more likely to succeed the more people in each group who do it.
So the conclusion should be that everybody should do it, since that improves everybody's odds, rather than that nobody should.
Therefore, you risk the loss resulting from a failure.
It's why you don't just use this argument to gamble or buy lottery tickets.
Signal is the closest but they fall short because they prioritize privacy over features. Which is their choice to make, but it means they have ruled themselves out from going mainstream. If you're not targeting feature parity with WhatsApp then you have zero chance of supplanting it.
Telegram prioritises idk the FSB spying on your chats, that app gives me the creeps.
I'm the only person I know who ever did it.
Android/media/com.whatsapp/WhatsApp/Backups/
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/whatsapp/comments/11oiwse/working_a...
I find Telegram the best app; its faster and easier than the rest I find. The default no e2e sucks so cannot use it for everything, but having everything immediately ready and working on all devices makes it very nice. When you buy a new one, immediately all is there. Yes, obviously I am aware that can only be because no e2e, but normies and non normies alike seem to really hate the whatsapp, and even more, signal losing all your messages because backup/restore is too annoying. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but if someone manages to make more that experience... I mean turn it around; make e2e the default but allow people to create groups or 1-1 without e2e if they want (knowing then downsides and upsides of that).
Signal has end-to-end encryption working on all devices. Telegram doesn't because they're amateurs.
Edit: I guess you are from Ukraine? That is valid, the CEO is fishy. I did say I would not recommend it, I said it is the only performant and easy to use chat app I know off. That was a user perspective thing and more the hope of people pointing out 'no you fool here is another good one'. Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly. Whatsapp a little better, but Meta. Next.
You can't enable 1:1 secret chat from your desktop client. The secret chat doesn't appear on desktop when you enable it on your phone. So you're forced to drop end-to-end encryption if you want interoperability between phone and desktop clients. You can't enable secret chats for group chats on any client. The company isn't working to make secret chats actually usable.
>I guess you are from Ukraine?
Nope.
>Definitely not Signal, slow and unfriendly
The thing is, friendly apps are apps that respect your human right to privacy. There's a term for applications that appear to do something useful while doing something against the user's interests without them knowing: A Trojan Horse. Which is a malware classification.
When you view it through that lens, Telegram is the unfriendliest app out there outside completely unencrypted messengers like Palringo (at least used to be the case), where anyone can read your message from the cable with WireShark.
anyway, the point was not to use or endorse telegram, or the garbage i mentioned, but strive for e2ee while fast and usable.
I would sign up for anything e2ee but yeah ideally open source and hosting owned by an EU company.
Telegram is fast precisely because it's backdoored by design. Forward secret messaging app with proper key management has to encrypt the message to every peer in the group. Telegram can just use single packet to server that then pushes it to everyone else. This difference will die over time as 5G and 6G take over and phones get faster by generation. Telegram will not get more safe by generation. They're only playing to get as many users to their roach motel to make it as difficult as people for people to leave.
What about Deltachat/Arcanechat?
I use Signal to communicate with other tech folks, but good luck convincing your dentist/doctor/etc to send reminders on signal instead of WhatsApp.
I think they have different (and somewhat opposing, even) targets, Signal wants to be extremely privacy protecting, and it's a disservice to their goals to sell them as a replacement for WhatsApp, because they're not.
If you want people to switch, recommend Telegram.
Why would people switch from always-end-to-end encrypted group chats to never-end-to-end encrypted group chats?
Boosting Russia is not the solution.
That is the main issue.
There are alternatives but waaaay too many already. Some will say Signal, others matrix, xmpp, jami, deltachat, olvid, simplex, briar, tox,...there is a new one every couple of months but none everbody can agree on.
The sad part is we were halfway there with XMPP 2 decades ago when both google and facebook were interoperable with it.
It's not a technical problem. It's a political one
How do you do encryption?
The reason Whatsapp won out over competing services in the first place (over here at least) was that they managed to be both free and relatively spam free. All free alternatives quickly got subsumed by spam (even non-free SMS has a spam problem nowadays).
I don't know if you know this, but the EU cannot force a company to obey EU laws outside of the EU.
'Intel v Commission (C-413/14 P, 2017)' is another case where EU Antitrust explicitly punished global conduct outside of the EU.
Right now, with exception of antitrust, EU laws only incidentally affect global conduct, e.g. once a business is compliant with GDPR, it's often too costly to restrict compliance just to the EU. Nothing stops that from changing. EU absolutely can make a law that obliges e.g. chat app providers to either apply EU privacy standards globally or face bans/fines/seizure of their EU operations.
Are you on some funny medication or something? ROTFL.
I live in one of those countries, and I don't think I've ever had to use it to communicate with someone on another continent. I think most of its use is simply local, for your community or friend group.
The downside for me is basically the lack of appeal for a non-tech user (like my parents) to voluntarily want to stop using an app they've been using for, what, 10-12 years? It’s not that big of a deal; everyone uses Instagram or Facebook (maybe)... WhatsApp is definitely going to make the process difficult, too.
It's an interesting divide.
I do have some Caucasian friends who use WhatsApp. One stopped using it when FB purchased it, which I can respect. Most people I know in the states though just use iMessage or signal.
