
WhatsApp doesn't understand the web - t3ra
http://andregarzia.com/posts/en/whatsappdoesntunderstandtheweb/
======
sumitgt
This web client, even in it's current horrific form, is something I really
needed.

Many a times I find myself working on my laptop, with the phone carelessly
lying somewhere else in the room. It's a pain to go find it when a new message
arrives.

The bottomline is, I guess WhatsApp doesn't need a Web Client to compete with
other services. If you've been to India, you will realize how pervasive
WhatsApp is, with or without a Web Client.

This is just an added convenience feature for some power users. So it is
understandable that they went this route.

~~~
techaddict009
I am 100% agreed with what you said.

But I have problem with the way they have implemented it as of now. I mean to
use it via web I need to scan the qr code every time.

Plus my phone needs to stay connected to internet. In India you can easily
find lots of whatsapp users who wishes to use whatsapp via PC just because
they dont have net pack on their phone.

Hope they remove this restriction soon.

~~~
slouch
I didn't have to re-scan the QR code when I got into work this morning after
setting it up yesterday.

------
bikamonki
Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history. Remember that
'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less than 10%?
Remember that über successful smartphone company that owned the market with
its propietary chat/email network? How about widely used programming languages
and frameworks? Flash for cool web effects anyone? The web is open, open wins.
No matter how monolithic a market leader is, if it can't figure out how to be
open and make money: it will succumb.

~~~
coldtea
> _Closed technologies succumb. It is a lesson from history._

The only lesson from history is that all tecnologies succumb at some point.
General infrastructure standards (like TCP/IP or HTTP) persist longer, but
that doesn't say much for application level technologies.

> _Remember that 'default' browser that had 90% of the market and now has less
> than 10%?_

If anything that's a counter-example. Netscape, that "now has less than 10%"
is the open source version. It had that 90% when it was proprietary. Besides,
the current 2 big players that trump Firefox in users (Chrome and IE) are
proprietary too.

> _Remember that über successful smartphone company that owned the market with
> its propietary chat /email network?_

Yeah, it got pwned by Apple and Android. Of which Apple, which is proprietary,
has most of the smartphone profits, and Android has a lot of the share, mostly
in lower cost phones. Not really about open vs closed. Meebo, a totally open
phone never got anywhere, and neither did Mozilla's phone attempts.

> _Flash for cool web effects anyone?_

What about it? It dominated its niche of the market for like 15 years. If it
dies its mostly because of general incompetence by Adobe. They never managed
to create a mobile version that doesn't suck donkey's balls for one. They also
died because a proprietary platform make a decision not to include it (iOS),
which is not really about "open" winning.

~~~
bikamonki
The fact that a given closed tech is winning does in fact support my argument:
open wins, eventually. And the fact that protocols and standards prevail is
precisely because they need to be open to become protocols and standards.

~~~
coldtea
> _The fact that a given closed tech is winning does in fact support my
> argument: open wins, eventually._

Huh? I fail to see the logic behind this.

> _And the fact that protocols and standards prevail is precisely because they
> need to be open to become protocols and standards._

Well, yes, but that doesn't say much about other levels of the stack, like
applications. And besides, we've had lots of succesful proprietary but de-
facto standards too, from the .doc format to .mp3 (patent encumpered), to GIF
and h264.

~~~
bikamonki
The logic is this: you are taking a picture while I see the whole movie. So,
Apple is winning 'now', so is Whatsapp, but they may lose it eventuallly b/c
they are closed models.

~~~
epistasis
But this is a faith-based attitude; the reasoning and evidence you presented
could just as easily be used to support a "closed eventually wins" argument,
where any open platform that's currently winning is only doing it temporarily
until a closed platform dominates.

------
shmerl
Of course not. It's not federated and not standard compliant. It's a complete
shame that they use XMPP but modified it to make it non compliant on purpose.
Whatsapp is just an insult the Web and an example of the Internet's dark age
mentality of walled gardens (like AOL vs Compuserve e-mail incompatibility).

