Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Facebook Software Windows

WhatsApp Now Has a Desktop App, Available on Windows, OS X 166

Posted by msmash from the desktop-chatters-camp dept.
WhatsApp is now also available as a native desktop app on Windows and OS X, the Facebook-owned instant messaging and voice calling company announced. The app supports desktop notifications, keyboard shortcuts and a range of other features. For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries, but it has a large user base of active users in the emerging markets such as India and Brazil. In fact, earlier this year, the company announced that it has hit one billion monthly active users. For those interested, you can download the app for your desktop (or any other device) from the company's website.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WhatsApp Now Has a Desktop App, Available on Windows, OS X More

WhatsApp Now Has a Desktop App, Available on Windows, OS X

Comments Filter:

  • No thanks! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ( 4475953 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:22AM (#52090639)

    I prefer email on Linux, but I nevertheless appreciate the effort.

    • Re:No thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:37AM (#52090733)

      lots of ways to 'message' someone.

      but I also fail to understand why. email works. its interoperable. its one port to leave open and secure, not a bazillion. the protocol is understood, it can be secured at least as well as any other (more than most), it does not require ANY special hardware or phone; ie, it can work on slow text terminals as well as fancy fast gfx based ones.

      all my messages are in the same folder. I can search. I dont' have to worry about which app this person sent me a notice on.

      and of course, the trendy apps come and go; but email is STILL with us.

      yeah, GOML. but still, other than 'instant' messages (email is pretty close to instant these days, though) - I'm not seeing any real reason to switch from email to (name of fad that is currently popular) comms.

      • You could hypothetically make an email app that looked and acted like an IM app. I'd personally give it a shot! But email isn't set up for things like read receipts (admit it: it's nice to know your wife actually saw, then read, your message) or status indicators ("Joe's offline right now", or even "Joe's typing a response"). It's not designed as a realtime protocol, even if message deliver tends to be very quick.

        Again, I'd totally try out an IM client that used SMTP transport, but I'm skeptical that it cou

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by allo ( 1728082 )

          Why Read Receipt? ICQ didn't have one?
          Online Status? Do it like Whatsapp "last message from X" (a bit different, but fair enough). Allow to explicitly tell "send i-am-online to X".

        • Perhaps something that used relays. That way people could 'chat' a bit more live than e-mail. You could even run your own server locally or join any number of other Internet chat server relays.

          We could call it Live Chat Internet Relays (LCIR). If people wanted to they could even create a protocol so that different clients and servers could operate with each other. It could be a very simple protocol with shorthand like "PRIVMSG" so that you didn't waste a lot of band width on all of SMTP overhead.

          One day I l

    • Yet another XMPP hack? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kludge ( 13653 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:47AM (#52090809)

      Whatsapp is just a modified implementation of the XMPP (Jabber) standard. I will stick with standard XMPP and choose from the dozens of applications that support it. Thanks.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Excellent, you stick to Jabber with the other 9 people still using it. The other 1 billion active users will probably stick to whatsapp and not care very much about not being able to contact you.

        While I agree with your sentiment and laud your commitment to opensource, there are no global systems with a userbase worth mentioning that you can communicate with using basic XMPP.

        • While I agree with your sentiment and laud your commitment to opensource, there are no global systems with a userbase worth mentioning that you can communicate with using basic XMPP.

          While there is no perfect solution satisfying your criteria, some are clearly worse than others. iMessage comes to my mind, because it only works on Apple products. Whatsapp was also a crappy solution with no desktop client. It still suck, because it is based on phone number as an ID.

          • I just read the Whatsapp desktop client requires a cell phone (turned on, with signal) to operate. Therefore it is almost worthless. Whatsapp didn't gain much today.

            • Indeed, what a massive disappointment for everyone wishing to move away from skype to a platform used by so many.
              I really don't understand their dumb reasoning for releasing a desktop app when they already have a website for people with smartphones?!