That's interesting; I have and use discord myself (owner of a 300+ member server for my WoW guild), but I've never really considered it a messaging app in the same way I do iMessage, WhatsApp, and so on. I think because everyone is pseudo anonymous, it's more like social media to me. Plus I've got the phone numbers and iMessage groups for close friends I've made over discord.
Given its popularity among gamers of all nationalities, I wonder where discord stacks up in relation to the EU's DMA?
(I just really don't like Discord and I'm bitter that it's what my guild de facto has to use because it's what gamers have standardized on.)
All the B2C services I work with are sending SMS to my phone. Not RCS, not iMessage: they are sending SMS messages.
All the MFA providers, such as Twilio and Okta, are sending SMS.
All the political campaign spammers are sending SMS.
All the reminders for appointments and bills are sending SMS.
All the notifications for apps where Push isn't good enough: they're sending SMS.
If user-to-user communication is using iMessage then that is fine. I have noticed that only about 2 of my human contacts use RCS, and at least 2 of them are using iPhones and not Androids for it. So that's some anecdata for ya!
iMessage?
> 40% of Americans are not using [iMessage]. I'd consider that widespread.
That doesn't mean those 40% are using SMS instead.
Here in EU you pay for that. Soon as you send an image, you get charged extra. Completely useless compared to Whatsapp
Have you considered that the EU isn't one country?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_Messaging_Service
It is not unusual for there to be hosting or intermediate storage of images and other files, and from the phone you may tap a link or something to download/access that file, instead of having it automatically download and appear immediately, due to bandwidth and resource constraints.
I guess a phone/app could exist that does convert to MMS instead, though, since the app can make that decision.
Both of these exist, as do middle grounds between them.
I'm in only one WhatsApp group with someone local, everyone else in my chats is from abroad. Yet I'm from a country with dirt cheap data and nearly universal smartphone ownership. People just don't use WA here for whatever reason. But drive an hour across the border and suddenly everyone is on WhatsApp.
There are phone deals that include unlimited SMS messages, but not MMS.
Now try, exporting all your whatsapp messges to standard format that can be interpreted in any text editor. Again, SMS wins.
Looking for the abusive messages a nasty acquitance sent you? Again, SMS wins.
edit: okay, sending MMS isn't always free, depends on the countries[1]. still free for USA, Europe, Canada, etc.
(Although most Americans have iPhones so just transparently avoid SMS for most of their conversations.)
I still only use WhatsApp because it’s a lot better than sms.
I live in one such country, and indeed, the bulk of my usage is to coordinate with local groups based in the same city.
But tend to meet many people from the US who don't live here, and they all straight up ask for my whatsapp.
I'm also a heavy telegram and signal user, and can't recall a single instance of anybody mentioning these.
I don't use Google or Apple accounts either so RCS is out too. WhatsApp is meta now unfortunately but for historical reasons there's no avoiding it here.
I use WhatsApp and Telegram pretty much exclusively (telegram more for group chats)
To you maybe. Not everyone has overseas contacts.
It's not really the "overseas" usecase that is the sticking point for many businesses.
Does your business in Spain ever need to message Brits who are there on holiday? Does your business in Greece ever have customers who drive across the border from Albania?
And we both met them here in Europe.
People are so welcoming in latin america that when you marry someone, you literally marry the whole extended family. After just a handful of years is not like my partner's aunts and cousins are strangers to me. I can contact them anytime for advice on a topic related to their work/career field and they will do so about mine.
Add to that some cousins and friends who moved overseas and I have many regular contacts that live more than 10000km away from me.
Most people communicate with the ones in their region. Even when going on vacation most people can afford only to travel around their own continent.
Ukraine isn't in the EU, neither is Swicerland, Norway or, most famously, the UK. All of these are on the European continent, all of these have citizens living right near a border with an EU country and regularly having to communicate with the EU side.
Yes, it does not include UK, but that's on them.
I encourage people living in other countries to complain to their goverment on Metas policies.
… useless FOR YOU. not useless overall. its just that you in your limited use case cannot use it.
So I am usually "in the region" with those guys, but since "region" probably means "similar phone number" it will be useless to me too.
FAIL
Chatting with anyone has always been opt in from the point of the receiver, so I don't get your point?
And how many of these are there? Anyone?
With BirdyChat though, it feels like you'll be confronted by its silliness in perpetuity.
I suspect a good number of people here don't care for any of this - FOSS, chat, voice, and video is where it's at. Interoperability for those last two don't exist yet AFAIK, and they're truly game-changers. Will that change? Does the DMA mention anything other than chat? Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
The downside, of course, is that voice and video will not work.
Oh, and perhaps a ton of initial invitations, one for every conversation you have open.
There are open servers you can join, with the bridges enabled, but of course, that kind of defeats the purpose. At that point you might as well use a commercial, closed-source offering, as, ironically, a corporation with a large footprint you can sue. Average Joe with an AWS instance you might not be able to track down, should your data leak.
Edit: Saw your other comment now.
SEPA normalization took forever, and even now instant transfers are still very often paid past the limit in your card bundle (probably around 3 if you don't have an expensive card).
