WhatsApp vs. WhatsApp Plus Fight Gets Ugly For Users 192
BarbaraHudson writes WhatsApp is locking out users for 24 hours who use WhatsApp Plus to access the service. The company claims they brought in the temporary ban to make users aware that they are not using the correct version and their privacy could be comprised using the unofficial WhatsApp Plus. "Starting today, we are taking aggressive action against unauthorized apps and alerting the people who use them." Is this a more aggressive rerun of "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer"?
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a more aggressive rerun of "This site best viewed with Internet Explorer"?
No, it's saying that the other app maybe be stealing your credentials, logging your convos, etc. It's not remotely the same thing.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
And what prevents the standard "WhatsApp" from doing that? Just look at the EFF scorecard ( https://www.eff.org/secure-mes... [eff.org] ) reveals that there are better alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, back then it was par for the course - Netscape Navigator was no different (infact, it was a fucking pain in the arse to write for, as minor versions have major differences in how it rendered stuff). People just remember the legacy that we were left with from that era - IE6 - because Netscape died a death and saner individuals took over. It was during that time that standards took more of a front seat in the browser world (there were always standards, but 99% of the stuff standardised was done
Re: (Score:2)
That was a good history. Netscape didn't believe in standards at all. Microsoft believed in flexible standards. A real belief in standards was the Open Source community: Mozilla Suite, Konq, Galeon...
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly in the form of OMG that pixel is the wrong shade of RED, DOOM AND GLOOM!
It was a rare case where spoofing the browser ID didn't get the 'internet explorer only' page to work reasonably well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Firefox can be as well. Especially as Firefox supports insecure (just like secure) extensions.
So what? The User chooses the client and is resposible for any bullshit the client may do.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
FUD? Perhaps they saw what happened to the Snapchat users who used a third party client which uploaded their photos to their own server and are acting now to ensure users only use the official version.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should they? Its WhatsApps service, if they want to regulate what uses it then that's their prerogative and they can do it in whatever manner they wish to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
A company should be allowed to have a monopoly over its own product.
Re: (Score:2)
How is WhatsApps living in a word of dozens of major and hundreds of available chat applications having a "monopoly"? A comparison might be something more like A&P not selling WholeFood's brand generics.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it doesn't have that code on January 25th what stops it from having that code on January 26th? They can't certify anything.
was a warning too much to ask? (Score:2, Informative)
i was banned two days ago for using plus. what irritated me was if you're going to ban, why not send out a warning first? it's an asshole move to outright ban without a notice. also, bring themeability to Whatsapp and i won't use another app for that missing feature.
also, this is Facebook warning users about their privacy. LEL
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if you install the official client, the ban ends immediately.
The practicality of that might not be guaranteed. Are there platforms that have the unofficial client but no official client?
Re: (Score:2)
The practicality of that might not be guaranteed. Are there platforms that have the unofficial client but no official client?
FirefoxOS has an unofficial client and no possibility to run the official one. Sailfish OS also has an unofficial client, and to run the official one you have to use the Android emulation layer.
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
To be clear: "WhatsApp Plus" is an imitation app that uses the WhatsApp name.
Go out and make "Internet Explorer Plus" and see how well that works for you. Maybe you can get Timothy to post something about it to Slashdot.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I myself am wondering why whatsapp/facebook hasn't simply sued them for trademark infringement. I mean they're clearly using the whatsapp name in a way that confuses the end user as to who owns the app. Unless they didn't file a trademark, which would be an incredibly stupid thing to not do.
I don't use whatsapp though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because WhatsApp Plus is distributed outside normal channels (otherwise it would be quickly removed from say, the App Store or Google Play) and is one of those where the developer just doesn't make themselves easily known.
Plus, sometimes it's easier to just cut access to it than to try to launch a la
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't selling anything. It is hard to argue a trademark if a transaction has never taken place. Also WhatsApp Plus tries pretty hard to make it clear they aren't the "official client". If WhatsApp Plus were selling then they might be in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
However, these are users. They did not MAKE Whatsapp Plus.