              (as I value my privacy, I don't use a smartphone).

            • I use web.whatsapp when I'm on my computer. I much prefer typing with a keyboard

              • Yes, but why do you need a phone number and a powered on, connected smartphone to use the service? Why can't it work like Facebook Messenger and Google Hangouts, to name a few?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Malc ( 1751 )

                  It is an annoyance, but it's still more convenient than no desktop interface.

                  I find this whole diversification of messaging methods really irritating, and it's got to the point where it's now reducing communication for me. I can't remember who's on what system. I don't want to be running half a dozen apps, so it is useful that I can at least access things Facebook messages through a browser (after I see the email notification) without having to install another buggy, battery draining, privacy violating Fa

      • It used to be. It's not anymore. Now it uses its own proprietary protocol.
    • Good luck calling someone from you email like WhatsApp can.

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmack ( 197796 ) <gmack@noSpAM.innerfire.net> on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:30AM (#52090689) Homepage Journal

    When I was in Spain, everyone used WhatsAPP and I just found the whole thing poorly designed.

    As a cheap SMS replacement it's good, but it's really not much more than that. Notifications don't follow you on whatever device you are using and it really does not take phone number changes very well. All the people who had me in Spain? Now that I am back in Canada, If they try and WhatsAPP me, they will get no notification that I will never see the message.

    • WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries

      Yes, it's very widely used i Spain. Almost everyone with a smartphone has it installed.

      I have also noticed that in London, on the tube, maybe half the people using their smartphone are "Whatsapp"-ing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Almost everyone i know in UK and friends in Europe use it. Most people have family and friends all around the world (e.g. Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong are common for the UK) so it is an easy way to keep in contact. It is also easy to add groups of friends too; I did a stag do recently to Spain and it was invaluable to be able to chat when we broke up into smaller groups and easily share photos/messages of various shenanigans. I know their is an elitist attitude on Slashdot to these things, but

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      Actually, they'll get one tick (successfully sent to server) but not the second tick (successfully read by recipient) on their message - and it will be a slightly different colour. They might not even get the first tick if WhatsApp know that number isn't a WhatsApp one.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gmack ( 197796 )

        The problem is that because the number used to have WhatsAPP, it will still get the first tick. They will see that I haven't read it yet. but there is no way to know I will never get it without waiting a week and noticing I still haven't read it.

    • Yes, it is simply a replacement for SMS/MMS.

      I never used it in France because I had unlimited texting/messaging with my 2EUR/month plan. Moved to the US, got the cheapest-yet-horribly-expensive plan and didn't have unlimited texting, so I started using whatsapp, and ... it works.

      I guess whatsapp is just popular in countries where data is cheaper than texting/messaging, but that's just because the carrier have stupid pricing. The day they stop this nonsense, maybe whatsapp will no longer be needed.

    • If they try and WhatsAPP me, they will get no notification that I will never see the message.

      There's those little check marks at the bottom right of each sent message. Double check mark means 'message received'. If they turn blue, it means they were read.

    • If you change your real number (and not reinstall/reset whatsapp), then surprise surprise, SMS will stop working , you won't receive messages from your contacts unless you tell them your new number.

      Same thing happens with whatsapp. This is a design feature so you don't need to remember user names, emails and passwords

    • You're not alone buddy. Allthough I sometimes think I am.

      My standard answer by now is: "No, I don't use WhatsCrapp/FaceBook/Twitter/Instagram, I'm a computer expert. Here's my card with my email address."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hvdh ( 1447205 )

      In Germany, I'd say at least 80% of all private smartphones have Whatsapp installed. SMS is limited to short text. Whatsapp has emoticons (some people cannot communicate without 'em), sending pictures, video, and you current location, if you want to meet e.g. in a big park.
      Phone number change afaik works, you just have to link old and new number somewhere in the options. With SMS, this doesn't work.