Brussels rarely works for the little people; they just support whatever the big players at the moment want, unless they are foreign and can come up with a reason to tax them.
It is delusional to think politicians in Brussels care about the little guys; it is always about maintaining or gaining power, otherwise they wouldn't come up with absurd regulations that hit the small players much harder than any of the big ones.
Also, how much longer are they really than legacy national standard ones? In the countries I'm familiar with, they've added exactly four characters: The country code in positions 1-2 and the robust, standardized check digits in position 3 and 4.
Both are extremely worth it, in my opinion. Take a look at ACH in the US if you want to see a great example for how not to do it: No checksums, two fields instead of one (ABA routing number and account number), separate routing numbers per domain (some banks have different numbers for wires, and some even for checks and ACH) etc.
So you do need SEPA normalization; otherwise that can't work. It's hardly a problem, and the fact that it required a regulation just shows how ineffective governments are in practice.
Fintech banks came up with an easier-to-use, more efficient, and more convenient system in less time than it took them to do this. And they manage to be cheaper.
The problem with banks is entirely regulation related; they are established players, working with/for the government, and basically get rewarded for stealing. Once I had a problem with my legacy bank, who robbed me of over 1k euros because they were generating 150-euro letters to tell me they refused a government tax debit for a lack of provision (mind you, the rejected amount was 50 euros, less than a third of their fee for rejecting it).
As far as I'm concerned, banks are legal criminals, enabled by the even bigger criminals running governments.
> If a company is legally obligated to offer a feature to people in other parts of the world, they should be forced to offer it at back home in the US as well
This is a pretty typical self -entitled attitude that Americans have. You chose your government, not the rest of the world.
The obvious implication of the above statement is that the US government should force the company to do this.
>This is a pretty typical self -entitled attitude that Americans have.
When Americans ask their government for the exact same thing that Europeans asked their government for, suddenly Europeans think Americans are "entitled". There's no content to your ideology beyond just "America Bad".
At let’s not forget, most of the egregious privacy violations like faang and adtech come from American companies.
>It’s more like expecting a privilege your parents gave your sibling just because they got it as a result of doing well in school while your grades were so-so.
It was once believed that privacy is a right that all humans share, and should be advanced for everyone. Modern scholars understand that this view is mistaken. Privacy is a privilege (your word, not mine!) that Europeans earned through their refined culture and discernment. Us Americans will need to catch up in terms of ancient ruins, cheese, and multilingualism in order to earn the the same privilege that Europe has by birthright =)
>At let’s not forget, most of the egregious privacy violations like faang and adtech come from American companies.
Was this statement intended to disprove my claim that 'There's no content to your ideology beyond just "America Bad".'?
But yeah broadly speaking I’m very content about the greater legal protections this continent affords. (And it only works because the EU makes rules for such a large and valuable market, why is why breaking away à la Brexit amounts to such a loss of leverage: you have to reach consensus, but you also become a behemoth. Useful tradeoff.)
Commision [executive], Council (of Ministers/of the EU) [legislative] and Parliament [legislative] are the three most significant in terms of doing/looking like what any sovereign country government would.
There's the EU, but members of the EU have their own governments.
I can't figure out why people keep getting confused. Turkey and Russia are in Europe, but not in the EU, for instance.
> Messages, attachments and other materials that you send through BirdyChat to your contacts;
No thanks
"we store all messages": they store everything and ther s no guarantee of processing, sharing or selling that data
"we store all messages encrypted end to end for sole the purposes of communication and can never access its contents" would provide many more guarantees.
Why would I ever want my work to intrude on my personal messaging? My private time is my own. Slack/Teams is perfect because I can mute it on a schedule when I stop for the day.
Anything that is urgent can be managed via Pagerduty or similar on a controlled fashion
You might be interested in our state of the bird posts... https://discourse.imfreedom.org/tag/state-of-the-bird
I think the pitch here is exactly the opposite of that? Many businesses in the EU already use WhatsApp for customer contact - this lets you separate your business communications from the app you use for personal messaging
"Built for better conversations Reach people with their email, not their phone number. Designed for focused, meaningful exchanges between managers, builders, and collaborators."
Is it using email protocols to send messages or is it using email addresses as a proxy for usernames?
The claim of a drive for better conversations is not really that accurate because better conversations rely on a more universally used app/system than presently exists. Ie, a replacement that would have to grow internationally extraordinarily quickly.
Apple figured that out... iMessage was basically a cheat code to a vast userbase almost instantly. What Apple didn't figure, however, was that iMessage's green/blue thingy that went on for so long didn't really give android/sms users fomo, but really, it just created an unneeded communication barrier. Such barriers are the exact opposite of what is needed for a communication platform to be excellent. Unfortunately, decisions counter to what may be perceived as income generating are difficult to reverse.
These sorts of apps may not be revolutionary enough I fear. I would love to adopt something like this, but Meta continue to make too many billions to let their monopoly on human communication management to be taken away that easily.
From a cursory glance of their CSAE policy, combined with the above, it seems they would be very eager to comply with the dreaded "chat control".
