[HN Gopher] WhatsApp will become interoperable with other messag...
___________________________________________________________________
WhatsApp will become interoperable with other messaging apps in
Europe
Author : marvinborner
Score : 84 points
Date : 2025-12-01 13:23 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tuta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tuta.com)
| timpera wrote:
| This is a really cool initative, but I'm a bit worried about
| spam.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Being opt-in for the WhatsApp user reduces the severity of that
| problem a lot, though certainly not to zero for those who do
| opt in.
| ale42 wrote:
| TBH it also reduces the usefulness of the features a lot. If
| I first have to contact people on another channel to tell
| them to enable this feature because I want to message them,
| well, I guess most people wont just do it.
| benoau wrote:
| I like this, a long time ago there were quite a few multi-service
| messaging clients that tied into AIM, MSN, Yahoo etc it was very
| convenient.
|
| The downside is only the "gatekeepers" have to provide this
| interoperability, when it would be far more useful if all the
| popular platforms were facilitating it.
| sunaookami wrote:
| Yeah this only cements WhatsApp's monopoly because everyone has
| to implement WhatsApp's proprietary protocol.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Still it's a bit less worse than the current situation where
| you're forced to use the upstream app because "security" or
| whatever.
|
| Still I agree that pre-2012 IM status was much better when
| open protocols were more popular. Of course there was the
| Windows Live Messenger thing but even you could use something
| like Pidgin to chat with it.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| But if there are multiple independent clients and a reverse-
| engineered protocol, then it should be possible for someone
| to develop a third-party server implementation.
| whizzter wrote:
| iirc WhatsApp uses the same protocol as Signal.
| smt88 wrote:
| Meta is only rolling this out in Europe. This does nothing to
| shake their alarming monopolies in places like India.
| moralestapia wrote:
| I see no reason why none of all those extremely talented
| developers that America desperately needs can't come up with a
| messaging service of their own.
| _dky wrote:
| I guess it is more about captured user base than the
| technology.
|
| What other differentiating factors can you implement that can
| steer the masses from one messaging platform to the other. I
| cannot think of any.
| j_maffe wrote:
| They can and they have. It's the lock-in Meta is imposing
| that's preventing new options to succeed in the market.
| moralestapia wrote:
| If you have said this about Apple/Google, I would have said
| ... maaaaaayyybeeeeee ...
|
| But in this case, how exactly does Meta prevent people from
| India downloading and using another messaging app?
| j_maffe wrote:
| Nothing. It's a monopoly in a market that is heavily
| network dependent. Without interoperability, it's
| infeasible for a new option to become viable. Though I'm
| sure you know this already and just believe that
| monopolies are alright for consumers.
| moralestapia wrote:
| What would you believe is a solution?
| Vespasian wrote:
| Well the Indian government can consider a law similar to the EU
| Digital Market Acts that enforces such behaviour.
| qubex wrote:
| For the iOS world, ideally the Messages app would be mandated to
| become a generic interface receptive to protocol plug-ins to
| interoperate with all messaging networks; and it too itself would
| be replaceable in that role.
| isodev wrote:
| I'm not sure Apple can be a good steward of such an open, plug-
| in based solution - they would always put in some restrictions
| to make the process very complicated and not accessible to
| platforms and developers.
|
| At the same time, making it possible to choose WhatsApp for the
| default messaging app has been a great relief for those not
| locked into Messages.
| qubex wrote:
| Well the thing is: if they were particularly obnoxious about
| their implementation, they could be replaced. I'm looking
| forward to a multi-protocol messaging client that implements
| other protocols as plugins. If and when such a thing arrives,
| I'm setting it to be my default.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| A complication is that iMessage supports a ton of collaboration
| features that don't (and largely can't) exist across other
| messaging apps. The messaging bits will have the same nerfed
| interface as SMS/RCS because of missing capabilities.
|
| Despite having the appearance of a messaging app, iMessage
| operates as a backbone for a lot of OS capability that is
| surprisingly deep.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| That seems like a good idea in the sense that it's better than
| separate apps for everything, but it's also probably the wrong
| level of abstraction. For example: what happens if you try to
| create a group chat containing an RCS user, a WhatsApp user,
| and a Telegram user? Ideally it would just work, but I don't
| see how that's possible without support for such a thing at a
| deeper level than just the UI layer.
| progval wrote:
| Matrix/Element wrote more on the issue than what is referenced in
| the article: https://matrix.org/blog/2024/09/whatsapp-dma/
| pogue wrote:
| That's from 2024. Has there been any recent updates?
| progval wrote:
| None, as far as I know. But it doesn't seem like Meta's
| stance changed either.
| sva_ wrote:
| I wonder how this will work with e2e encryption?
| input_sh wrote:
| > BirdyChat and Haiket are the first two messaging apps that will
| initially be interoperable with WhatsApp.
|
| What the heck are BirdyChat and Haiket? Both of those don't seem
| to actually exist, they just have a waitlist on their homepage.
