What's the deal with WhatsApp?

So many people give high praise to this app as if it's the greatest thing since sliced-bread. Here's how WhatsApp is advertised on their website (www.whatsapp.com)

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?

Thoughts on 2010 iPods

Ah, September. Another refresh of Apple's iPod line-up. Does anyone still use one of these things? Back when it wasn't standard for phones to include a music player, I had an iPod Nano. A couple years back, I wanted to try out iOS so I got a 2nd-gen iPod Touch. Now, my Nano is used by my mom. My iPod Touch stays at home where it only gets used sparingly for games.

iPod Touch

Made for people who want to use iOS but don't want an iPhone. But there are a couple of things Apple left out which is understandable since they probably don't want it cut into their iPhone sales. It doesn't use the new industrial design of the iPhone4. It still has a curved shiny back just like the previous gen iPod Touch. While it has a rear camera capable of capture HD video, it's not a 5MP shooter like on the iPhone4. It captures stills only at 960x720. While I've shown a distaste to the iOS as a smartphone platform, I think it's perfectly fine for a digital music player.

iPod Nano

This is essentially an iPod Shuffle with a touchscreen and up to 16GB of storage. This one seems the most interesting to me. Would be great as a running device. It seems to also have Nike+ built-in. I wonder if Apple would finally decide to give up on using their proprietary dock connector. It just seems very out-of-place on such a small device. Micro or mini USB would have made much more sense.

iPod Shuffle

I never understood the Shuffle lineup. I didn't think it made sense to use a music player without a display right from the start, so there's no way one of these things was going to appeal to me. Then last year, they removed all the buttons from the device and touted it as a feature! This year, they put the buttons back. To me, seems identical to the Shuffle 2 generations ago. It's just very archaic; 2GB storage and no display? Just doesn't make much sense to choose this over the iPod Nano.

I really wonder just how far Apple is willing the push the limits on the design of the iPod Touch and the iPhone. I honestly think that they've hit a wall. I'm not talking about software here. Here are the hardware designs that Apple seems to just refuse to change about those 2 products even though it's evident that they are restricting usage behavior.

3.5" screen
Compared to competitors, this is just too small. Considering the amount of wasted space on the bezel, this is just not acceptable.

Lack of hardware buttons.
On the iPod Touch, you have buttons for standby, volume rockers, and home. The same applies to the iPhone except it also has a switch for toggling between mute and ringer. Seems like they're trying to do too much with too little buttons. You have to use the home button for everything. There's so much space on either side of the home button that it just seems odd not to put more buttons there...

Dock connector
Everyone got the memo about microUSB except Apple...

Non-removable battery
This is just not smart and I can't believe people still put up with it. I can accept a non-removable battery for my music player but definitely not for my smartphone.

Convince me I need an iPhone. I dare you.

Why is everyone out to get an iPhone these days? Even before the 4th-gen iPhone was announced (or leaked), everyone wanted one. They wanted one without knowing what it was going to look like or what new features it was going to have. Everyone trusted Steve Jobs to deliver.

Now that new iPhone is here, even more people want the new device. It just boggles my mind how Apple does it. Let’s imagine that I know nothing about the iPhone. Here’s what a conversation between me and an Apple employee would sound like.

Apple: Hi, can I help you with anything?

Me: Hi, I have a smartphone already; it’s the HTC Desire which runs Android. But I just heard that you guys have an iPhone4 that just released.

Apple: Yes, that’s right.

Me: It seems everyone wants one. So perhaps you can tell me why I should buy the iPhone4?

Apple: Well, it has got a Retina Display which makes everything appears super sharp on screen.

Me: It does look sharp…compared to previous iPhones. But it’s hardly sharper than the WVGA display on my phone…

Apple: Well, it has a front facing camera for FaceTime.

Me: That’s interesting, but I’ve had phones with front facing cameras since 2006 and I’ve never had the urge to make video calls over 3G.