WhatsApp does the same: have you noticed how the photos you receive have a debatable quality? Presumably (and hopefully) the sender's app downscaled them before e2e encryption.
https://engineering.fb.com/2024/03/06/security/whatsapp-mess...
* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.trianguloy...
* Webapp: https://trianguloy.github.io/OpenInWhatsapp_Web/
I'm just grateful for this app, so I thought that maybe other HNers might find it useful.
I didn't even suspected this was an option! I won't deny that I'm a bit distracted, but the UI discovery itself is also very poor.
Can't help but think they are maintained by people close to Meta dev teams and were hand-picked for a malicious compliance, where they can just point to them as examples, and they make onboarding as complicated and expensive as possible for others.
They're both b2b products that are gonna try to find their first users by pitching the idea that you can use their products to spam WhatsApp users.
Haiket doesn't even try to hide its connection to Meta. All you have to do is to go to their website, click on press, and see in the only press release they've ever posted that its CEO holds patents in use by Meta. Here, let me save you a click: https://haiket.com/press/release-nov11.html
> Alex holds over 10 patents in voice and communication technologies, assigned to and used by Google and Facebook.
By the time this back-and-forth reaches its end, these two will find some shady b2b customers and are gonna be touted as "successful European startups".
- the default choice needs to be "strictly necessary cookies
- with other less prominent buttons for "allow all" and "deny all"
- a site is not allowed to force you to have the press a bunch of buttons or select a bunch of things to deny most/all cookies
The problem lies in enforcement. Unless you are a huge player, there is almost nil chance you're gonna get fined.
I think about the only thing missing is that they should have RFC'd a standard akin to Do Not Track, except this would have communicated to sites if your default is "strictly necessary", "allow all" or"deny all". With it being set to "strictly necessary" by default.
I am curious: why is that difficult? Define the fine as a percentage of the revenue of the company, have users report links, and pay someone to check the link and send the fine.
Sounds like easy money... I mean it's very profitable to pay people to check parking lots and fine drivers who don't follow the regulations. This should be even more profitable?
But admitting you are subject to the laws of a country/entity is one thing, sending them your books (when your company is not based there) is kind of on a different level
The gears are turning slowly, but they're doing really useful work.
The DoJ was trying to stop the Google search deal, trying to split them up etc. Big tech is too big and this is a problem everywhere.
How does this imply he has any connection to Meta? Companies license patents all the time.
> Before Haiket, Alex founded a number of technology start-ups and helped develop innovative voice solutions for Facebook and Google.
At the very least, I think it's safe to say he has some connections within Meta that he utilised for this purpose. He's definitely not a complete outsider whose startup (with no actual product) just happened to be picked by Meta.
My bad. I searched for “Meta” instead of “Facebook.” Quite a few other red flags in that press release.
> Haiket is launching the Beta trial from today, with a pipeline of future innovation for early adopters, including a pioneering silencing technology that will allow users to speak privately in public, with voice communication that only your device can hear.
Does anyone else think this sounds beyond ridiculous?
This is fairly straightforward - you have the device spew out noise with similar characteristics to human speech (ie. random overlapping syllables in the speaker's voice). Take a recording then subtract the random syllables.
Only your device can do the subtraction, because only your device knows the waveform it transmitted.
Obviously in a room with lots of reverb this will be a bit harder, since you will also need to subtract the reflection of what was transmitted with a room profile and deal with the phone moving in the room, but it sounds far from impossible.
Surely this only works if you're using the phone as a speakerphone (and are therefore almost certainly being an arsehole in public[0])?
[0] Because if it was an actual speakerphone situation, hiding your voice would be stupid.
The DMA will change nothing in this regard because the "many apps" approach is the most beneficial to users.
Why? I'd love to be an alternative whatsapp client with all kinds of new features that the official client doesn't have. Obviously you say you're building a compatible chat network, but the reality is users are just using your client to talk to whatsapp users.
Eg. one feature I'd love is some AI to automatically take any date and time someone mentions to me and put it as a draft event in my calendar. I miss so many events from big group chats I'm not paying proper attention to and suddenly everyone is saying "Whoa, you didn't come to Johns 50th birthday?!? Why not? We invited you months ago[in a group chat with 100 messages a day of mostly memes]"
Would love to know how it is "obviously" against my interest to make a chat app and have 3.3 billion users adressable instantly. Bad for internet health to be still tied to Meta, sure, but the damage was done and this is a way to reverse it.
You won't get enough people to pay you money to use your app to make it profitable. If you think you will, then you have a business already; go build it!
Which revenue? Whatsapp is for free, those 3.3 billion people use it for free, the revenue is the reselling of user data and showing them ads. Which they would do less with a 3rd party client, and as such Meta fights it tooth and nail.
> You won't get enough people to pay you money to use your app
It might surprise you but people build apps just for fun, free and open source for others to use, just to make the world better. Which really would be in this case, that's also the intention of this law.
Interoperability by agreement between legitimate messaging services, using custom APIs is the only realistic and secure way to accomplish this.
I also don't think there's such a thing as "made in Europe", as if it was "made in USA". Is it made in Germany, Italy, Albania..?