~~~
TeeWEE
All the nerds here only think about standards etc. Don't forget whatsapp is a
company and it has to protect its market. Without controlling all the clients,
whatsapp is worth a lot less.

~~~
shmerl
By that logic any e-mail service should be incompatible with the rest, but
that's clearly idiotic and no one would try arguing it. Try also imagining
that your mobile carrier would tell you that by no means you are allowed to
call to users of another carrier, since that would not "protect their market".
Would you ever use such? When it comes to instant messaging however some lose
common sense and start thinking that dark ages approach is acceptable.

When communication service instead of enhancing communication tries to hinder
it by intentionally gutting interoperability, one should avoid it like a
plague.

~~~
robinhood
You are comparing two different things. Email is a generic concept - it's not
proprietary . A message sent through Whatsapp is an instance of the whatsapp
application - not a standard message. Basically, if we push your analysis
further, Facebook, which is a communication application, should let you send a
message to your twitter account, that you could read with twitter, and reply
with a comment on an Instagram picture. That'd be the same thing - I mean,
they are all "messages" somehow, aren't they? See, it's - as you say - clearly
idiotic as no one would open its platform that much.

~~~
shmerl
_> Email is a generic concept - it's not proprietary_

Concepts can't be proprietary altogether. You can't own ideas. Instant
messaging isn't proprietary either.

 _> A message sent through Whatsapp is an instance of the whatsapp application
- not a standard message._

If you are talking about certain implementation of ideas being proprietary -
that's exactly the point of my original comment. Making it intentionally
incompatible to "control the market" is crooked lock-in tactic. Which is
especially the case with Whatsapp which internally uses XMPP which was
designed for interoperability and as IETF standard.

And I brought examples with e-mail. A long time ago Compuserve and AOL e-mail
services used to be incompatible on purpose. But pressure from users to end
that stupidity forced them to reconsider. There is no valid reason that a lot
of IM services can't interoperate to a good degree. Except for greed and
backwards thinking.

------
dmix
> Your phone needs to stay connected to the internet for our web client to
> work...

What? Is this true? I can't think of a reason why their devs would ever need
the users phone to be online.

~~~
andrewbarba
WhatsApp does not store messages on their servers. It's a clean passthrough
from one device to the next. They only hold onto message until all clients in
the group text or one-on-one text have received the sent message. So, if you
have two clients using the same phone number, the system wouldn't know when it
is able to delete the message. Right now the single phone receives the message
and simply passes it up to the web browser. It's a simple solution that fits
into their data model. They claim that they cannot get this working on iOS
which prior to iOS 7 may have been true. However, on iOS 7 and above we can
run code (even async network calls) when we receive a push notification so
they should have been able to work with that API to produce similar results.

~~~
teknologist
I believe you're wrong. This is how WhatsApp USED to work before they were
acquired by Facebook. Remember how messages used to stay in the waiting
(clock) state and you could delete them if the recipient wasn't online? Well
now the first tick appears immediately because there's an intermediate server
storing them for delivery and they can't be deleted from the client. It's
similar to what Microsoft did to Skype.

~~~
jhasse
The first tick appeared immediately since I'm using WhatsApp which has been
long before Facebook acquired them.

~~~
teknologist
And? That just means the recipients you were texting had a reliable connection
to the internet at the time.

~~~
jhasse
I'm 100% sure that this wasn't the case. I'm not saying that there always was
an intermediate server, but it definitely was before Facebook acquired them.

------
fiatjaf
> _Here in Brazil WhatsApp is basically ubiquitous since its cheaper to send
> IM messages than to send SMS._

From this I conclude that OP has fallen for the bizarre nonsense argument I've
heard in Brazil a lot of times when WhatsApp was gaining traction: "You must
use it! It's free SMS!"

What? No, it is not "free SMS", it is internet messaging. Internet messaging
has existed since... since there was internet. Yeah, it is "free" as long as
you have unlimited internet, but if that qualifies for "free SMS" email was
free SMS much before WhatsApp.

~~~
soapdog
Actually there are carriers in Brazil that allow free connection to WhatsApp
server even if you have a limited connection plan...

People say that it is free SMS because of some reasons such as the fact that
WhatsApp transfer your whole list of contacts to their server and thus
populates the application contact list to the point that it is as convenient
to use as SMS. Emails require email addresses. WhatsApp contacts are matched
by phone number which are already on your phone address book anyway.

Its about perception. People here tend to place SMS, WhatsApp, LINE, Telegram
all in the same collection because they are used to exchange small instant
messages. Email is usually used for longer text that doesn't require immediate
action.