Apple: But FaceTime is new. It allows you to make video calls only over WiFi.

Me: Isn’t that less convenient than 3G?

Apple: Right…anyway…We have this other new feature. If you double tap the home button, you get access to your most recently used apps. We call this Multitasking.

Me: Sorry, that’s not very impressive. My PocketPC back in 2001 could multitask just fine.

Apple: You can organize your apps into something we call Folders. And you can set an image as a background on your homescreen. We call it Wallpaper.

Me: Have you been living under a rock? Folders and wallpapers have been around for as long as I can remember!

Apple: You can shoot video in 720p and take still pictures with the 5MP camera with LED flash.

Me: The quality of the videos and pictures are impressive, so you got me there. Anyway, let me ask you some questions.

Apple: Sure.

Me: What happens when I receive an SMS or email while I’m using the device?

Apple: You get a popup with options to read the message or dismiss it.

Me: What if I don’t want to read it yet but I don’t want to dismiss it either because I’m sure I’ll forget to read it if I do?

Apple: Sorry, you'll have it read it right away.

Me: Can I save email attachments?

Apple: Yes, if someone emails you some pictures, you can save them directly to your photo gallery.

Me: But what if the attachments are not images?

Apple: Nope.

Me: Can I send emails with attachments that are not images?

Apple: Nope.

Me: Can I download files from the browser? Let’s say I want to save a pdf file I found on the web locally. Can I do that?

Apple: Sorry, no, but the browser is very fast and text is crisp on-screen.

Me: The browser does look nice. But those top and bottom bars seem take up a lot of space, especially in landscape mode. Can I get rid of those to get full-screen browsing?

Apple: Nope.

Me: Can I send and receive files via Bluetooth?

Apple: Nope.

Me: Ok, I’ve heard enough. Let’s recap. What am I impressed with?

Apple: The quality of the recorded videos and photos?

Me: So, you’re telling me that is worth HK$5000?

Apple: Uh…yes…would you like me to help you preorder the device?

Me: Seriously? Your device can't deliver on features that are basic mundane tasks. I'm not asking for out-of-this-world things. I'm not asking the iPhone to be able to microwave my dinner and then feed it to me.

Apple: Well, if you order now, we can give you a free case so that the cellular radio works properly.

Me: What?!

Retina Display? Really, Apple?

This "feature" of the upcoming iPhone4 is way overrated. All that was done was they doubled the horizontal and vertical pixel count of the previous iPhone. This resulted in a display that has 4x the resolution of the previous iPhone. That is, 960x640.

While this is impressive, it's not as magical as Apple makes it sounds. Most smartphones for the past couple of years have had WVGA screens (800x480). You'd be hard-pressed to find someone with eyesight good enough to perceive individual pixels on WVGA displays.

The increase in display resolution was not a surprising move by Apple. The previous resolution was quite pitiful. But only Apple can come up with a term such as "Retina display" as if it's some sort of new tech.

It's not! All they did was improved the screen resolution while maintaining the same 3.5inch screen size! The sad thing is that people will believe in this "Retina display" technology. When they go into a store and ask a sales about a non-Apple product, they'll say "Does this have a Retina display?"

OMFG...

Edit: This is in regards to the 1st commenter. I understand why they're calling it the "Retina display" but I don't understand why they have to call it anything at all. It's not new tech. It's not like we've gotten to the point where we just couldn't increase pixel density any further. Other than price and practicality, there was nothing to stop people from creating a display with 300+ dpi pixel density. Back in 2007, the Toshiba Protege G900 was released with a pixel density of 313dpi.

Conclusion: I praise Apple for releasing a commercial device with 326dpi pixel density. But I despise them for flaunting it as if it's something new that they invented.

(Are we going to have to come up with a new term everytime someone increases the pixel density beyond 326 going forward?)

Convince me I need an iPad

Apple announced it sold it's 1 millionth iPad in just it's 1st month. I don't get it. How are these things selling like hotcakes? I can't come up with a reason to get one of these things. Even if one was given to me as a gift, I don't see myself using it very often.