The users are being banned, rather than the "Whatsapp Plus" distribution channels and such. IMO, this reminds me of AdBlock and AdBlockPlus and the other very similarly named programs... there's a real problem there.
Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated.
...and this seems to be one of the most direct ways to let those users know. If the users aren't using teh official Whatsapp app, then they can't communicate with them through it. And it appears they can't get the clone off of the stores... not that it would help (wouldn't let anyone know).
Perso
they will be aware now (Score:2)
>. Some of them, perhaps most of them are unaware that they are not affiliated.
They'll be aware now! Which is the point, according to Whatsapp.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question: In what way is the user targeted? They aren't. The app itself is targeted. They are not disabling WhatsApp accounts, they are not leaving users high and dry. They are simply saying that if you want to use WhatsApp then use the official client.
Skype did this, ICQ did this, MSN did this. I remember multiple times over the years where Jabba clients, trillian, etc broke because the service provided decided they are not providing free access to 3rd party apps. And really why should they!
Re: (Score:2)
Quick question: In what way is the user targeted? They aren't. The app itself is targeted. They are not disabling WhatsApp accounts, they are not leaving users high and dry. ...
Actually, at least some of the users of Mitakuuluu, the native SilafishOS client, got their phone number banned [blogspot.co.uk].
Re: (Score:3)
I hereby announce slashdotplus. It's like slashdot but without stories. Nobody reads TFS anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby announce slashdotplus. It's like slashdot but without stories.
Slashdot has stories? When did this happen?
Re: Really? (Score:2)
For really tick in Slashdot Beta Plus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still no clue as to what WhatsApp actually does...
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes a few seconds to find out it's an instant messenger, but I agree it wouldn't have been a bad idea to add those two descriptive words at the beginning of the summary. WhatsApp's popularity AFAIK is largely thanks to the fact it works on cheap "feature phones" as well as beefier devices. I like to keep things simple so I run WhatsApp on Android-x86 which in turn runs in Virtualbox on my desktop computer. :-)
Better Link (Score:2, Insightful)
WhatsApp issues 24 hour ban for WhatsApp Plus users [sophos.com]
I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action. What I do find amusing is this classic FUD argument:
Why am I banned for using WhatsApp Plus and how do I get unbanned?
WhatsApp Plus is an application that was not developed by WhatsApp, nor is it authorized by WhatsApp. The developers of WhatsApp Plus have no relationship to WhatsApp, and we do not support WhatsApp Plus. Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.
Re:Better Link (Score:5, Informative)
They can sue them for trademark violation that's what they can do.
Re:Better Link (Score:5, Insightful)
Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.
Let me fix that for everyone:
Please be aware that both WhatsApp and WhatsApp Plus contain source code which cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization.
Let them release the source for their clients and servers ... then we'll see. Ditto for Facebook. I looked on the WhatsApp site, and while they claim to have contributed to open source, they have not released THEIR source.
Re:Better Link (Score:5, Funny)
Let them release the source for their clients and servers ... then we'll see. Ditto for Facebook.
I would be curious so see Facebook's source code. I'm sure it's elegant and sophisticated.
Re: (Score:2)
Would be lovely to study. It must be at least as elegant and sophisticated as the root system of a small tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has done releases. To pick one that's pretty good: http://prestodb.io/ [prestodb.io]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the testimonials from the Airbnb and Dropbox guys?