~~~
slig
> Its about perception

It's not just about perception. In their early days, they used to advertise
themselves as a "Free SMS" service, at least in Portuguese.

> Actually there are carriers in Brazil that allow free connection to WhatsApp
> server even if you have a limited connection plan...

This is very recent, after they got massive.

------
dzamo_norton
Standards defiance notwithstanding, the web client appears to work as
advertised and will surely save many a neck and thumb from premature aging.

It's interesting at this point to think about identity and authentication in
WhatsApp. They've never had a username or password and their use of your
mobile phone number as your identity seems to have been key to their success
(the other factor I'd cite is good cross-platform support).

WhatsApp authn on mobile consists of a once-off SMS verification to confirm
you are running WhatsApp on the mobile device hosting the SIM card
corresponding to the phone number identity you've claimed for yourself. That
said, I recently saw a case of someone using a temporary pre-paid SIM card
while she was traveling here in South Africa yet her WhatsApp messages from
that phone still appeared to come from her New Zealand number. Not sure how
that passed the authn.

The lack of username and password, I believe, is what has led to some of the
unnaturalness of the WhatsApp web app. I don't think that their remarks of
"the web browser mirrors conversations and messages from your mobile device --
this means all of your messages still live on your phone." reveal all of what
guided their design choices. I also doubt that they "don't get the web".
Instead I think they need the phone there and online because they have no
username and password (or other device-independent authn) and they have
thought quite carefully about protecting what got them ahead of the myriads of
other perfectly functional IM apps out there in the first place.

------
robinhood
I don't understand why you think the biggest SMS system in the world (which it
is in practice) should open its API or use non-proprietary system. Moreover
you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on their technical infrastructure
or their constraints as a business and a technology company. Making this kind
of blog post, based on arguments made out of thin air, is the same as putting
a redesign of Amazon on Dribbble and bitch about their current design.

------
antbbn
Can it be a money issue? Remembering that WhatsApp is not free, the 1$ for a
year of service should be how they make money (I think they did a very good
job there because no one that I know remembers that). Maybe the on-line phone
solution suits them technically and economically, because they don't want to
provide you with an alternative client that you might use for free. As they
say this is simply and extension of the phone client.

~~~
rnmjr
I don't think it's that no-one remembers that, but I don't think WhatsApp
actually enforces this seriously. I have never paid for the service and each
time the deadline for doing so approached, it had been extended.

~~~
ultrafez
I've paid for it once, but before that I had at least two extensions, and
since I paid I've had one extension.

------
iamdanfox
I would be interested to understand more about why WhatsApp made some of those
decisions. The requirement to keep your phone connected to the Internet seems
strange, perhaps it's using some encryption key that never leaves the device?
Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much? Why has iOS been left
out?

~~~
azakai
> Why do they need the Chrome-only filesystem API so much?

There is nothing the FileSystem API can do that others cannot, although it
might be less convenient or less optimized. Even that shouldn't be true any
more, but it still might in some browsers.

Regardless, this was a wrong decision by WhatsApp. FileSystem is no longer
standards track. The API document itself says

> "Work on this document has been discontinued and it should not be referenced
> or used as a basis for implementation." [http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-
> api/](http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/)

Browsers should not implement it, and should in fact remove it, because it is
nonstandard and never will be standardized. It is therefore dangerous for
WhatsApp to use it - Google might do the right thing tomorrow and break their
site, and it would be WhatsApp's fault.

However, Google has so far not shown much sign of intending to do the right
thing here. As much as I admire many people at Google, and the company does
many good things, this is a point that Google keeps getting wrong: Shipping
nonstandard APIs, and keeping them active forever: FileSystem, NaCl/PNaCl,
WebSQL, probably others I forgot.

I can only guess that Google simply finds those APIs convenient and uses them
in its own websites, and has decided to never remove them. In other words,
Google just doesn't care that they are nonstandard, which shows a lack of
respect for the standards process. And as Google's market share rises over
50%, these are becoming de-facto standards, through an act of force.

One might say that this is an abstract "ethical" point, but WhatsApp shows
exactly why it is not just that. Google keeping nonstandard APIs in Chrome for
its own convenience opens the possibility of other websites using them. Either
through ignorance - they don't know it's deprecated and nonstandard - or
because they trust Google to not break them, and don't care about standards.
The result is a web that works only in one browser.

Google, please do the right thing and remove nonstandard APIs.