Steve Jobs mentioned he wants to position the iPad to fill the niche between laptop and smartphone. First of all, I had never felt that there was a gap between these 2 devices that needed filling!

I have a Macbook and an HTC Desire. (I also have a desktop PC, a TV, DVD player, etc but let's focus on these 2 because of what Steve Jobs said.) The Macbook is strictly for web browsing, managing my photo collection and managing my music collection. I also bring it with me when I travel for watching movies. The HTC Desire is my smartphone which I carry everywhere. Where does the iPad fit in here?

I can use it to browse the web, but so can my Macbook (and Desire for that matter!). The desktop browser allows me to do so much more on my Macbook than I could on an iPad. For example, load multiple Youtube videos across multiple tabs, play Flash-based games, attach all sorts of files to emails, etc.

I can't use it to manage my photo collection because there's no USB port to import files and can't connect to printer. (Edit: I just noticed that Apple makes an accessory called the "Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit". Well, maybe I can use it to manage my photo collection after all. But this "feature" really should not require additional cost in the form of an add-on.)

I can't use it to manage my music collection because of the following:
-Can't get music onto the iPad. No USB port, browser can't download files, no optical drive for importing.
-Can't get music from the iPad. No USB port, no optical drive for burning media.

I guess it might be a better alternative than the Macbook for vacations. But then I only travel maybe 2 or 3 times a year. It's just not worth it.

I would love for someone to be able to convince me to get an iPad. Because I want to play with one. The large multi-touch screen looks fun. But, so far, I can only come up with one remotely valid reason to get it and many many reasons why not to get it.

1. The iPad is a portable device, not a mobile device. It's not like your smartphone which you take everywhere while not even thinking about it. You can't just put the iPad in your pocket. You're going to need a backpack or briefcase. If you're going to take it out of the house, you need to think about it and dress/accessorize accordingly.

2. The iPad is a portable device, not a mobile device, but yet, it runs a mobile OS. So why not just use a mobile device that runs a mobile OS? That is, either the iPhone or iPod Touch.

3. Because of the above, it seems to me that the iPad is best to be left and used at home. But if I'm at home, why don't I use my main computer? Why not use my TV? Why not use my stereo?

4. According to Apple, the iPad offers the best web browsing experience. Really? It doesn't support Flash. There's no file system so you can't download or upload anything. No, the iPad does not offer the best web browsing experience. It has a multi-touch mobile browser on a large screen. That's it.

5. According to Apple, the iPad offers the best email experience. Really? Again, there's no file system so you can't download or upload attachments (except for pictures). My smartphone offers more functionality here.

6. The most attractive feature of the iPad is, of course, the screen. A typical laptop has a larger screen. And since it's a real computer, you can do loads more things with it.

I haven't even started mentioning the other limitations of the iPhone OS!

This leads me to believe that Apple could have released anything and it would have sold a million units in 1 month. Just ask people about the upcoming iPhone. Even before the recently leaked footage, people all say they can't wait for it and they'll get it, no questions asked. What the hell? Only Apple fans think this way. There is no information released about a product and yet, they know they want it.
Before a person decides he/she wants to buy something, shouldn't he/she know what that thing is first?

iPhone OS 4.0 - What's new?

This isn't the 4th-gen iPhone. I'm sure Apple has got some more things that they've not shown us yet. But here's my recap of what's new from the latest Apple event. This is from the perspective of someone who thinks the iPhone OS platform is a bit inadequate compared to Android and Windows Mobile.

Multitasking
Great! Everyone saw this one coming since it long overdue. It's not multitasking in the traditional sense (as with Windows Mobile 6.x or desktop OS's). I may be wrong but it seems to be that applications can now instruct the OS to run specific services that are allowed to run in the background without the application itself being active. These services are the following:

Background audio
Nothing new here. This just means you can play music in the background which you can do since the 1st-gen of the OS.

