Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>"What we need is another messaging app" said nobody, ever.

The usual negative HN top post.

I have to disagree. We've moved from irc, to ICQ, to Microsoft Messenger, to ..., to Skype, to (what's hot now), so somehow all those people really DID want another messaging app and even adopted one.

>It looks pretty, but this is yet another app in the long list of "Skype killers" or "Voice/video/text" messaging.

Most of the Skype killers are either crap or crippled in other ways (e.g. Facetime being Apple only).

And we're ways before coming up with the "be all end all" messaging app, so there's plenty of room for innovation in the area.

In general this comment reminds me of the "640K should be enough for everybody" quote...

View on HN

I've been in Brazil for the past five weeks. EVERYONE uses whatsapp, because SMS is expensive. And this all happened in the past couple of years or so, because that's when smartphones became widespread.

I have never been asked my phone number. I've only been asked my "whatsapp". Make a good enough messaging app, and you can win an entire country. Or the world.

I have never been asked my phone number. I've only been asked my "whatsapp".

But your "whatsapp" is your phone number.

You don't understand. People don't associate that number with a phonecall, but with Whatsapp.

Exactly, people don't associate the number with phones. And in my case, my "whatsapp" is a Canadian phone number. I don't even know the number on my Brazilian phone.

Not necessarily. My phone number when I go back home (if anyone wants to call me) is a different number from my whatsapp number (which is my UK number, where I live). When people want my Whatsapp number, I generally give them my UK number, but I don't expect an SMS or a phone call from them because I don't even use that SIM card back home. I have another local SIM card that I use, and I also give that out as my "phone number" in case, you know, somebody wants to call.

Did they ever fix the massive security hole(s?) in whatsapp?

What massive security holes?

For example, they store the message database on the shared mass storage partition (a.k.a. SD card), where it can be read by all installed applications.

That shouldn't happen in a properly sandboxed OS.

Wasn't it also true that the password for every account was a simple function of the phone number? Then they changed it, only to base in the IMEI instead.

I didn't look at it again so I don't know if they fixed it for real in the end.

Apparently they partnered with the TextSecure people https://whispersystems.org/blog/whatsapp/ to provide end-to-end encryption(Android non-group chat only for now). Apart from the fact that the client is still closed source and untrustable, they now seem to be in a better security situation than the other popular messaging apps.

I'm from Brazil. You see small local businesses, with hand painted signs, where the phone number is followed by the whatsapp logo. Not even the name "whatsapp", just the logo.

It's scary how they took over communications over here.

"Whatsapp: The Orkut Killer"

Yes. You are totally right. And the funny thing is that for many Brazilians who can't speak english WhatsApp became "ZapZap" (much easier for Portuguese speakers to say) or just "Zap".

I have never used Whatsapp in the US. The sole purpose I have it on my phone is for communicating with AirBnb hosts when traveling abroad.

It is amazing how Whatsapp rose everywhere but in the US.

> so somehow all those people really DID want another messaging app and even adopted one.

Very disingenuous. In terms of ICQ, they were just early to market, had a competent client and... a deeply flawed method of identification. Messenger? Rolled out with Windows, just like certain other software that caused a bit of a stink in courtrooms at one point. Leverage. AOL did the same thing, pretty much.

As for Skype... it did voice competently, and more importantly did so easily and at a crucial point in time. Just like ICQ once did.

> Most of the Skype killers are either crap or crippled in other ways (e.g. Facetime being Apple only).

Absolutely. But Skype, according to most people I speak to and voice my concerns (ie. people to whom I whine) regarding the latest problem with Skype definitely echo my sentiment. Skype isn't good... it's merely acceptable. But there is no realistic option.

For my little niche there's definitely an opening for a new voice comm package, but "they" will have to raise the bar a lot if they want wide adoption.

In my memory, ICQ had a terrible client. But the protocol could be used with better, less bloated clients (like trillian). And it had features at the time, like offline messages, that came surprisingly late or were missing in other, later clients.

By the same standards, I would of course say Skype has a terrible client now.

ICQ went down the same path most clients seem to go, ie. it got very bloated. At first it was very bare-bones, with some really pleasant file transfer capabilities.

Skype really is history repeating itself. The client is becoming less usable by the day, and for some reason I was selected for a beta test that introduced the "new" flat style, at a huge cost to layout efficiency. It's truly terrible.

I totally agree with you. I don't want to disdain Skype, which is a great tool for its intended audience (the noobs, the moms and paps, the grandmas, etc). Also, Skype technology was almost incredible when they first appeared, so .. lots of respect for their history and accomplishments.

But I also think there is a lot of room for "Skype Killers" in different niches. I think Skype UI is getting worse for the experienced/heavy user. What is your niche? Would love to hear more.

> We've moved from irc, to ICQ, to Microsoft Messenger, to ..., to Skype, to (what's hot now)

You forgot Hangouts, which works on Android, iOS, and the desktop. It supports text, voice, and video, just like Wire. Its only negative from my personal viewpoint is no Windows Phone support, but that OS is the punchline of many jokes these days.