|
| Literally the only post on BirdyChat's blog is how they're now
| WhatsApp-compatible, but their initial Google Play release
| happened 45 days ago (Oct 16th).
|
| Haiket's website similarly contains only one press release, which
| is to say that they're accepting waitlists since Nov 11th, but
| they're somehow funded by the "former CEO of AT&T Communications
| and board member of Palo Alto Networks and Lockheed Martin".
| pogue wrote:
| I was curious too, but I figured I was just an out of touch
| millennial who didn't know what all the kids were chatting on
| these days and didn't want to say anything...
| urbandw311er wrote:
| This smells unbelievably dodgy
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| I dislike fb a fair bit, but if whatsapp effectively replicated
| functionality of pidgin, I would seriously consider it despite
| its otherwise evil behavior. If they made it open source with
| permissible license, I might even forgive some of fb's past
| transgressions. They do have the resources to pull it off.
| prmph wrote:
| What would be far more useful is easy export/import functionality
| not tied to iOS/Android backups. i lose some messages every time
| I switch phones; it's a mess
| poisonborz wrote:
| Android: You can get the message db with root. You can export
| individual chats in text version right from the interface. The
| message media is stored in the user folders.
|
| Still bad, sure, but there are worse offenders.
| pogue wrote:
| I'm sick of having so many different messaging apps. Everyone is
| using a different one, so you have to download another app,
| signup for something, figure out how to configure it & etc etc.
|
| We need a modern Trillian or Pidgin that just connects to and
| talks to everything. To be fair, Pidgin still has lots of plugins
| for many different chat protocols. I don't know how well
| maintained they are and if they work consistently.
|
| https://pidgin.im/plugins/?publisher=all&query=&type=Protoco...
| lupire wrote:
| Ctrl-F XMPP
|
| Hmm.
|
| Remember when gTalk had XMPP and Facebook killed XMPP by refusing
| to support it and launching the chat silo wars?
| alex_duf wrote:
| I wonder if that would allow Signal to become interoperable with
| Whatsapp?
| lenerdenator wrote:
| I wouldn't want any cross-talk between my secure messaging app
| and anything that is owned by Meta.
|
| Your comms are only as secure as the node receiving them.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Yes which is fine given that you get to choose what you send
| to which app.
| djl0 wrote:
| FTA: As reported by Heise Online, Signal and Threema will not
| establish connections allowing for interoperability with
| WhatsApp.
| brettermeier wrote:
| I want to read this in original language, but this website always
| directs me to it's german version.
|
| Really annoying! Respect my decision as a user to choose the
| language I want, not where my IP comes from...
| fer wrote:
| It's been a pain point for me for years with many services.
|
| Shameless plug on the topic: https://www.fer.xyz/2021/04/i18n
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Completely and utterly ignored by Google >:(
| hmokiguess wrote:
| If I stopped and looked at how many redundant apps I have right
| now that'd be wild. For messaging alone, I'm on iMessage,
| Messenger, Telegram, Signal, WhatsApp, Slack, Discord, IRC, many
| in-app DM secondary tier feature chats, and perhaps a few other
| esoteric ones. Can we go back to just IRC please, those were the
| days for me.
| Yokolos wrote:
| I miss the days when I could start Pidgin and it'd
| automatically log into every single service I use, and I could
| chat with anybody regardless of which service they were on. I
| didn't need half a dozen different apps running just to chat.
| It felt like a utopia compared to what we have today.
| rw_grim wrote:
| We're working hard on getting back to that, but it takes
| time, and we're an unfunded open source project, but soon
| maybe?
|
| You may be interested in our monthly updates
| https://discourse.imfreedom.org/tag/state-of-the-bird
| theknarf wrote:
| People tried to standardize on XMPP back in the day, but
| capitalism figured out that standardize didn't fit their profit
| motivation. These days XMPP is a bit of an dated XML-heavy
| protocol, but Matrix is a newer alternative, and it supports
| bridging.
| arthurfirst wrote:
| No profit in allowing people to communicate freely without
| intermediaries.
|
| How to middle man and gatekeep otherwise?
| hmokiguess wrote:
| While I agree with you, there's certainly other ways to
| make money in an open protocol. Email perhaps is a good
| example, we are still on SMTP/IMAP and there's lots of
| business built on custom clients and whatnot. (Ok, maybe
| not the best example haha but hopefully you get my point
| here)
| arthurfirst wrote:
| Email is a glorious relic from the truly distributed
| internet that could have been...
|
| That is why its so useful! It was just designed to work
| not enslave or en-silo.
|
| The opportunities came after the market was created and
| adoption was wide-spread because it was just so useful.
|
| The security business opportunities exploded once
| Microsoft got into the market and things like computer
| viruses spread via email due to their total negligence
| and enabling ;)
|
| I can still remember nasty things like Lotus notes or
| ccmail but once email became widespread and the momentum
| was undeniable they could not give that sh*t away -- they
| did try that too.
| jjav wrote:
| This is why we must have open interoperable standards, like the
| Internet used to and was meant to be.