VOIP
This is useful. You can make and receive calls in the background with applications like Skype.

Location services
I'm guessing this means you can keep your navigation application in the background while still keeping your connection to GPS. But if so, I can foresee a lot of people forgetting to exit the application and the GPS will quickly drain the battery. I'll need more information on this...

Notifications (push and local)
Push notifications are nothing new. I'm guessing local notifications are just notifications that originate from your applications. For example, a popup for a calendar reminder. I'm sure there's more to this so we'll see how applications can utilize this service.

Task Completion
Applications can now complete what they're doing even when you leave them prematurely. I guess this is similiar to what happens after you tap "install" in the App Store. The application continues to be downloaded and installed even when you do other things.

Fast app switching
It actually sounds very much like the technique used by Windows Phone 7 or Android. Applications don't actually close when you go away from them. They just stay in a suspended state that doesn't use up system resources. When you navigate back to the suspended application, the OS reallocates the system resources back to it and you resume where you left off.

Spell check
Self explanatory. It's a feature that's good to have but it's not going to raise any eyebrows.

Bluetooth keyboard support
Ported from iPad.

Tap to focus when recording video
I'm surprised it wasn't there in the first place.

Folders
You can now organize your application icons into folders. Perhaps you can have one for games, one for productivity, etc. You won't have to swipe through pages and pages of icons just to find the one you need. Nothing revolutionary here. Android has this functionality. Windows Mobile has had it since the beginning.

Wallpaper
Up to now, you can only change the iPhone OS's lockscreen wallpaper. Now you can customize the background of your application launcher screen. Again, nothing extraordinary since this feature is one of those should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place things.

Unified inbox
Apple deserves credit for this. All your emails from multiple inboxes are consolidated into one. No doubt usefule for those who manage multiple accounts.

iBooks
Ported from iPad.

Enterprise
Features remote device management and wireless application distribution. Should be good for businesses. Probably a nonfactor for regular consumers.

GameKit
Since the iPhone OS is a pretty significant gaming platform, this is a good idea. You can now have leaderboards and match-making. We'll need to see how this gets implemented.

iAd
Tapping on advertisements no longer will kick you out of the active application and open the browser.


Personally, out of all that, the only thing that impresses me is the multitasking and the unified inbox. Even so, Engadget has pointed out a major omission. There's no background service for managing a conversation like IM or Twitter. This is actually my main purpose for using multitasking on my smartphone! But then perhaps this is where the "local notifications" service comes into play.

We'll need to see what else Steve Jobs have up his sleeve come this summer at the 4th-gen iPhone launch and how everything gels together. It's going to get interesting...

More things that Android does better than the iPhone 3GS

This list is in addition to the list compiled by Pocketnow.

Text-reflow in the browser
With the low-resolution screen on the iPhone, I find I have to zoom in to the text more to be able to read it. But then I have to scroll horizontally as well as vertically. That's shameful.

Home screen customizations
You'll be able to get at-a-glance info if that's what you want. And your phone won't look like everyone else's.

Multi-tasking
Very well-documented flaw of the iPhone OS. No explanation required.

Removable battery
Self-explanatory. This isn't something that just Android has over Apple's product. It's what every mobile phone has!

Non-obstructive notifications
With the iPhone OS, notifications such as those for new messages or appointments pop up and force you to deal with them right away. What happens if you just so happened to be busy? If you tap "Dismiss", you'll likely just forget it a couple minutes later. Android organizes your notifications on the top bar and you deal with it when you choose.

Smart-dialing
Without smart-dialing, that means you have to drill into a list (be it your contacts, favorites, or call history) every time you want to make a call.

Standardized plug for charging and syncing
Self-explanatory.

Accessing the SIM card slot doesn't require a dedicated tool
Some phones have SIM Card slots that are poorly designed. But the iPhone takes the prize here. You actually need to poke at a hole with a stick to access the SIM slot. It's similar to getting your computer's optical drive to eject the tray without turning on your PC.