    • It's good because it's cross platform unlike iMessage, and it never falls back to SMS/MMS and unexpectedly costs you money. Then again one of the bonuses of the EU is they're kicking the phone company's arses and makin European roaming much cheaper.

      Downside is it's a crap app, it's another app, it's owned by Facebook and it totally butchers photos by downscaling and recompressing them.

    • I read that 98% of smart phone users in Spain use WhatsApp. It is so common, you have it everywhere, on TV, on websites as a way of contact, on radio shows. Note that WhatsApp only requires your mobile phone number as your ID (it is verified via SMS), and it grabs all of your contacts. No need to remember IDs, passwords or anything else.
      A popular feature is the group messaging. Most people I know are in many of these groups, be it the parents of a classroom, work colleagues or old friends. Most of the time

  • Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M ( 4212163 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:30AM (#52090691)

    For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

    So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm not sure, that's pretty brain dead.

      Generally I could understand a "mobile first" strategy, but for What's App, "mobile only" was completely brain dead. It's way more convenient to type messages on a real, physical keyboard on your computer. It's the main reason we ruled out What's App when choosing a chat platform.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You get to use your keyboard and have access to stuff on your local drive that you might want to share.
      Then again, their browser interface does that, too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I agree. This is the exact same issue with the web-app. If my phone looses Internet connection (which is more common, because I turned on the power-saving features that includes killing the wifi), I cannot do anything with the web-app. What a waste of bits.

    • Re:Useless (Score:5, Informative)

      by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:47AM (#52090805)

      For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      So you don't have to pick up your phone repeatedly while you're on your desktop.

      • They have a web version for that purpose!

        So yes, the desktop client is utterly useless.
        There's many people still who don't own a smartphone for one reason or another (e.g. privacy), as such I was hoping this would allow me to use it as a replacement for Skype. Most people are utterly fed-up of skype and have moved away to whatsapp or viber or telegram (all smartphone apps).

    • For the desktop app to function, users still need to have their phone connected to the Internet.

      So what's the point of a desktop program if it requires a smartphone?

      Keyboard, mainly. Far more convenient for browsing and writing messages if you happen to be sitting at a computer.

      I think it's pretty interesting how the WhatsApp stuff was put together, more like POP3 than the modern way of thinking about messaging. It's essentially massively decentralised, for privacy (apparently), and it hugely reduces their cost. All their servers do is hold messages in transport and deliver them to a single device. It's restrictive for the end-user but it's meant they could scale far f

    • I don't think that information is correct.
      I use WhatsApp Web while my phone is turned off and it works.

      With that being said, the "New" WhatsApp Desktop application is not well thought-out.
      First: you can't minimize it to system tray or get it out of the way. I like my taskbar clean and I infrequently use WhatsApp - it has no place on my taskbar at all times. There's no setting to minimize it to System Tray.
      Second: it adds nothing in terms of value compared to the browser-based solution (WhatsApp Web). It pro

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by beuges ( 613130 )

        It adds nothing of value over the browser based solution because that's exactly what it is. This "desktop client" is a wrapper around an embedded browser that launches WhatsApp Web by default. From the looks of it, it's Chrome Embedded Framework that's been used. I'm guessing they chose that route to make it easier to support both Windows and OSX without much difficulty, but it does raise the question of how they plan to handle updates and patches to the Chrome core... while they might not need any new feat

    • If I had to guess, to use the same encryption keys and keychain as the app on your phone since your private key is not on whatsapp's servers. Otherwise there would have to be some, probably messy, way to transfer the keys and keep them in sync. While techies probably wouldn't have an issue, it would create friction for the muggle masses using the platform.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        Then why does the master device for an account's private key have to be a smartphone? Why can't the desktop be the master device?

        • Again just guessing, since they already have millions of users on mobile devices making the mobile device the master was the "low hanging fruit". Seems like a future enhancement could be to add making the computer be the master device. Or adding a secure synchronization between multiple devices owned by the same account.