We're really excited about Presto. We're planning on using it to quickly gain insight about the different ways our users use Dropbox
It's like those book reviews on Amazon where people say: "I've only read the first two pages so far but I'm excited about this book". Very convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that for everyone:
Your fix is wrong. WhatsApp can verify the code of WA, but not WAP. Theirs is true. They may not be saints, but they know what their code does. Only WAP knows what WAP does, and the fact it's infringing trademark to "sneak" in puts them in a higher risk category.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that for everyone:
Your fix is wrong. WhatsApp can verify the code of WA, but not WAP. Theirs is true. They may not be saints, but they know what their code does. Only WAP knows what WAP does, and the fact it's infringing trademark to "sneak" in puts them in a higher risk category.
The same can be said for WhatsApp Plus - "WhatsApp Plus can verify the code of WAP, but not WA. Only WA knows what WA does."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better Link (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed,
This is not about reverse engineering. This is about terms of service. You're arguing that they should be forced to provide services to people under terms not of their choosing, where the services are not mandatory utilities.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't this just XMPP with a cosmetic gui?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better Link (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because reverse engineering is legal, it doesn't mean WhatsApp are legally obligated to provide their services to third-party clients.
The legal matter here is the blatant trademark infringement by WhatsApp Plus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
could be opening themselves up to legal action.
Does anyone have a contract with WhatsApp to provide guaranteed services? No. They provide a free service and have the right to do anything they want with it.
Locking out apps that don't meet their requirements is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Blocking users outright is heavy-handed but none of them paid a dime to use the software and have no basis for a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
99 cents/y may be cheap, but certainly not free
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please be aware that WhatsApp Plus contains source code which WhatsApp cannot guarantee as safe and that your private information is potentially being passed to 3rd parties without your knowledge or authorization
That's rich coming from them.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that WhatsApp has a leg to stand on as reverse engineering is allowed, and could be opening themselves up to legal action.
Under what statute exactly? Reverse engineering for interoperability is legal but WhatsApp has no legal obligation to make it easy nor to provide service to these reverse engineering clients.
Re: (Score:2)
What legal action? "We don't want to sell our service to people using it in ways we don't approve of so we aren't."
I hate it ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. It's better when my moral standards are compromised. That way I only feel bad about it in the morning.
So next time get up earlier and avoid the whole "walk of shame" thing :-)
As for WhatsApp, the intelligent thing to do would be to include those features in WhatsApp Plus that people obviously want. Hey, when someone else does your market research for you, consider it a freebee and don't get in a snit or throw office chairs around because a competitor is doing it better than you are.
Look how long it took Microsoft to add tabbed browsing, after insisting that nobody really wanted it, and everyone was swit
Fault of the walled garden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, don't use the service that all your friends are on. That's just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if it was a flash mob suicide. That would make a hell of a youtube video.
Re: (Score:2)
if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?
See the relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1170/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Fault of the walled garden (Score:2)
if your friends run off a cliff, do you follow them?
Yes, but that's because we are all BASE Jumpers. Ditto for the bridges too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, don't use the service that all your friends are on. That's just silly.
These friends don't have a phone number or an email address? If so, I agree, whatsapp is proably the only protocol to reach them. To bad there aren't any open ones available.
Re: Fault of the walled garden (Score:3)
Yeah, good luck with that in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If start with "If they were really my friends they wouldn't do X" you end with no friends.
Yeah, that's why I am currently jumping off the bridge to follow my friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You mean like Twitter?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
...and their privacy could be comprised using the unofficial WhatsApp Plus.
Same could be said about the closed source WhatsApp as well. We are expected to trust them? No thanks.
At least with an open API and open source clients the community can continuously audit privacy and security.
Re: (Score:2)
With Whatsapp Plus, you need to be able to trust both.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Using what server? Run by who? If you want guaranteed privacy, keep your data off a network.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Using what server? Run by who? If you want guaranteed privacy, keep your data off a network.
With client end-to-end encryption it shouldn't matter who runs the server, should it? And since the client is FLOSS, you can check that they really do use a secured client-to-client connection when they claim to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One serious issue with that one - the same issue with WhatsApp:
It's free forever. No ads, no subscription fees.