~~~
Aldo_MX
> Google keeping nonstandard APIs in Chrome for its own convenience opens the
> possibility of other websites using them. Either through ignorance - they
> don't know it's deprecated and nonstandard - or because they trust Google to
> not break them, and don't care about standards. The result is a web that
> works only in one browser.

This is what happened to XMLHttpRequest, or have you already forgotten that it
was originally an ActiveX control?

There is not (and there never will) a single way to define how the web is
built.

------
nickik
If all of this is true, its worse then I expected and I did not expect much.
Why do all these companys wage a war against third party, even from a
buissness perspective I don't get it. It creates innovation that you can copy
for the offical app and its a perfect to test new features.

~~~
pekk
The same reason Apple has consistently waged war against clones?

~~~
jshevek
Yes. But don't be too specific about those reasons, though, or you will be
downvoted.

------
teen
Hrmm I really like the web client. It's not great (image viewer is really
small) but serves my needs perfectly

~~~
dysoco
I agree, 90% of my serious daily communication (i.e. not IRC) is done via
Whatsapp. I can't explain how horribly annoying is to have to pull out my cell
phone and write in that tiny screen every time I want to send a message.

------
PauloManrique
One more update to your article: several mobiles can't use that, because it
seens de animation on the QR Code Scan screen is not responsive. My phone is a
example, I just can't scan the QR Code:

[http://i.imgur.com/QTmTdJ4.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/QTmTdJ4.jpg)

~~~
Genmutant
I think your screen is to small for the message window. There is a button
below it which dismisses the white window and enables the scanning.

------
bazookajoes
The linked article could have been titled "andre garzia does not understand
that mobile messaging is not the web" jajaja ;)

I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints.

The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale
cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the
server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need their
old whatsapp messages. Most will say no. In fact, many proactively delete
them. Turning a mobile messaging into a CPU and bandwidth only problem is a
clever hack instead of it also being a disk and indexing problem.

This is hard thing for a lot of us to understand because we come from a world
where our business has message retention and surveillance requirements. We
want to run quantized self and sentiment analysis reports for the last 10
years. But most people either don't know that might even want that.

The other key insight is that knowing the user's identity can be more
important than the user themselves.

~~~
soapdog
author here.

I don't think you understood what I am complaining about. I am complaining
exactly about chrome only and usage of non-standard api.

As for storage, the web client is requesting non-standard file system
permission exactly to store things. I am saying they should use a standard API
such as IndexedDB for that kind of thing.

I do understand a thing or two about IM having worked on more than a client
before. There is no need whatsoever for the hacks they did...

As for surveillance, thats another can of worms that is not protected by what
they are doing. Traffic is intercepted at other vulnerable spots such as the
carrier itself or ISP.

~~~
bazookajoes
I do understand. One of your complaints is "Mistake three - It doesn't work if
your phone is not connected to the internet."

That is not a mistake. It is a direct result of the fundamental insight that
enabled whatsapp to become what is is - being stateless. Your first two
complaints are technical, but the third is a business decision that optimizes
their product to fit the needs of the market.

This is a by the by, but surveillence in the context of business requirements
means something different. For example, financial companies need to surveil
their employee's messages for illegal activity.

~~~
Max_Mustermann
What does being stateless mean, in this context?

~~~
sangnoir
Storing your IM data & meta-data on their servers. i.e. Pending, delivered,
read. If they allowed phone to be offline, that data would need to be synced
when it comes online.

------
myth_buster
Wasn't Whatsapp's success attributed to their policy of inclusion (all major
mobile platform/devices). This seems like coming from a different company
altogether.

~~~
wodenokoto
Not at all.

First of, these modern messaging/social/mobile-first messaging apps we see
getting popular have a fundamentally different model than what most of us
desktop-first are used to.

They are not centred around an account, but around a device.

If you delete your Line app, all messages are gone. Hell, even if you log into
Line from a new device, messages on the old one will be deleted. A friend of
mine recently lost her phone and she saw no other way than to create a new
account. Another friend had Docomo help her in-store to transfer all her Line
messages when she upgraded her phone.

I don't use WhatsApp, but reading other post here, it seems that they use a
similar model (but not as extreme). Your phone is your account, and all your
stuff is stored only locally on your phone (or at least only accessible
locally).

This explains why the web-app works so poorly.

Yes, WhatsApp got big by being on all devices, but they provide the software
and the software model is a "one device per user"-model. This works great in a
mobile-first (or should I say mobile-only) fashion.

This is SMS on steroids, not messenger for your phone.

