HN Reader

> With the new WhatsApp interface mandated by the DMA, any BirdyChat user in the EEA will be able to start a chat with any WhatsApp user in the region simply by knowing their phone number.

Unfortunately, as it's been implemented as opt-in on WhatsApp's side, this isn't really true. Honestly that decision alone means it's kinda dead in the water.

Data BirdyChat collects:

> Messages, attachments and other materials that you send through BirdyChat to your contacts;

No thanks

While not a commercial offering, which is what this is saying in reality - closed source, commercial alternative with (limited) interoperability, I've been running my own chat server for a while now with (limited) interoperability with both Whatsapp and Messenger.

I suspect a good number of people here don't care for any of this - FOSS, chat, voice, and video is where it's at. Interoperability for those last two don't exist yet AFAIK, and they're truly game-changers. Will that change? Does the DMA mention anything other than chat? Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

USA, which prides itself on freedoms, seems to have conceded a great deal of them when it comes to life online. From Apple apps, GPDR, now this. It sucks to see what we are missing out on.

I'm pretty resentful that people in the US are stuck using worse/less featureful versions of products from US companies, while the government in Europe can get these kinds of concessions for their people. If a company is legally obligated to offer a feature to people in other parts of the world, they should be forced to offer it at back home in the US as well, since we can't be bothered otherwise to pass any of these nice laws for ourselves. See also: choice in app stores

This five-month-old comment suggests that birdychat uses telegram, pivot maybe?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736050

From their page

"Built for better conversations Reach people with their email, not their phone number. Designed for focused, meaningful exchanges between managers, builders, and collaborators."

Is it using email protocols to send messages or is it using email addresses as a proxy for usernames?

The claim of a drive for better conversations is not really that accurate because better conversations rely on a more universally used app/system than presently exists. Ie, a replacement that would have to grow internationally extraordinarily quickly.

Apple figured that out... iMessage was basically a cheat code to a vast userbase almost instantly. What Apple didn't figure, however, was that iMessage's green/blue thingy that went on for so long didn't really give android/sms users fomo, but really, it just created an unneeded communication barrier. Such barriers are the exact opposite of what is needed for a communication platform to be excellent. Unfortunately, decisions counter to what may be perceived as income generating are difficult to reverse.

These sorts of apps may not be revolutionary enough I fear. I would love to adopt something like this, but Meta continue to make too many billions to let their monopoly on human communication management to be taken away that easily.

I was a big fan of pidgin, but this premise makes me feel iffy.

Why would I ever want my work to intrude on my personal messaging? My private time is my own. Slack/Teams is perfect because I can mute it on a schedule when I stop for the day.

Anything that is urgent can be managed via Pagerduty or similar on a controlled fashion

Even the first announcement about this included BirdyChat and Haiket. Two completely unknown and yet unreleased closed source chat apps with a waitlist.

Can't help but think they are maintained by people close to Meta dev teams and were hand-picked for a malicious compliance, where they can just point to them as examples, and they make onboarding as complicated and expensive as possible for others.

Why would I use this closed source program instead of another closed source program. I don't trust some random company from Latvia any more than I trust Meta. We need this interop to be available for free software clients. I want something like Pidgin.

It would have been more effective to require Meta (and all other messaging companies) to implement an open protocol or open source theirs, so that people can freely write alternative clients free of malware.

I'd like to take the opportunity to mention a tiny very useful app that allows opening a WhatsApp chat directly with any number, without having to register it first as a contact. Great for vacations or similar situations where a quick one-time chat is needed with somebody:

* https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.trianguloy...

* Webapp: https://trianguloy.github.io/OpenInWhatsapp_Web/

I'm just grateful for this app, so I thought that maybe other HNers might find it useful.

Exciting news! Can't wait for iMessage to open up too. Any idea if this (or other future messengers) will work outside of Europe too or does WhatsApp use some kind of geofencing, like Apple, to prevent non-EU citizens from enjoying the same rights too?

As a European, I would like to know in _which_ European country you're based. I think I know all of them, people from abroad might not. Saying "Made in Europe" is too general for my European liking. ;)

Never heard of this before. Why would I use this? I am assuming the messages are not actually encrypted, because on their own privacy page they state that they "process" messages and attachments sent through birdychat. So are they processing the raw unencrypted data on their servers or what?

From a cursory glance of their CSAE policy, combined with the above, it seems they would be very eager to comply with the dreaded "chat control".

https://www.birdy.chat/privacy

I am wondering if this opens up the possibility of having more than two WhatsApp Number on the same phone. Especially on iOS.

I have long requested this feature for Whatsapp Business, where I can pay an annual subscription just to have more than one number. So I can separate life between Business and Friends.

That name isn't that great ...

WhatsApp is not a great name either, but catchy and somewhat simple.

BirdyPo.. I mean BirdyChat sounds like when doves cry. But not as catchy.