Now how're they going to pay their developers, their (cloud) servers, etc? These apps don't come into existence by themselves. They don't maintain themselves. Those servers also cost real money to run and maintain. Doesn't sound sustainable to me.
WhatsApp was supposed to be free for a year, after which you were to start paying a small yearly fee. Apparently even that part they dropped, as I'm using
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the iApp ?
Uh, It's right on the page he linked.
Does this [apple.com] make it easier for you?
Whatsapp is proprietary: App, Protocol and Service (Score:2)
Whatsapp being proprietary is what us old fogeys have been warning you about all the time. Now that it bites you in the ass, don't pretend you don't understand the difference between the client for an open protocol with many implementations both server and client side on one hand and a proprietary service which is accessed through a proprietary protocol implemented in a proprietary client.
Damn it. (Score:2)
There goes my idea for a fork named "WhatsApp Doc?" for physicians - and rabbits.
Unsupported platforms (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either this verification is cracked (a first attempt seems to be made already by the builder of WhatsApp MD) and then all the other clients start working again, or they'll have to switch to another network.
Re: (Score:2)
or they'll have to switch to another network.
Which sucks for people who need to reach a family member who has chosen to use WhatsApp exclusively. Slashdot's comment search also sucks, or I'd dig up the citation.
WhatsApp doesn't understand the web (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately while other companies embrace the web and third party clients such as Telegram which has a list of official and unofficial clients and a public API, WhatsApp is actively waging war against third-party developers and their users. Last year they issued DMCA takedowns to all popular Github repositories hosting third-party clients and/or libraries interfacing with their API.
WhatsApp provides clients for many platforms but not for all platforms. Users of webOS, Firefox OS, Maemo, Sailfish, Ubuntu Touch had to use third-party libraries and also users of other platforms where there is an official client preferred using a third-party client because of many reasons.
After the takedowns, WhatsApp started banning users that connected to their network using third-party client, a move so evil that deserves a post in its own and the reason I stopped using their service. Since the takedowns and the banishments people waited for the release of a web client that would enable other platforms to use their service thru the beautiful of the world wide web.
Well, they finally launched their web offerring but its such a poor offerring that one wonders if anyone at WhatsApp actually understand the power behind the web. Lets analyse some parts of their launch post from their company blog:
Mistake one - it only works on a single browser
WTF!?!?!? There is Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer. All those with large user bases. I am not even counting the small browsers. And they chose to release only for Google Chrome? What year is this, 1995?
Sorry but if it works only on a single browser then its not a product, its a tech demo.
Mistake two - it requires the current WhatsApp client for Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone
and
So, to log in (pair) you need to have the current client on an Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone.
If you just have a dumb phone or another platform, you can't use the web client. The web client is not an alternative, its a toy that only works if you already have a working up to date client on a blessed platform which is not iOS.
Instead of opening to new users by allowing registrations and usage over the web, they choose to maintain their walled garden. The web client is useless if you're not already using their mobile app on Android, Windows Phone or Blackberry..
If it doesn't work as a standalone client then its not a client, its an auxiliary toy, a second screen application, some buzzword but its not a client.
Mistake three - It doesn't work if your phone is not connected to the internet.
MAJOR WTF?!!??!!? So you have your web client but it only works if your blessed mobile client is connected to the internet. We all know that battery life on a mobile device owned by a heavy user of IM tools never lasts long. So imagine that user trying to communicate with some WhatsApp pal and her SmartPhone battery gives up, she could use her computer to keep talking to her pal but in reality she can't because the damn web client doesn't work if your phone is dead.