The way I see it, "made in Europe" may be dubious, but "made in EU" should be just as okay to write as "made in USA". And if it's not a thing, well, nothing is a thing until people make it a thing.
EDIT: also we're talking about a software product here, where most things written on the product is legally meaningless - otherwise we'd have special customs regimes for those major software exporter places like "love" and "♡".
"Made in EU" would be equivalent to "Made in USA", and I'm pretty sure it's regulated.
This is just an app though, so they can say whatever they want. I've seen "Made with love", "Made on Earth", etc.
I'm in Poland and can drive 2 hours and stop understanding what people are saying to me (in German and Czech).
That was my point.
I've always found this a weird take. European (EU) countries are more similar to each other than any country outside of Europe is to any European country.
In your example, if you drive two hours to Germany or Czechia, your car will still be insured, all your bank cards will still work, the price of your mobile phone service stays the same, you'll have a good idea how health and employment systems work, and the chances are you'll be able to talk to people in English.
It remains true that the barriers the businesses face are higher, but that's not what your example was about.
You think finland and malta are more similar to each other than sweden and norway?
I think it would be similar to saying "First American chat app that...", which would be ambiguous?
Their service operates in the European Economic Area, which includes more countries than the EU and is therefore closer to the European geographic surface.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/running-business/devel...
Most notably, Airbus is an "European company".
They can fabricate the product in Bursa and do final assembly in West-Istanbul.
> For interoperability to work, both you and your WhatsApp contacts need to be based in the EEA.
Does my contact phone number need to have an EEA country code? Does my current IP address need to be geolocated in the EEA? Do I need to download the two apps from a regional App Store in the EEA? Do I need to show an EEA payment method to both apps? What happens to my chats if I move or switch app stores?
"For Europe, this is our chance to build competitive alternatives to Big Tech. But we need European-hosted infrastructure to make that possibility a reality."
Page is hosted in USA.
I dare to claim: A majority of EU citizens know really nothing about Latvia.
I have long requested this feature for Whatsapp Business, where I can pay an annual subscription just to have more than one number. So I can separate life between Business and Friends.
Samsung has dual messenger, so you can have 2 instances by default. Then you can open up a work profile and have another two. Then install WhatsApp in a secure folder and have another one (dual messenger seems blocked in secure folder so just one)
Whatsapp on the other hand does not show SMS messages (Which is a design choice that makes sense from a security perspective I guess, not saying it's wrong.)
iMessage is not open, and Apple fights efforts by other companies (e.g. Beeper) to interoperate with it.
Can you send a photo?
How do you send/receive messages from a Windows system? My guess is that you think iMessage is SMS-only.
You can send an SMS.
>My guess is that you think iMessage is SMS-only
No, there's Apple's proprietary protocol, that you can only use on Apple devices. But from non Apple devices you can use the standard SMS.
> No, there's Apple's proprietary protocol...
Earlier you asked: "But iMessage is already open?"
Now you are saying that iMessage uses "Apple's proprietary protocol". I hope now you understand that when people say that Apple iMessage is not open, they are not talking about the SMS protocol that Apple does not own.
WhatsApp is not a great name either, but catchy and somewhat simple.
BirdyPo.. I mean BirdyChat sounds like when doves cry. But not as catchy.
Also, I am all in favour of Europeans becoming less dependent on the USA (yet-another-ICE-killing incident today, with video footage contradicting the claims made by the current government - again), but there is kind of ... a weak decision-making process here. Lobbyists sell to Europeans that Amazon data servers in Europe, now comply with european laws. Well, those are still external companies that will hand over data from europeans, so that is not a solution. Why do some media try to insinuate otherwise? Who owns and controls all these media?
The idea here is that EU three letter agencies also have access to your data
Never attribute to a cabal what can be adequately described by Gell-Mann-Amnesia.
Man with a gun approaches law enforcement during an operation. What do you think was going to happen? They would give him flowers?
How about you try the same thing with the police during a stop or a chase and see if the results are different.
This is really not the place for biased political discourse that has nothing to do with the topic of the conversation.
Gtalk did pull the plug on XMPP but that didn't really change much.
I don't remember EVER interacting with someone with their own XMPP server. Gtalk had nothing to kill.
XMPP was more than Gtalk, but I think that Gtalk was the "death knell" for XMPP, having absorbed it and sort of claimed it as their own. Anyone who would've used federated Jabber addresses in those days is using Mastodon now.
Yeah, just like today, all 4 of them.
Gtalk put XMPP briefly in the spotlight, but for the masses, XMPP never really lived. It was a niche protocol with very niche usage. Just like Mastodon today.
Is it trivial? No.
Is it possible? Yes, I do it.
This is moving the goal posts.
(So not free, not for consumers)
https://developers.facebook.com/documentation/business-messa...
I do not want spam.
This is why iMessage is much better than SMS - there is an implicit cost to send. This is why there is 100x (my experience) iMessage spam than SMS spam. Easy to send messages -> spam
Funnily enough, people being charged per SMS but being allowed to send as much messages as they need on apps like WhatsApp is exactly why SMS/MMS is barely used on a large scale outside of North America.