Also, I am all in favour of Europeans becoming less dependent on the USA (yet-another-ICE-killing incident today, with video footage contradicting the claims made by the current government - again), but there is kind of ... a weak decision-making process here. Lobbyists sell to Europeans that Amazon data servers in Europe, now comply with european laws. Well, those are still external companies that will hand over data from europeans, so that is not a solution. Why do some media try to insinuate otherwise? Who owns and controls all these media?

When a smaller network tries to be interoperable with a larger network, the larger network almost always eats up the smaller one. This is how XMPP was killed by Gtalk, if any of you are old enough to remember.

Closed, iOS only, invite only. Thanks.

I summarized all comments using LLM for better reading: https://hn-discussions.top/whatsapp-interoperability-europe/

Don't they have a desktop app? The WhatsApp desktop app is heavy and annoying. Would love to use something else.

Let me know when I can link it to the hundred whatsapp groups other people have added me to, so I can remove the stain of zuckerberg from as much of my life as possible.

When can I send messages from a PC running Python?

Hope the new Whatsapp interface won't be abused for spam . As Whatsapp already has spam issues . Will it run through meta's anti-spam filtering ?

This will be really happy news for both birdychat users.

Ps: joking aside, this is kinda malicious compliance of WhatsApp, picking a chat app nobody uses.

> WhatsApp is currently rolling out interoperability support across Europe.

Does this mean i can chat with my whatsapp contacts without the whatsapp official app? I've been hating that for years.

I'd love to be able to get rid of it somehow.

How to use it in Brazil? I don't trust Zuck.

Still, no one will adopt BirdyChat because of this.

The thing I hate most about WhatsApp is the number of ad messages from businesses. It’s almost unusable for me. I have no option to use anything else, as all my contacts use WhatsApp and the network effects lock me in.

This means nothing good, Meta and its products are a privacy nightmare, with WhatsApp having major market share outside of the U.S.

People need signal. It's not perfect, but it's the best available.

No source code, wait list, special compatibility with a for-profit ad based company. No thanks.

Only for “verified professionals”… “work email” please.

This isn't a general chat app alternative.

This is app/company from Latvia, as I understand.

I must protest that this kind of announcement belies the stupidity of proprietary chat protocols.

Remember when IRC was king, and basically, anyone could write an IRC client? Anyone could write a MUD client, or even a Telnet client. Those are open protocols.

When Pidgin came out, it was like a breath of fresh air for me. In the early 90s I had multiple IM accounts (starting with ICQ!) and unifying them, especially under a Linux client, was a dream come true.

But of course, AIM purported to use Oscar at the time, but they really hated F/OSS and 3rd-party clients, and so did the other proprietary guys, so it became cat-and-mouse to keep the client compatible while the servers always tried to break their functionality.

Now this dumb announcement comes out that a 3rd party has (apparently legally) established interop with a Meta property with (I am guessing) a completely proprietary, undocumented, secret protocol underneath.

I am not impressed. I am McKayla Maroney unimpressed.

I want open protocols and I want client devs who are free to produce clients in freeform, as long as they can follow the protocol specs. Now we have email clients who speak SMTP, IMAP, and POP3, including the "secured, encrypted" versions of those protocols. We should ask for nothing less when it comes to other communications.

I've recently been feeling like consumers overseas get better treatment from tech companies than us here in the US. Unskippable ads are illegal in Vietnam, and now Europeans get interoperable messaging in WhatsApp. Meanwhile here in the US we're getting shafted. When are we going to put our collective feet down and say enough is enough?

How does this work with end to end encryption? Just out of curiosity

Does this mandate allow me to use a. 3rd party Teams, Google Chat and Slack client?

I suspect the answer is no, but why?

Only for “verified professionals”… “work email” please.

Find this exclusionary and distasteful.

I can vibecode this in an hour.

Would that work outside europe?

damnn

Looks like it’s sadly mobile-only

I signed up for the waitlist weeks ago, but no actual access is available :/

> Currently, BirdyChat supports 1:1 chats, with group chat interoperability coming in a future update.

I wondered whether it can be used with Whatsapp groups: Apprently not yet.

I wonder if this will force Apple to open up iMessage.

This is really amazing. I hope some regulation like DMA comes to India as well.

Does WhatsApp charge money for this? If not, why would a business use their API? They could simply create an app to directly talk to their customers, or am I missing something?

Warning! Badly broken user interface, I wouldn't trust these programmers to get the end-to-end encryption right.

On the second screen of the app there is already an infuriating bug: they ask to give your work email because than you go hire in priority on their invite-only waiting list. So you type in your email again and again and again, alternating between all your emails, but you keep returning to the form asking for your work email. You check those emails to see if they send you something to activate your account but nothing. Exasperated you try the only other button, sign up with private email instead. Guess that works, because you leave the infinite loop. But than zilch, nada, nothing.

Don't these script-kiddies use their own app?

This is pretty amazing, but I wish they picked a better name for it. I have a feeling that a good amount of people will dismiss it just because of the name.