Its even worse, imagine that office full of metal that behaves like a Faraday cage, or that office in a bad location sitting on the shadow of 3G coverage. Imagine all the reasons why your phone may lose connection to the internet. In all those cases, you will not be able to use the web client. Have a dead phone and you're travelling on a train with WIFI and want to use the web client, you can't! Are you sitting on a pub with free WIFI wi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Mistake two - it requires the current WhatsApp client for Android, Blackberry or Windows Phone"
Or Symbian, that one also works. But this is necessary - ubnless some other messengers, WhatsApp does not store yoyr messages on their servers for the NSA, FBI or DEA to grab. They are only stored on your phone, and when both participants use Android they are also e2e encrypted. You NEED your phone to acces those messages because that's the only place where they are, and I prefer it that way too.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have liked a more open protocol, on the other hand I can understand why they would like an own protocol which they can extend when needed without the need to wait for some commitee. I agree it woukd be better if they opened it up anyway. And of course they store the messages temporary - but still e2e encrypted if both users use Android. Since Moxie from Textsecure worked with them I do have some trust in the encryption. Of course, one could always try to decompile the Android apk to check - that's h
Even in Chrome it doesn't fucking work (Score:2)
Mistake one - it only works on a single browser
...simply open https://web.whatsapp.com/ [whatsapp.com] in your Google Chrome browser...
WTF!?!?!? There is Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer. All those with large user bases. I am not even counting the small browsers. And they chose to release only for Google Chrome? What year is this, 1995?
I opened it in Chromium on Xubuntu 14.04, and it still doesn't fucking work [imgur.com]. I reserve my swearing for the most egregious cases of malice or incompetence, and this is one of them. I come in with a browser that's recompiled Chrome and they turn me away because I don't have Chrome.
Now as for your other points, some of them appear weak. I want to help make your argument against WhatsApp stronger and even more F-bomb worthy.
If you just have a dumb phone or another platform, you can't use the web client.
<sarcasm>
Of course you can. All you have to do is buy WhatsApp Enabler for $45 [ting.com].
Re: (Score:2)
What device would you be carrying with which you expect to use a web application over Wi-Fi? Or do "normal" people still carry laptops?
I'd ask "Do 'normal' people still carry tablets?" as the tablet-on-the-go fad seems to have cooled off quite a bit. I see a lot of people with smartphones and a sizable number of people with laptops but pretty much nobody with a tablet. Tablets are commonly found in homes but they definitely don't seem to be popular for mobile computing.
This might be because tablets suck for the two things I commonly see people do with their laptops on the train: Watching movies (big stationary screen, easy to view with m
Re: (Score:2)
Most Android phones can easily create a wifi hotspot so you only need one device with a data plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Does every product which doesn't have the features you personally want or doesn't run on the platform you personally want qualify as a Tech Demo?
Shit is Windows a Tech Demo because it doesn't run on PowerPC?
I understand what you're saying. The WhatsApp online client is a big WTF moment, but it is their client, their software and their service which they are under no obligation to provide.
You using a different service now? Well more power to you. Though you have convinced me, I was planning on looking into w
WhatsApp+ seems to be a skin for WhatsApp (Score:2)
Technically it would be very difficult to stop an executable to run another executable in a sand box. Depending on how well you have understood the executable, you could do many things like step through debugging, poking and pushin
Re: (Score:2)
and i think this is the whole point of it. These companies (Facebook, Apple, WhatsApp, Google, etc), all want you to use their dumbed down, one-size-fits-all product. There are no options to customize anything. Everything else is not available to the user, or is hidden. Firefox is also jumping in on this idea that people don't want any buttons, and that you should just remove everything from the UI. Now you can't even turn off JS from the GUI without a plugin (sorry, an add-on).
So, facebook comes in boring
Mh (Score:2)
A blow to those with visual impariment. (Score:2)
WhatsApp+ was a great solution for me and others with eye problems. Sure it's not a legitimate build and all that but sadly it was the only way I could use WhatsApp. WhatsApp Plus allowed me to customise the UI in such a way that I could easily see it, ie: white fonts on a black background, large text etc
The official app is very limited for changing the layout. It does let you choose a dark background, but you're still left with black text with white bubbles (backgrounds around text) - which does help bu
The story behind whatsapp plus (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of comments here are clearly written by people who never have used Whatsapp or whatsapp plus. That's understandable since most users here are from USA, where whatsapp usage is practically zero.