I rarely receive any spam on my phone. WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal do have the occasional obvious bot, but all apps make it trivial to block and get rid of any of them.
Today, I could write a Python script to connect to my Matrix Synapse server and send a message to rooms bridged to WhatsApp via the `mautrix-whatsapp` bridge.
Even better if we could ditch the phone number requirement. Many have said to me things like "I use whatsapp not SMS because I am not American", but of course everyone on WhatsApp uses SMS. To stay logged into WhatsApp you necessessarily must have an SMS enabled non-VOIP phone number that you are regularly paying a telecom provider for to receive auth codes.
Does this mean i can chat with my whatsapp contacts without the whatsapp official app? I've been hating that for years.
I'd love to be able to get rid of it somehow.
The "spec" is not relevant in any way because we have no idea what else is going on. Why was it relevant that these operators must specifically be in the EU? Everyone is just complying with the global spec...but the app provider must be in Europe...okay.
Which government?
The executive is formed out of national government heads of state, which can veto everything.
Its judiciary and actually all 3 branches are strictly limited in their powers to powers delegated to them (which are weaker than the US Articles of Confederation).
The civil service is covered by the comments above.
In technical terms it is a government, in real life is is strictly limited, albeit growing. No country could operate with the "government" the EU has. France has several million government employees for about 70 million people while the EU has at most 50 000 workers for 450 million citizens).
This is a very complicated topic and I don't really apreciate the condescension inherent in sending me to Wikipedia.
The integration is only possible because the EU forced Meta's hand. The law only applies to massive digital empires with gatekeeper levels of control.
I don't think the EU would mind at all if Meta would permit American companies to interoperate with them. Meta won't just permit it, they have to protect their WhatsApp Business money machine of course.
That's also why the feature is only available to EU numbers. Not because BirdyChat hates Australians, but because WhatsApp won't permit them to send messages to numbers from those countries.
I can count 3 mistakes here:
1- The client isn't the only thing that matters (There's servers)
2- The client doesn't follow a spec in WhatsApp, there is no spec as it's a private non-interoperable system.
3- Browsers and HTTPS work with an entirely different encryption model, TLS is asymmetric, certificate based and domain based. TLS may be used in Whatsapp to some extent, but it's not the main encryption tool.
- If it is proprietary, you just have to blindly trust it (as is the case with WhatsApp currently: they say it is end-to-end encrypted, but you can't verify).
- If it is open source, then some people will want to understand how it works before they trust it. Other will either blindly trust (like for proprietary software) or trust that persons they trust understood how it works and were convinced.
> You might as well ask, how does $browser work with HTTPS?
Well, exactly. I am interested in how the WhatsApp interop works just as I am interested in how HTTPS works.
(This is not the case, apparently.)
I wondered whether it can be used with Whatsapp groups: Apprently not yet.
Want to elaborate a little? I think I got only one spammy WhatsApp message in the last who knows how many years it was made available (I remember the time when I had to pay to use it on the iPhone). I get more SMS spam nowadays.
Ps: joking aside, this is kinda malicious compliance of WhatsApp, picking a chat app nobody uses.
Trippy, dude!
People need signal. It's not perfect, but it's the best available.
No source code, wait list, special compatibility with a for-profit ad based company. No thanks.
Last time I had to reinstall my phone I ended up having to use & fix some Github project that simulated Signal's transfer protocol to simulate a target device to export my data.
I then deleted Signal and migrated to iMessage/WhatsApp and called it a day.
No idea if that's actually what's going on, but Apple thinks of their devices as appliances and hates when apps offer pro-customer features.
> I then deleted Signal and migrated to iMessage/WhatsApp and called it a day.
That doesn't fix anything, does it?
Last time I tried to export a years-long WhatsApp chat, I was only able to export a few-weeks-worth, IIRC. WhatsApp chat exports also don't include media. It's just a txt file. The backup is limited to using Google and it's done in such a way that you're not allowed to download it yourself.
The only way to export the chat was to use the web client and scroll all the way to the top, then copy-paste the HTML out of web-inspector once everything loaded. I don't think that's possible anymore. IIRC, the web client now tops at some point with a message like "use the Android app to look further back".
But moving to Signal doesn't either. You're moving from one walled garden to another. If you're going to burn the resources and "political points" encouraging people to move it's better be worth it - right now for the casual user Signal is worse than WhatsApp or even Telegram.
* No end-to-end encryption for groups.
* No end-to-end encryption for desktop meaning normal use when working on computer requires you and your friends to constantly whip out phone to send 1:1 secret chats. Nobody wants to do that so they revert to non-E2EE chats.
* Terrible track record with end-to-end encryption deployment from AES-IGE to IND-CCA vulnerabilities
* CEO pretends to be exiled from Russia but in secretly visits Russia over SIXTY times in 10 years https://kyivindependent.com/kremlingram-investigation-durov/
* Zero metadata protection from server
* Open source, but it's meaningless as it only confirms the client doesn't protect content or metadata from the server.
> only three sticker packs and no obvious way to add my own
https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360031836512-St...
> backup is still marked as beta
Also, local backups haven't been beta for ages. The free cloud backups are the ones that are new.
