Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere as part of it, but I wonder if as an example Meta will enable cross messaging amongst the different apps they own. Facebook messenger being a prime candidate...
Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere as part of it, but I wonder if as an example Meta will enable cross messaging amongst the different apps they own. Facebook messenger being a prime candidate to me.
I wonder why they haven't already. I guess if you're using one you're more likely to use the other and so they are happy to have you use both apps. But does that really help in any way for...
I wonder why they haven't already. I guess if you're using one you're more likely to use the other and so they are happy to have you use both apps. But does that really help in any way for Facebook's business? It seems like FB Messenger and WhatsApp playing nice would help keep people in that walled garden. Not that I really care as I don't use either, so mainly just curious.
Zuck got distracted by VR. Seriously. A few years ago he was all "messaging is the next big thing, we're going to own the space" and was planning to unify Messenger/IG messages/Whatsapp/Workplace...
Zuck got distracted by VR. Seriously. A few years ago he was all "messaging is the next big thing, we're going to own the space" and was planning to unify Messenger/IG messages/Whatsapp/Workplace and so on, and add external interoperability - make Meta the messaging Google, essentially. It was a solid plan, I thought - he's got a few billion users over all those platforms, bringing them together would be a good move. Then someone showed him an Oculus headset and he pissed away at least fifty actual billion dollars and countless R&D person-hours on VR instead.
It's been a lot of years since I worked in the tech industry but even back then there was an old tale, whispered behind server racks, that if you stood in front of a mirror and said "machine...
It's been a lot of years since I worked in the tech industry but even back then there was an old tale, whispered behind server racks, that if you stood in front of a mirror and said "machine learning" three times then Mark Zuckerberg would appear behind you and offer you a job.
Total guesswork, but maybe Meta prefer pushing users to have more of their apps installed, even accounting for the drop off from the extra friction? Messaging apps tend to be pretty sticky, and if...
Total guesswork, but maybe Meta prefer pushing users to have more of their apps installed, even accounting for the drop off from the extra friction? Messaging apps tend to be pretty sticky, and if someone you need to talk to uses a specific one there’s a good chance you’ll install it if you have to, so I can imagine it being worth it to use them as an on ramp/retention mechanism for their other services.
Either that or they wanted to tell the EU that interoperability wasn’t feasible, and showing that even their own ecosystem didn’t support it was a strategic decision to support that argument, perhaps?
Looks like it, based on the developer docs linked from the post. They explicitly require Signal Protocol compatibility, on-device encryption and decryption even when proxying messages, support for...
Looks like it, based on the developer docs linked from the post. They explicitly require Signal Protocol compatibility, on-device encryption and decryption even when proxying messages, support for WhatsApp’s single device-tied keys, etc.
I’m very much not a cryptographer and I won’t claim to know what the threat model here is in terms of trusting Meta’s vetting of other closed source clients, or trusting WhatsApp’s handling of client keys to decrypt messages from publicly vetted open source clients for that matter, but at least on the surface it seems like this follows the existing security model.
Exciting! Not a terribly useful link for most end users, but glad to hear more about the impact of this DMA business.
I saw this and thought to myself that we're finally going back to Peak Internet, circa 2003, and I can't wait to reinstall Pidgin.
Sorry I should have gone with a more specific title, e.g. "WhatsApp announces messaging interoperability in response to the EU's DMA"
I changed it to that.
Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere as part of it, but I wonder if as an example Meta will enable cross messaging amongst the different apps they own. Facebook messenger being a prime candidate to me.
I wonder why they haven't already. I guess if you're using one you're more likely to use the other and so they are happy to have you use both apps. But does that really help in any way for Facebook's business? It seems like FB Messenger and WhatsApp playing nice would help keep people in that walled garden. Not that I really care as I don't use either, so mainly just curious.
Zuck got distracted by VR. Seriously. A few years ago he was all "messaging is the next big thing, we're going to own the space" and was planning to unify Messenger/IG messages/Whatsapp/Workplace and so on, and add external interoperability - make Meta the messaging Google, essentially. It was a solid plan, I thought - he's got a few billion users over all those platforms, bringing them together would be a good move. Then someone showed him an Oculus headset and he pissed away at least fifty actual billion dollars and countless R&D person-hours on VR instead.
Yeah I think I remember reading something to that effect. I'm sure you're right. Now they get to burn that same money on AI!
It's been a lot of years since I worked in the tech industry but even back then there was an old tale, whispered behind server racks, that if you stood in front of a mirror and said "machine learning" three times then Mark Zuckerberg would appear behind you and offer you a job.
Total guesswork, but maybe Meta prefer pushing users to have more of their apps installed, even accounting for the drop off from the extra friction? Messaging apps tend to be pretty sticky, and if someone you need to talk to uses a specific one there’s a good chance you’ll install it if you have to, so I can imagine it being worth it to use them as an on ramp/retention mechanism for their other services.
Either that or they wanted to tell the EU that interoperability wasn’t feasible, and showing that even their own ecosystem didn’t support it was a strategic decision to support that argument, perhaps?
Yeah that was my assumption too I just don't know if that helps drive growth or their bottom line.
But will it still be end to end encrypted..?
Looks like it, based on the developer docs linked from the post. They explicitly require Signal Protocol compatibility, on-device encryption and decryption even when proxying messages, support for WhatsApp’s single device-tied keys, etc.
I’m very much not a cryptographer and I won’t claim to know what the threat model here is in terms of trusting Meta’s vetting of other closed source clients, or trusting WhatsApp’s handling of client keys to decrypt messages from publicly vetted open source clients for that matter, but at least on the surface it seems like this follows the existing security model.
It appears so: the standard agreement has a number of terms relating to the encryption protocol and implementation.
is this only in Europe or everywhere?
Exclusively in Europe.
"Oh, maybe I'll find some way to integrate my own system to talk to people on WhatsApp"
"...oh, right. It's Meta."
I wonder if any not big corp app will be accepted by Meta to be interoperable with Whatsapp.