~~~
azakai
I don't see how this explains the poor functionality of the web client?

All a web client needs is persistent, large storage - which is provided by
IndexedDB - and to access the network to reach the service's servers.

WhatsApp should be able to make a fully-functional web client.

------
coldtea
So? Why should WhatsApp "understand" the web?

~~~
soapdog
Because they are claiming that they released a "web client" that doesn't
actually work on the web but only on a single browser and is not independent
(it requires a mobile app running on a phone connected to the internet).

People release crippled software on the web because they don't understand what
it is all about. The day we lose interoperability between browsers it will all
be doomed. The fact that most of the websites work well on the top browsers is
a victory that only those that lived thru the 90s will appreciate in its full
glory. ;-)

~~~
coldtea
That would be a problem for them only if it hurts their main business, which
is their mobile clients.

I'd say a functional web client might be more of an issue for them than a
broken one.

------
soapdog
Author here, will monitor this thread waiting for feedback and general
comments.

~~~
markive
Hate the gifs.. Made the article almost unreadable.. Just have them loop once
or twice when I scroll to that part of the article.

~~~
soapdog
Thanks for the feedback. The gifs are the way I use to express my sentiments
without reverting to cursing in all languages I know. I am aware that they are
not every ones cup of tea but I liked them. I will consider not abusing gifs
in the future (even though I love them and will probably use).

~~~
dzsekijo
I love the gifs ヽ(⌐□_□)ノ♪♬

------
hmans
The web doesn't understand WhatsApp.

------
teknologist
It also works in Opera, fyi.

~~~
tdkl
Operas browser user agent is basically the same as Chromes. Firefox also works
if you spoof it, which makes the point of OPs article even more prominent.

~~~
teknologist
Opera is the same browser for all intents and purposes now anyway

------
kesor
Yes. Thank you.

------
iopq
I've been using XMPP on my phone just fine. Why do I need WhatsApp which is
not open? It offers me nothing new other than having to verify my phone
number. But I can just use Google Voice if I wanted to message someone who
knows my phone number. If I'm talking with someone in India there is no reason
why I shouldn't just use XMPP.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "Why do I need WhatsApp which is not open? It offers me nothing new other
than having to verify my phone number."

The common answer: because al my friends are using it. I don't understand why
people don't use SMS when most smartphone contracts come with unlimited
messages now. Why send your info through ANOTHER third party? But my friends
are using it for the group feature so unless I don't want to be left out of
the loop I have to as well.

~~~
shalinmangar
Whatsapp is hugely popular in India where phone contracts are not popular and
most people use pay-as-you-go prepaid mobile services. Very few, if any, of
them come with unlimited messages. Unlimited messages are a US-only thing I
guess.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I'm in the UK. That doesn't change my point though. Despite the unlimited text
messages in UK/US people still use Whatsapp.

~~~
daledavies
My 2 cents...

Group text via SMS is a PITA. The main reason why I use WhatsApp for certain
messaging tasks.

Having Wifi but no phone signal - WhatsApp gets used again.

WhatsApp also lets you see when a message has been received and also when it
has been read. Spooky, but useful.

------
jshevek
Apple has ushered in a new era in which a high level of centralized control is
considered acceptable to consumers.

WhatsApp is obviously trying to keep total control, like apple.

This doesn't explain all of their failings here. For example, I'm sure they
will eventually find ways to address their control issues and still be usable
in other browsers.

They might never do a web interface that runs in iOS, due to apple's own
controling approach. Of course there is still the whatsapp iOS app.

~~~
andrewchambers
Its the opposite - Whats App is storing nothing which limits what they can do.

~~~
jshevek
That hardly makes it 'the opposite', unless you presume only the most limited
interpretation of the words.

The fact that whatsapp stores nothing has little to do with their cease and
desist orders. 3rd party clients can still be built on a system that stores
nothing.

~~~
andrewchambers
Using servers paid for by whats app without compensating them is stealing.