I've been a user for the past 5 years, I use it daily to communicate with friends, family, coworkers... everyone really. Even my 82-years-old grandmother uses it.
So, as someone who lives in a country with 100% whatsapp penetration rate, and has been following the story behind whatsapp plus for a long time, let me shed some light on what whatsapp really is, and let me tell the story of whatsapp ugly cousin to you.
Whatsapp grew popular about 5-6 years ago because it replaced SMS, that cost about 0.15-0.30 euros apiece. Unlike other IM clients where you need(ed) to create an account, with associated username/password, with whatsapp it was simply install -> all your phone contacts appear on your whatsapp contact list -> message right away, no other hassles required.
It never grew popular in the US because most people have voice plans that include text messages, so a replacement was never necessary. And in the US, the sexting use case was later filled by Snapchat.
But in countries where SMS were expensive, whatsapp is now the de facto communication tool - why waste money calling or sending SMS if you can use whatsapp.
Now let me introduce two features of whatsapp which will become important later on in this story.
First, the "last seen". Whatsapp shows the last time you were online and connected to the whatsapp servers. This information is broadcast to anybody who has your phone number. This is because, unlike traditional IMs, there is no separate contact list; if I have your phone number on my phone contact list, you are a whatsapp contact to me, whether you like it or not. So I can check if you are online, and when you were last online.
In 2012 this feature couldn't be disabled. And it caused a lot of drama (“what were you doing yesterday at 3am, i’m leaving you, etc”)
Second, the "two ticks". If you send a message to someone, two ticks will appear in the message. One ticks means that the message has been delivered to the whatsapp servers, two means that is delivered from the servers to the recipient's device.
Note that "delivered" does not mean "read". However most users are uninformed and assumed that two ticks = read. This also caused lots of drama (“why didn’t you reply to my message? I know you read it”), broken relationships and marriages, whatsapp logs as exhibits in custody cases, and other issues that I will not describe here.
In 2014 Whatsapp introduced a new feature that when both ticks turn from grey to blue it now means "read" (this change made to the headlines of all the nation's newspapers). However, as of 2012 whatsapp only had the two grey ticks, that couldn't be disabled.
So by 2012, one android modder named Rafalense had reskinned whatsapp in order to change the icons from green to blue, and was distributing the APK of this reskin via the usual channels (free direct download, torrent, etc). He released this mod and named it Whatsapp plus or Whatsapp+ for short.
The mod started as a purely visual reskin with themes, and had a modest acceptance. What made it hugely popular was two additions to subsequent versions of the mod: 1- the ability to hide one's "last seen" time and 2 - the ability to stop broadcasting the 2nd tick from one's device.
Note that in order to use whatsapp plus, you have to connect to whatsapp servers, so you must continue to pay the $1USD annual fee to whatsapp; in no way whatsapp plus meant "free whatsapp" as some users claimed.
Fast forward to 2013, whatsapp plus is being downloaded millions of times, is consistently the #1 downloaded android app in TPB and similar sites. Rafalense is becoming a celebrity in some circles. However, he always provided the app for free, but sites are constantly cropping up where the app is being sold without the approval o
Re: (Score:2)
OK, this puts the whole story in a different light. So someone makes a Whatsapp rip with more features, asks money for it and then adds malware to it to battle piracy. And now he whines because Whatsapp responds to this by banning his client from their servers. After the malware stunt, Whatsapp could do little else I think. Rafalense blew it himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking that even further, they pay to keep their XMPP servers running, WhatsApp Plus don't....
Actually, this is not quite correct: To connect to the WhatsApp servers one has supposedly pay for a subscription after the first year, and this subscription is bound to the account and not the client software; the official WhatsApp client is free on Android.