There's also Slack for businesses, non-profits, and private groups (my local Ingress group uses it), and it offers a ton of extensions.

I don't see where Wire offers anything that we don't have now, though it's nice to see that there is at least an attempt at innovation in this space.

>You forgot Hangouts, which works on Android, iOS, and the desktop. It supports text, voice, and video, just like Wire.

So that would be the "what's hot now".

I didn't mention it because few people I know use it. And I wouldn't touch it a Google + Google+ affilicated messaging solution with a 10-feet pole anyway...

I wouldn't say that it's "hot". It's recently become more popular since Google started forcing it on Android 4.4+ users as the only SMS option on their phones. Personally, I wouldn't use it at all if not for easy group communication with my Ingress mates (most Ingress communities use Hangouts, Slack, or both; ours uses both but mostly Hangouts).

I just felt that it was a glaring omission, especially considering its more popular and more reliable precursor, Google Talk.

>You forgot Hangouts, which works on Android, iOS, and the desktop. It supports text, voice, and video, just like Wire. Its only negative from my personal viewpoint is no Windows Phone support, but that OS is the punchline of many jokes these days.

Have you ever tried to start a Hangout with a non-technical user? It's a nightmare.

I do remote tutoring. Skype is easy. Everyone has it, you add the username, and call.

Here's what happens when I try to do a hangout:

1. Log in to gmail. Student often takes a while to find gmail on computer and login, as they've been doing everything by phone. 2. Find the chat. Student often takes 2-3 minutes to look for chat. 3. Invite to chat. Your @domain address? No, my personal gmail. 4. Show in chat list. 5. "Send me a message". This takes them another 2-3 minutes to figure out. 6. Start a call. Another delay. 7. Often some kind of technical trouble where the call doesn't start, mic doesn't work, they must by mistake.

This is exacerbated because I'm giving instructions by text. Starting a hangout with a new user on a computer often takes 5-15 minutes. Every step has potential for failure.

If there's a better way than what I'm doing, the fact that I don't know about it is itself is a UI failure on Google's part.

Bingo. My 80-year-old grandmother who is terrified of computers and doesn't speak english recently started having video skype sessions with me. As far as I'm concerned, that's a design and ease-of-use litmus test.

If all your students have a Google account and an email address, it's rather easy:

1. Open https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_ to create a new Hangout

2. Copy the permanent link that is shown in the dialog, or enter mail addresses to invite.

3. Students open the link. A login is required to join the Hangout, this could be improved...

Thanks! That's far simpler. Though it should be more obvious that option exists.

There is also an extension for Chrome - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hangouts/nckgahada...

> Have you ever tried to start a Hangout with a non-technical user?

Yes, my technophobe sister in law. She got a new Android phone and was texting me via plain old SMS, which are metered on her account. I texted her back "Look for an icon that is a green circle with a double quote mark in it. Open it, follow the prompts, and send me a message". Within a minute I had a Hangout message from her, and she's been using it since.

Purely anecdotal, but then so was your example. I'll agree it's not so simple doing it on a computer, but they still make it fairly simple; do a Google search for "hangouts", the top link takes you to a page that has a button that says "Available for your computer".

I can't edit the original post. I meant to write, but didn't "ever tried to start a Hangout on a computer with a non-technical user"

I agree the phone is easier.

Hangouts is getting worse as far as I'm concerned.

Google Talk had only chat, but I could trust it to work as intended and deliver my messages. With Hangouts:

- synchronization between devices is not as good. I will often not see everything I typed on my mobile when I open it on my desktop.

- Messages do not arrive in order !!! Sorry for the triple exclamation marks, but this is implemented in the most stupid way I have ever seen in an IM application. Say we are using Hangouts on my mobile. You send the messages

    A
    B
    C

Occasionally, I will receive C first, then A, then B. Fine. I receive C and read it.

    C
    <--- I've read until this point and will ignore anything above

Then I receive A and B. And this happens :

    A
    B
    C
    <--- I've read until this point and will ignore anything above

Messages A and B, having been sent before, will appear above the last message I have read and I will probably miss them.

I preferred Google Talk as well, especially since it was built upon an open platform and was easily implemented on unsupported OSes (Windows Phone via IM+ for example). Personally I haven't seen the out-of-order issue in one on one conversations, but it's prevalent in the group chats I'm in. When it happens to my messages, it's almost always when I'm being handed off between towers on the go; it hasn't happened to me on WLAN yet. Since there are no message size limitations like SMS has, I rarely send multi part messages anyway.

> >"What we need is another messaging app" said nobody, ever. >The usual negative HN top post.

There's a truth to it. This one, like so many others, brings nothing new to the field. So why do we want it?

> Most of the Skype killers are either crap or crippled in other ways (e.g. Facetime being Apple only).

What's wrong with XMPP/Jabber?

We have a weekly post on new IM platforms, but all of seem to have features which are a subset of XMPP's. Including Skype.

> What's wrong with XMPP/Jabber?

Nothing, except it is a protocol, not an app. Go build an app based on it that's functionally equivalent to Skype and then we can talk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com