As someone who spends a dozen hours on WhatsApp and Telegram each week, I don't see any real benefits either.
Community chats aren't what keep people on WhatsApp, the network effect does.
Sorry, social media masquerading as a secure messaging app isn't a secure messaging app.
Also, there's a LOT of people who have joined Telegram because of its perceived security. The company has been extremely vocal about WhatsApp being horrible despite it having always-on E2EE, when in TG it's practically always off.
Why not this: what is _best_ for a person once they fully educate themself?
If it were your friend, what would you recommend, once you understood the differences? I just reassessed and Signal wins.
I suspect the answer is no, but why?
Remember when IRC was king, and basically, anyone could write an IRC client? Anyone could write a MUD client, or even a Telnet client. Those are open protocols.
When Pidgin came out, it was like a breath of fresh air for me. In the early 90s I had multiple IM accounts (starting with ICQ!) and unifying them, especially under a Linux client, was a dream come true.
But of course, AIM purported to use Oscar at the time, but they really hated F/OSS and 3rd-party clients, and so did the other proprietary guys, so it became cat-and-mouse to keep the client compatible while the servers always tried to break their functionality.
Now this dumb announcement comes out that a 3rd party has (apparently legally) established interop with a Meta property with (I am guessing) a completely proprietary, undocumented, secret protocol underneath.
I am not impressed. I am McKayla Maroney unimpressed.
I want open protocols and I want client devs who are free to produce clients in freeform, as long as they can follow the protocol specs. Now we have email clients who speak SMTP, IMAP, and POP3, including the "secured, encrypted" versions of those protocols. We should ask for nothing less when it comes to other communications.
What I do like about them is the zero server trust stand they are taking on their clients which makes migration a pain in the butt, but that is what one would expect from a true e2ee chat app.
And now they have two stable servers in rust. The French and German government including military are using the protocol to make their own apps. Maybe it should be something the EU should put some more resource into it?
Last time I checked, the Matrix servers had access to a lot of metadata. Did they fundamentally change it?
No thanks on that. I don't have time or energy for these things.
The UX is still pretty bad, with many rough edges around sign-in and device verification. The message/encryption story has gotten better (it's been a long time since I've gotten spurious errors about being unable to decrypt messages), but it's still not particularly easy to use. Performance-wise I've found it to still be fairly bad; loading messages after I've been offline takes a noticeable amount of pause, something I rarely see with other messaging platforms.
On the plus side, Matrix does have many chat features that many people like (or even require) in a chat platform, like formatting, emojis, message reactions, threads, etc.
It's not like users haven't had choice over the decades to choose software that runs on open standards. It's that the features and UX provided by closed software has been more compelling to them. Open standards and interoperability generally aren't features most people value when it comes to chat. They care mostly about what their friends and family are using.
A proprietary/for-profit messenger can very well use open protocols and embrace third-party clients if their business model wasn't explicitly based on anti-productivity.
I expect you could get some people to pay for a messaging platform, but it would be a very small platform, and your business would not grow very much. And most of your users will still have to use other (proprietary, closed) messaging services as well, to talk to their friends and family who don't want to pay for your platform. While that wouldn't be a failure, I wouldn't really call that a significant win, either.
This is why legislation/regulation is the only way to make this happen. The so-called "free market" (a thing that doesn't really exist) can never succeed at this, to the detriment of us all.
Signal spends $50M a year for about 100 million active users. That's 50 cents per user per year. Or 4 cents per month :) Even with a bit of profit it's still nonsense money.
And 6 million of that alone is going up in sms validation because they insist on using mobile numbers as an identifier. They could save that if they used other methods.
Since the purpose of these apps is literally putting you in contact with other people, you tend to use the same app/social network most of your friends and family are using.
This is not necessarily true for platforms you use to find new people, but even then, you're going to use the websites/apps people with your interests are using.
The way I read it is along the lines of Mike Masnick's protocols not platforms.
https://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a...
More in general,standard protocols are important but they don't necessarily avoid lock-in.
For example, imagine a Dropbox equivalent with a public API specification.
At some point you want to leave. You are ready to use Postman or even curl and download everything to upload it somewhere else... but download is capped at 10 files/day per user. And you uploaded 100,000 files over years.
The API is public but good luck leaving with all your files!
In other words, standard protocols help avoiding client lock-in, but when the value is on the server side (data,...), they are not enough.
Resd the article - this isn't a proprietary secret API, it's the official intended interop API the EU now obliges them to provide. Not exactly 100% what you're asking for (I too would prefer common standards) but forcing interop access is a very good start.
ICQ was also a proprietary chat protocol. The Pidgin (then "Gaim") developers had to reverse-engineer it. Fortunately the folks at ICQ were less hostile toward third-party clients than AOL was toward Gaim's reverse-engineer of AIM's protocol, as you note. (Not to mention sending legal threats to the Gaim/Pidgin team to get them to change the name of the app.)