  • Neat? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:30AM (#52090697)
    This week's newest messenging service for people without unlimited texting plans. Aren't there about a thousand (at least) of these by now?

  • Almost like Telegram (Score:4, Informative)

    by Maquis196 ( 535256 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:32AM (#52090705)

    Telegram has had desktop apps (including Linux) for a while now, including the obligatory web front end which I find invaluable at work. It says Whatsapp isn't popular in Europe? I don't know about the mainland but everyone I know in the UK uses Whatsapp, technical and non-technical alike. Telegram is slowly being pushed onto my friends, but critical mass is a hard thing to break.

     

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mridoni ( 228377 )

      It says Whatsapp isn't popular in Europe? I don't know about the mainland but everyone I know in the UK uses Whatsapp, technical and non-technical alike.

      It's just about the same in Italy, the only people I know that don't use Whatsapp just don't have a smartphone but something simpler (e.g. old Nokias)

    • Last I heard, the Telegram crypto is shit. At least WhatsApp integrated Signal's protocol. Now if they'd allow federation between Signal users and Whatsapp users, and more than 3 devices per account (really? I have a dozen machines I use) then we'd have all the platforms covered and a choice of clients outside of silos.

      Nah, that would be too useful for the spymasters to allow. Better that the tech companies all keep trying to maintain their failing messaging monopolies than work together and do something

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Wovel ( 964431 )

      Telegram is well prepared for 2016 then. It is the year of the Linux desktop.

  • Not very popular in European countries? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    If WhatsApp is "not very popular in European countries", how is it that every German I know uses it (and it already had 30 million users two years ago in a country of 80 million people)?

  • Why do companies only do stuff like this when their application is already in decline? A lack of a desktop app was the primary reason I ignored What's App until now.

    Last I checked, What's App's popularity has gone into decline, so I see this as too little, too late.

    • Well remember, Lord Jobs told everyone the desktop was a dead man walking. I too avoid services that ignore the desktop, and while I am sure there are others that do, I am getting the impression that there are more people that look for this than these companies think. People are also straddling more "ecosystems" more often than ever. Half my office is Win/Android and there are only a handful of apps that will stay in sync across win desktop, win app (that's a thing now!) and android app. Which is a damn sha

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      That's probably just because Brazil blocked WhatsApp for a weekend because they wouldn't decrypt messages or something.

  • WHat a joke?! Telegram, which is pretty much feature-comparable to Whatsapp (and is not tied to fucking Facebook) had desktop apps for like ever. It also has a web-app and a Chrome extension. It covers practically all usage scenarios.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by NotAPK ( 4529127 )

      Careful with labelling Telegram as "Open Source", it is not completely open source by any measure.

      Have a look at their website [telegram.org].

      How is this being funded? Take a look here [telegram.org]. They claim that it is free and will always be free.

      I just don't understand the angle here. Is it just a honeypot? Is it a long-term investment?

      They primary concern I have for both WhatsApp and Telegram is that to use either you *must* disclose a telephone number. By definition that number is tied to some kind of billing account and is trac

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NoZart ( 961808 )

      But whatsapp has the ladies.

    • Unfortunately, telegram is useless for me. Private chats won't sync to multiple devices, and I have 3 or 4 I use regularly. Sucks have 5 different private chats with the wife, one for each device.

    • Check out Cryptocat too.

  • Windows 7 not supported (Score:3)

    by asavage ( 548758 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @10:51AM (#52090823)
    WhatsApp is pretty popular in BC, Canada. It is odd to release a Windows application that is Windows 8 or higher though since most use Windows 7.
    • I'm assuming they probably just wanted to release it on the Windows Store, which is Windows 8 or later only.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by nvm ( 3984313 )
      I'm guessing it goes through the "windows store" netflix did the same thing

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by NotAPK ( 4529127 )

      It's absolutely ridiculous. I think you would actually have to go out of your way to write a W8 only application, so I wonder what the angle is. Did Microsoft pay them to do this? I wonder if it's a part of Microsoft's forced migration?