Looking forward to the announcement of the 4th-gen iPhone

I'm not an iPhone fan. I don't even have the device. I've been using Windows Mobile for several years and will soon be switching to Android (pre-ordered the HTC Desire). So why do I care about the upcoming 4th-gen iPhone? 2 reasons...

1. Innovation. The 1st-gen iPhone was the one that reshaped the whole smartphone landscape. Capacitive multi-touch, smooth OS animations, and fingerfriendly navigation. We've never seen anything like it before. Every other smartphone manufacturer were suddenly now playing catch-up. Because of this, everybody else started making much better devices. If it were not for the iPhone, we would not have superphones like the HTC HD2, Nexus One, Desire, Legend, X10, etc. It's been quite a long time since we've had something truly innovative in the iPhone world. (I would say the last time was when they introduced the App Store). If Apple is able to bring something truly new and awesome to the smartphone arena, their fanboys would rejoice. But better yet, every other manufacturer will once again try to one-up Apple and as a result, we'll all benefit with even better devices in the future.
2. To watch Apple crash & burn and see how their fans defend their device's mediocrity. Apple has some tough competition in the Motorola Droid and HTC Desire. They also have to be wary of the imminent launch of Windows Phone 7 Series devices. They have to come up with something better than (or at least on par with) the devices that are already out. It would be unacceptable to have a margin of improvement similar to the difference between the iPhone 3G and the 3GS. Imagine if the only new features were a 5MP cam with LED flash, more storage, and a longer-lasting battery that's still non-removable. Apple-haters would be having a parade over this.
   

As much fun as I would like to see Apple fail, I would much prefer if Apple got their act together and delivered something truely awesome for everyone come this summer.


For Apple not to fail, they need to improve the following at a minimum!

• Low resolution screen. The 480x320 screen that was introduced back in 2007 needs to be upgraded to WVGA (800x480) at least)
• Multi-tasking. The most well-documented glaring flaw of the iPhone OS. We all know it can be done because of jailbreakers. So why isn't it being implemented natively?
• Wouldn't hurt to allow some sort of customizations. Except for the wallpaper on the lockscreen, every iPhone looks exactly the same.
• It needs to be able to do something that has that wow factor. (I'd argue that HTC achieved this with their HTC Sense interface in the Legend and the Desire).

HTC responds to Apple's patent lawsuit

HTC finally released a statement to Apple's patent lawsuit.

Seems like HTC has got some fight in them. They even got in a couple of shots in the press release by stating that they've been around since 1997 and that they released the first gesture-based smartphone in June 2007. They are of course referring to the original HTC Touch which was released right before Apple's 1st-gen iPhone.

Related blog post: My take on the Apple versus HTC lawsuit

My take on the Apple versus HTC lawsuit

Certainly, most people have heard of Apple's lawsuit against HTC. If not, see here for details.

I'm not going to give my opinion on who I think will win because I read through the patents that Apple claims HTC infringed on and I think the whole case is just ridiculous.

Here's a couple of thoughts that I take away from reading about this lawsuit:

1. Apple sees HTC as a threat. Congratulations are in order for HTC. A couple years ago, nobody has even heard of them even though they've been making handsets for a number of years. Their marketing strategy over the past few years has been to boost their name brand. This lawsuit plays right into HTC's hand. More people will now be aware of HTC because of this lawsuit.

2. Apple is expected to announce the 5th-gen iPhone this summer. I think after what Apple saw at the recent Mobile World Conference, they've realized that their 5th-gen iPhone is just not adequate enough for the competition. Therefore, we have this lawsuit as an act of desperation. Certainly, Apple has not thought this through. Going against HTC means going against Google and Microsoft. Not smart at all.

3. Something is seriously wrong with the US patenting system. Some of those approved patents are just mind-boggling.

Update: HTC responds...