WhatsApp Messenger is a smartphone messaging app which allows you to exchange messages with your friends and contacts without having to pay for SMS. WhatsApp Messenger is cross platform and available for iPhone, BlackBerry, Android and Nokia (beta) and yes, those phones can all message each other! To send and receive messages, WhatsApp utilizes your existing smartphone internet data plan: 3G/EDGE (or Wi-Fi when available)So, I don't understand what's the appeal?
1. It advertises itself as a cross-platform smartphone messaging app that utilizes your data connection so you don't have to pay for SMS. Every smartphone platform already comes built-in with such an app. It's called email.
2. Let's be honest with ourselves. WhatsApp is an instant messaging application. Every smartphone platform has apps for the main instant messaging applications already (ie, Google Talk, Windows Live Messenger, AIM, Yahoo, etc)
3. WhatsApp uses your mobile phone number as your user-ID. An instant messaging service provider has no business knowing your mobile number. So, there's actually a privacy/security concern here.
4. WhatsApp is in trial mode for Android. So it's currently free. But it costs US$1 for the iOS and this will certainly be the same for Android soon. Why pay for an app when you already have the functionality native on your device? Who would ever pay just for an instant messaging app? There's not even a desktop client!
In response to the comments:
Using your phone number is the reall clever bit. It means you can instantly see all your friends who also use it instead of having to find out their usernames. It is only an IM app but it's useful because so many people do use it across all platforms.Like I said, using your phone number is a privacy risk. How do we, as users, know what the guys at WhatsApp are doing with all this information? They can be selling it to telemarketers for all we know.
If WhatsApp is useful only because so many people use it across all platforms, then it will never be as useful as email. Email is used by everyone and it's supported on more platforms.
Alot, if not most of the Mobile IM clients are not always on (i.e., working in the background), you need to sign in to WLM or Yahoo! Messenger. WhatsApp is always working in the background therefore you get the message exactly when it is written. Thats a huge selling feature!!Yes, for all IM clients, the user has to sign in. Having to sign in is not a flaw. It's an option the application allows the user. You also have the option to sign out. Also, most IM clients include the option to automatically sign in. (Strange enough, you don't have the option to sign out of WhatsApp.)
With Windows Mobile or Android, once you sign in with your IM client, you just leave it in the background. As long as you don't reboot your phone, you are always signed in. I can't say the same for iOS though. So perhaps, this application is really for iOS users because they can't multitask properly?
I still fail to see how WhatsApp is better than email, which:
- is also instant.
- has no limitation on the type of attachments.
- is a native feature to every smartphone. You don't have to pay for and use a separate application.
- doesn't even require you to "add" a person. Just begin typing the recipients name and every smartphone will autocomplete the field for you if you have that person's email in your contact list. If you don't have the person's email in your contact list, just type the address.
- is not only cross-smartphone platform; it is truly cross-platform. Email can be accessed on smartphones, dumbphones, and computers.
Update
I'm getting multiple comments with various insults over this. They're not published because they're simply not constructive. The main purpose of this article is not to say that WhatsApp is terrible. I'm just trying to say WhatsApp is redundant and I find it odd that people are paying for what's essentially an application that provides you with a functionality they already have. So if anyone has an opposing view, then please, let's discuss because I would be interested to know why exactly is this app so popular.
From the comments so far, I respect the following reasons for using WhatsApp:
- Your contacts list is not populated with email addresses.
- You like the IM-style of WhatsApp but don't like to sign in to other IM apps.
Update #2
Wow. I just realized that WhatsApp on Android is free for the first year and then $1.99 per year thereafter. There's a subscription fee and there are still people who use this? It's just appalling to me that people will pay an annual fee for instant messaging.
Update #3
Lots of comments flooding in about how Whatsapp is better than email because of the IM nature of the app. Ok, I get that. Look through the comments and I've conceded that IM is better than email when it comes to chatting.
The reason I initially use email as a point of reference is because email is native to every single smartphone. There's not a single smartphone that doesn't support push email. If you have to open up your inbox to refresh it to see if you have any new emails, then you've set up your account the wrong way. So if you want to send and receive messages or files instantly, you don't need a third party app for it.
But if IM is your cup of tea, why not stick with Google Talk or Windows Live Messenger? There are numerous reputable IM cients available for free. Why support these guys over at Whatsapp?
Also, the previous argument against using other IM apps is that they drain battery. Not anymore. Both Android and iOS support push messaging background services. In fact, Whatsapp uses the same service.
Update #4
Commentors, please stop comparing Whatsapp with SMS. Whatsapp is not SMS, is not emulating SMS, and has nothing to do with SMS.
Can it replace SMS? Sure, but so can every other IM client out there. And they're free, more secure, and more fully featured.
Is a $1.00 one-time fee or a $1.99 annual-subscription a lot of money? No, not at all. But it's all relative. Consider what you're getting before paying for it. If everyone else is offering the same (and better) product without charging for it, what's the logic in paying for an inferior alternative?
It's like if your neighbor bought an ambulance and decided to announce to everyone that he's going to offer ambulatory services. He'll charge you a few bucks and bring you to the nearest hospital. Sure, it's not a lot of money. But why not just call 911?