      • It is most likely written as a Windows Universal app. Which means that it is installed via the Store and will run on all MS platforms including Xbox and mobile (in theory).

  • Popularity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @11:12AM (#52091023) Homepage

    "WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and E"uropean countries"

    You're kidding right? Over half my contacts are on WhatsApp - it's basically free texting, including internationally.

    Anyone, especially who travels in Europe, who isn't using it already is just one friend away from being invited to it.

    More people I know use WhatsApp than Facetime, or Skype.

  • I started using WhatsApp last year when I visited China. Although *everyone* out there uses QQ, WhatsApp is not blocked (like FB) and works over Wifi so I was able to keep in touch with my kids including sending hi res photos, videos and the rest. It was very convenient.

    People like it because it doesn't eat into their data or text allowance, as long as they have WiFi.

  • Not popular? What are you smoking? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries."

    Like WTF are you guys smoking that you actually wrote that?

    http://blog.appannie.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/02-Top-Messaging-Apps-Q3-2015-Monthly-Active-Users-MAU-iPhone-Android.png [appannie.com]

    The only people I know not using WhatsApp are people doing messaging from the desktop, due to the way it has previously been bound to a phone.

  • I have been using it for a few years now, a group of friends I have across the country invited me to a group chat and I use it mainly for that. I like it because I can catch up on the "conversations" that happen when I am not monitoring it. It also supports pictures, videos, and voice messages much better than normal texting. (e.g. higher size limits, multiple images more easily) I will often have normal texts that come through out of order, or get lost (t-mobile) but WA always works. They've made cons

  • A desktop version still doesn't help me. I own a PC, an Audiovox 8610 flip phone [cnet.com], and a Samsung Galaxy Tab A tablet running Android "Lollipop". I can't install it on my PC because according to the download page, "WhatsApp must be installed on your phone." I can't install it on my phone because an Audiovox 8610 is not listed as a compatible phone on FAQ #20951556 [whatsapp.com]. I can't install it on my tablet because according to FAQ #20951556, "We currently do not support tablets or Wi-Fi only devices, and do not plan to

  • WhatsApp isn't very popular in the United States and European countries, but it has a large user base of active users in the emerging markets such as India and Brazil.
    And why is everyone I know using WhatsApp?

  • ... they can't afford to hire someone who knows how to open a socket directly to their servers?

  • Not popular in Europe??? (Score:3)

    by tigersha ( 151319 ) on Wednesday May 11, 2016 @01:12PM (#52091977) Homepage

    What? Get real. I am neutral about it, but ALL of the parents in my daughter's school class use it, so it is good to keep of track of carpooling. Also, my wife's colleagues? All of them. My cow-orkers (lots of business travel at conventions)? All of them. Whatsapp is more used here in Germany than email. certainly waaaaaaaaay more than SMS.

    I don't mind Whatsapp, it gets the job done, but I don't know what makes it so popular.

    • You answered your own question.

      Why is it popular? Because everyone uses it.

      Just like every other method of communication in the world.

    • WhatApp has 2 reasons it is popular, especially outside the US

      1) It is incredibly convenient, no pass words, no logins,

      2) It is CHEAP. Ever seen what most carriers charge for international texting? Unless you specifically are paying the extra in the plan for international texting, its like 20 cents a text. I have 2 people I do game modding with, one in the UK and one in Singapore. So I would either have to sign up for a more expensive plan for international texting or pay 40 cents every time I sent them bot

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I have a BlackBerry Classic with 3rd party app access to the play store. WhatsApp works fine. Actually most Play Store apps work. Not having a Windows machine, I went straight for the Windows executable to see if it would work under Wine, which I have had a lot of success with lately. The install gives a .net error, then downloads and installs the version it needs. It appears to install .Net 4.5 then craps out on the WhatsApp install with the error "installation failed".

    My question is, as long as Wine exis

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Close