| baiwl wrote:
| I also have many messaging apps, but they are all different
| personas of myself, intended for different audiences. I have
| zero interest in mixing them.
| hmokiguess wrote:
| That could still be part of the protocol though, that's the
| beauty of protocols versus SaaS. Everyone wins, not just the
| gatekeepers.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| And what about E2E encryption? How will that work for users? Or
| will WhatsApp go the iMessage way and signal that you're talking
| to a non user of the platform and that you should be careful what
| you say there?
| anonymars wrote:
| WhatsApp is the only chat app I've encountered that refuses to
| work* if you don't give it access to your contacts. The last
| thing I want is to give it access to even more chats. Go eat a
| bag of dicks, Meta. More like "metastatic"
|
| * you can respond to messages but are very limited in what you
| can initiate (as such they got you as part of someone else's
| contact list)
| gear54rus wrote:
| Perhaps you'd be interested in learning that you can initiate
| chats to phone numbers (regardless of contact status) by going
| to wa.me/<phone-number>
|
| I've never tested it without contacts permissions though.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| They broke that just several weeks ago, at least for me.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| You can send the phone number to yourself in chat and then
| click it to open it for chat.
| sethops1 wrote:
| I think this might only be true on Android? Apple has a strict
| policy that the basic app functionality must work even without
| permissions. And testing right now, I can send messages to
| direct numbers without having given access to my contacts.
| ckemere wrote:
| Original poster explained that the functionality is having a
| contact list. WhatsApp will either access and use ALL your
| contacts or none on iPhone as well as android. Having jumped
| through many hoops to preserve conversations without leaking
| contacts, I'm highly attuned to this...
| nasretdinov wrote:
| Recent iOS versions allow you to share only a small subset
| of contacts, which is really useful for apps like these
| throwaway290 wrote:
| nope. he literally wrote "cannot initiate messages if you
| don't give it access to your contacts" and that's false on
| iphone. on iphone whatsapp has its own separate contact
| list if you don't give it access. and it is like this for
| years.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Works on iphone though.
| sparkie wrote:
| This is why you should use Graphene's contact scopes and only
| allow access to contacts that you want to contact on WhatsApp.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _WhatsApp is the only chat app I 've encountered that refuses
| to work_ if you don't give it access to your contacts*
|
| I've never given it access to my contacts. (iOS.) It's worked
| fine. I recently started giving it access to a limited set of
| my contacts, but that was for convenience.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Add Zuck's contact to the group and share that one only.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Telegram did this for me when I tested it years ago. Instantly
| uninstalled.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| on android telegram is optional, whatsapp is required
| sureglymop wrote:
| I don't have this issue at all, I just selectively only give it
| access to some contacts.
|
| It seems to no longer even scan the contacts by itself, only
| when you hit "New Chat", press the triple dots and then
| "Refresh".
|
| Still a pretty garbage app but at least in terms of this it
| seems to have actually improved.
| zenoprax wrote:
| This feels like a distraction from what is really needed: a
| return to open standards/protocols.
|
| I love the idea of Matrix but the complexity of key management
| and federation for the average person is far too high. Signal is
| a perfect direct replacement for WhatsApp but it still requires a
| phone number.
|
| RCS is good enough... as a fallback protocol. I don't want a
| dependency on a phone number or a single physical device.
|
| Why is email so durable but federated messaging so fragile? If we
| can make PGP/GPG email more accessible I wonder if that could
| translate to instant messaging?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The only possible way to return to open standards and protocols
| would be to make a closed protocol illegal.
|
| That was vaguely the state of things before the DMCA here in
| the US. Sega had no legal ability to stop other companies from
| selling cartridges that played on a genesis for example, and in
| one court case the Judge ruled that the company was legally
| right to breach Sega's trademark rights to achieve that
| interoperability. Sony, Nintendo, and others all lost similar
| suits about trying to restrict interoperability with their
| products and software.
|
| In fact, Sega was going to lose that case so badly, and the
| precedent was so clearly beneficial to the consumer and market,
| that they chose to settle it to prevent the precedent from
| being established. That this is something you can choose to do
| well after it becomes obvious how the case _should_ end is an
| atrocious feature of the US "justice" system. You shouldn't
| get to take a case all the way to a verdict, and then have an
| appeals court poke holes in your claims and then say "actually
| we don't want any of this on the record anymore"
|
| The DMCA as written makes it very easy to prevent
| interoperability by law simply with a bit of code here or there
| to make token efforts to prevent access.
| daft_pink wrote:
| I generally wouldn't want my messages going to
| WhatsApp/Meta/Facebook, but I'm not from a country where usage of
| those apps is very high at all.
| pedrozieg wrote:
| What WhatsApp really needs to do is allow people to store their
| chats in the cloud. WhatsApp is the only communication tool that
| forces people to keep everything on their phones - or delete
| information. This causes WhatsApp to take up a large chunk of the
| available space on most phones.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-01 23:02 UTC)