IRC was indeed king, when the internet was populated mostly by technically-savvy folks who could deal with its rough edges. (For example, you probably forget how annoying it was to get file transfer working over IRC; sometimes it was just impossible to do, depending on clients and NAT conditions and so forth. Things like ChanServ and NickServ were creative, but inelegant, hacks, functions that the protocol should handle directly.) And consider that IRC has more or less not changed at all in decades. I am a technically-savvy user, and I gave up on IRC, switching to Matrix for those types of chats, which has its own rough edges, but at least has modern features to sorta kinda make up for it. (Otherwise I generally use Signal, or, if I can't get people to switch, Whatsapp.) I want to be able to do simple formatting, react to messages, edit messages, etc. And most people in the world seem to want those things too. IRC has stagnated and doesn't meet most people's needs.
But I absolutely agree in that I want open protocols too. It's just hard to fight against big corporations with endless development, design, and marketing budgets. And those big corporations are not incentivized to build or support open protocols; in fact they are incentivized to do the opposite. As much as the EU does get some things wrong, I think we need strong governments to force companies to open up their protocols and systems for interoperability, and to stamp down hard on them when they comply maliciously, as Apple and Meta does. The EU is pretty much the only entity that comes close to doing that. I really wish the US was more forward-thinking, but our government is full of oligarchs and oligarch-wannabes these days, thanks to the lack of any meaningful campaign finance limits. At least California (where I live) has some GDPR-inspired privacy legislation, but I think something like the EU's DMA is still too "out there" for us here, unfortunately.
Even in those heady early days of the mid-90s, it was recognized that many end-users were behind NAT and firewalls and otherwise-inaccessible endpoints of the Internet. Many of us were also on dialup lines that were intermittently connected, so they needed to establish some sort of persistent presence.
So the ICQ client was designed to check-in with a central server to indicate the online/away/DND/offline status of the client. I do not know how much of ICQ's messaging went through that server, but I believe that a lot of clients in those days were designed to, eventually, connect peer-to-peer for delivering files and stuff. Mainly, because the operators of servers didn't want to be overwhelmed with transferring lots of data!
Interestingly, ICQ and Livejournal as well were completely invaded and taken over by Russians. Or perhaps it was not an invasion, but a planned psy-op all along. My original UIN was 279866, and my girlfriend's was slightly below that: she had signed up first and got me on-board.
But eventually, Russians broke into my account, changed the profile, and commandeered it for their own purposes. And Livejournal got sold to Russian interests too.
I believe it was them watching us over here all along. It must have been a personal-data goldmine to know when teens and young adults were online and who they were connected to, on the social graph, whether it was IM'ing or blogging the old-fashioned way on Livejournal.
So beware with your modern "disruptive" apps, particularly ones like those fun e-Scooters you can share and rent. They are probably psy-ops from foreign-based actors who enjoy watching and recording our movements.
This isn't a general chat app alternative.
Find this exclusionary and distasteful.
On the second screen of the app there is already an infuriating bug: they ask to give your work email because than you go hire in priority on their invite-only waiting list. So you type in your email again and again and again, alternating between all your emails, but you keep returning to the form asking for your work email. You check those emails to see if they send you something to activate your account but nothing. Exasperated you try the only other button, sign up with private email instead. Guess that works, because you leave the infinite loop. But than zilch, nada, nothing.
Don't these script-kiddies use their own app?
Specially if you go to the homepage and they're trying to market it as a work too.. If I went to my boss and tried to make the case that we should move all of our encrypted communication from Whatsapp to something called BirdyChat they would laugh at me and dismiss the idea.
That might just be me, not sure.
It looks like it's focused on business but its name sounds childish. If I mentioned that in a corporate meeting people would just laugh at me, I don't think it helps their case.
(The name even has nothing to do with chat; originally WhatsApp was a way to share your "current status"; "WhatsApp" sounds like "what's up?".)
"BirdyChat" just sounds childish.
Maybe I'm in the minority, who knows, but project names are important. I've seen so many posts of people dismissing projects just because of the name...
I agree - "Birdy" is the name used with infants when talking about birds, or is a bird toy that photographers use to distract people ... which is a bit too close to the truth, perhaps.
To me it also suggests 'a toy version of Twitter'; and Twitter already had enough negativity around it for me.
At one point in the recent past there was a fork of GIMP named "Glimpse," yet weren't a sudden influx of users who were waiting for a more polite name.
BUT, lack of users might just be that it's too late, now. People use web-based tools like Figma, I wouldn't think a lot of people are looking for a Photoshop alternative.
We're missing the last part of this quadrant with a Krita-like app that has great UX but a bad name, but the preponderance of the evidence thus far tells me that it is more likely than not that the name didn't matter, or at the very least that the UX definitely did matter while the name might not have.
The truth is that 15 years ago, "tweet" was seen as a joke by those who weren't extremely online. It didn't stop Twitter from becoming a desirable place to socialize, at least for a time. If the internet made "tweet" happen, people can get used to any weird nomenclature.
Forgejo is even worse in that regard. I live in Europe, speak 5 languages, and still have to think to remember the proper pronunciation every time.
It's much harder to get people on board with yet another messenger app when they forget the name 5 minutes later.
Does WhatsApp charge money for this? If not, why would a business use their API? They could simply create an app to directly talk to their customers, or am I missing something?