The linked article could have been titled "andre garzia does not understand that mobile messaging is not the web" jajaja ;)
I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints.
The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need their old whatsapp messages. Most will say no. In fact, many proactively delete them. Turning a mobile messaging into a CPU and bandwidth only problem is a clever hack instead of it also being a disk and indexing problem.
This is hard thing for a lot of us to understand because we come from a world where our business has message retention and surveillance requirements. We want to run quantized self and sentiment analysis reports for the last 10 years. But most people either don't know that might even want that.
The other key insight is that knowing the user's identity can be more important than the user themselves.
I don't think you understood what I am complaining about. I am complaining exactly about chrome only and usage of non-standard api.
As for storage, the web client is requesting non-standard file system permission exactly to store things. I am saying they should use a standard API such as IndexedDB for that kind of thing.
I do understand a thing or two about IM having worked on more than a client before. There is no need whatsoever for the hacks they did...
As for surveillance, thats another can of worms that is not protected by what they are doing. Traffic is intercepted at other vulnerable spots such as the carrier itself or ISP.
I do understand. One of your complaints is "Mistake three - It doesn't work if your phone is not connected to the internet."
That is not a mistake. It is a direct result of the fundamental insight that enabled whatsapp to become what is is - being stateless. Your first two complaints are technical, but the third is a business decision that optimizes their product to fit the needs of the market.
This is a by the by, but surveillence in the context of business requirements means something different. For example, financial companies need to surveil their employee's messages for illegal activity.
Storing your IM data & meta-data on their servers. i.e. Pending, delivered, read. If they allowed phone to be offline, that data would need to be synced when it comes online.
I am not going to comment on the chrome only and non standard API complaints.
The key insight behind modern mobile messaging that allows them to scale cheaply is that for most consumers the phone is persistent enough that the server does not need to store messages. Ask a 19 year old if they need their old whatsapp messages. Most will say no. In fact, many proactively delete them. Turning a mobile messaging into a CPU and bandwidth only problem is a clever hack instead of it also being a disk and indexing problem.
This is hard thing for a lot of us to understand because we come from a world where our business has message retention and surveillance requirements. We want to run quantized self and sentiment analysis reports for the last 10 years. But most people either don't know that might even want that.
The other key insight is that knowing the user's identity can be more important than the user themselves.