10 Years In, WhatsApp Still Needs True Multi-Device Support

Paul Sawers, writing for VentureBeat: WhatsApp launched out of beta 10 years ago this month, and the messaging behemoth is now a completely different beast from the one that quietly arrived for iPhone users way back in November 2009. After Facebook shelled out around $20 billion to acquire the app in 2014, WhatsApp introduced voice calls, video calls, group calls, web and desktop apps, end-to-end encryption, and fingperprint unlocking. All the while, Facebook has been figuring out how to monetize its gargantuan acquisition by targeting businesses. However, there remains one glaring chink in WhatsApp's otherwise expansive armor -- namely, the lack of simultaneous multi-device support. Things could be about to change, however.

Given that WhatsApp is tethered to a user's mobile number and all messages are stored locally on devices, rather than on remote servers, syncing and accessing WhatsApp across devices poses something of a challenge. WhatsApp Web allows users to message from their desktop computer, but by essentially mirroring their mobile device -- one can't work without the other. Moreover, WhatsApp Web lacks many of the features of the mobile app, such as voice and video calling. Achieving true multi-device support -- without compromising security -- would be a big game changer for WhatsApp.

After 10 years, protocol still isn't open

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there remains one glaring chink in WhatsApp's otherwise expansive armor -- namely, the ..

..fact that it's nonstandard and uses an undocumented protocol, so all implementations come from a single entity so it only has the features they want it to have, and has only been ported to the OSes that they want to or can afford to.

And since that single entity is an advertising company, you can be 100% confident that they and the user have completely different interests.

Whatsapp is a total nonstarter. Getting bogged down in all the details for why it's not quite what you want, completely misses the bigger picture that it is not intended to be what you, or any user, wants. Of course it sucks. It would be staggeringly weird and unexpected if it didn't suck. You don't need to list all the ways.

I'll take, Google Hangouts for $100 Pat.

[giggles778]

Answer, Google Hangouts is This App's wet dream since its launch in 2009.

Re:

[aergern]

Except Google has pretty much abandoned Hangouts for endusers not using GSuite. They update it when they have to do so but otherwise it's been languishing for years.

WhatsApp is intentionally crippled

[schweini]

I think WhatsApp is intentionally crippled. There are many many features that would be trivial to implement and could even make money for years, but they just wont do it, or in a very delayed and lackluster manner:
- paying for server-side storage of all your chat history
- messaging businesses via words instead of numbers
- bots
Also First Post.

Re:

[nospam007]

"- paying for server-side storage of all your chat history"

Nobody wants to go to jail.

Re:

[segin]

Telegram does all this without charging.

Re:

[schweini]

Yes, they do. But WhatsApp doesn't even do any of them, and they could charge for it (businesses would easily pay a couple of dollars per month for a keyword, I'd pay for server-side storage, just to free up many GB of space on my phone, without losing history)

without compromising the security

[atisss]

What security?

Re:

[jellomizer]

Obscurity.

It is the basic don't look behind the curtains type of security. Where all the security features is limited by functionality of the UI.

They are a lot of Apps that are primed for major hacks, the only thing holding it back from getting broken in, is a decent job in the UI that prevents people getting additional access in.
 

Who cares - Signal!

[aaarrrgggh]

Signal finally updated the app to support phone and tablet. I hate the fact that some friends don’t use it though...

Re:

[aergern]

I have signal still installed but only keep it around for archival reasons and for those few I know who use it. I can't export the messages at all without 400 hoops jumped through and it doesn't work with Android Auto very well at all. I have conversations that have the replies but not what I sent. Just doing an encrypted backup doesn't work for me as I might feel like switching. It's arrogant to imported everything and think no one will ever switch and therefore want to export. Their Android app is just ki

So, pay for multi device?

[Parker Lewis]

It appears like an opportunity business for them: pay for the real multi device support (i.e., run calls and video calls in the web version, or a desktop client).

Welp

[war4peace]

I use Whatsapp both on my desktop PC and my phone. It works well. I agree that voice and video calls don't work on the desktop version but I personally never used either from Whatsapp mobile version either. I like being able to text chat with all my phone contacts easily and that's all I use it for.

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

I use Whatsapp both on my desktop PC and my phone. It works well.for what I use it for, so I don't care about anything else.

FTFY

Re:

[war4peace]

Yes, indeed, and that's still valid. An app is an app is an app, and if YOU deem it not up to snuff, it doesn't mean I agree. Valid both ways.
It's not as if we don't have a shit ton of social interaction apps to choose from. now, if Whatsapp was the only one, I would have been all on board to add more functionality, but it's not the case.
For audio chats I use Discord. For video I generally use nothing, but if need be, Skype is what I use. For text chats I use Whatsapp or Facebook Messenger (depending on the

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

Fragmentation is good at least from this point of view.

Fragmentation is alomst always a very good thing.

Whats App is an abomination and evil ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Its so bad. Its ruled by the tyranny of the lazy and the stupid.

The software strips all attribution and headers. Random people casually misrepresent videos and images with fabricated backstories. Some random satellite image of the Palk Strait [google.com] is suddenly proof from NASA that God Rama built a bridge to Sri Lanka 14,000 years ago!

TV commercials we have seen in India, touted as some poignant true life story of great religious harmony in Bombay apartments ...

Friends and family all use this software and r

Re:

[yes-but-no]

In India, wa enables/enabled person to person communication of information/images/videos when such a concept did not exist before [at a billion ppl scale]. Most ppl never used email or a desktop. It's like the modern day phone. Most communications are ephemeral. I guess free flow of information is overall good for a society (yes rumours spread that much fast too - so does truth). email versus IM could be a generational gap thing - not one is inherently superior over another.

And yet

[nashv]

It's astounding success the world over, especially in India shows that users don't care about desktop support anymore. FWIW, Whatsapp does offer backup to Google Drive etc. , which can be restored to new devices, when switching devices.

Use an open source alternative

[jdoeii]

https://github.com/tinode/chat [github.com]

It has multi-device support and even looks like WhatsApp.

End-to-end cryptography is tricky

[fulalas]

People are forgetting that WhatsApp (supposedly) uses end-to-end cryptography, while Telegram, for instance, can use it but doesn't by default -- and that's why Telegram usually works quite well on multiple devices, has conversation history saved in the cloud, etc. Because of that, WhatsApp requires your mobile to be connected even if you're using the desktop version: there's end-to-end cryptography connection between clients, and probably another one between your mobile and your desktop. Is there another s