Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
A minor semantic quibble, but push-to-talk(1) is walkie talkie mode that typically implies live, instant, and synchronous communications with the caveat that it is historically half duplex which remains useful in high-noise situations. Push Voice would imply push notifications indicating the availability of stored audio files probably containing voice data (voice store and forward (2)). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-to-talk (2) http://www.answers.com/topic/voice-store-and-forward Original Message Subject: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async) From: Nathan of Guardian nat...@guardianproject.info To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Date: Mon Dec 24 2012 07:10:28 GMT+0100 I know in the LibTech and broader global activist/NGO community, there is still quite a bit of focus on Skype. However, during my recent time in India with the Tibetan community there, I have seen Skype, on mobiles at least, almost thoroughly replaced by WeChat, a WhatsApp/Kakao clone made by TenCent, the same Chinese company who created QQ. To my personal horror, we have gone from a somewhat secure Skype with a questionable backdoor policy, to a non-https, China-hosted service who is a known collaborator with the Chinese government. The only I thing I felt productive to do (other than scream and pull out my hair) was to think about why this is happening from a user perspective. Why is a text messaging/push-to-talk model winning out over an instant messaging/VoIP model, in places like Africa and Asia, regardless of known increased risk and decreased privacy and safety? Other than the typical users are dumb answer, I think there are some deeper useful factors to consider. Overall, I think we are seeing that when smartphones are plentiful, but bandwidth is still a challenge, we need to think about communications in a more asynchronous model than real-time. I don't think this community should get too caught up in building Skype replacements. I think more we should think about what features otherwise great, secure apps like Cryptocat, RedPhone, TextSecure, Gibberbot, etc are missing to make it possible for them to replace the functionality and experience users are expecting today. Why Skype/real-time is losing 1) Noticeable impact on mobile battery life if left logged in all the time (holding open sockets to multiple servers? less efficient use of push?) 2) Real-time, full duplex communications requires constant, decent bandwidth; degradation is very noticeable, especially with video 3) App is very large (a good amount of native code), and a bit laggy during login and contacts lookup 4) Old and tired (aka not shiny) perception of brand; too much push of pay services 5) Requires new username and password (aka not based on existing phone number), and lookup/adding of new contacts 6) US/EU based super-nodes may increase latency issues; vs China/Asia based servers Why WeChat (and WhatsApp, Kakao, etc) async are winning 1) Push-to-talk voice negates nearly all bandwidth, throughput and latency issues of mobile. 2) Push-to-talk is better than instant messaging for low literacy, mixed-written language communities; The bootstrap process for Skype is very text heavy still 3) Apps feel more lightweight both from size, and from network stack (mostly just using HTTPS with some push mechanism) 5) Shiny, new hotness, with fun themes, personalization, and focus on free 6) Picture, video, file sharing made very easy - aka a first order operation, not a secondary feature; chats are a seamless mix of media 7) Persistent, group chat/messaging works very well (since its just async/store and forward, its very easy to send many-to-many) 8) Identity often based on existing phone number, so signup is easy, and messaging to existing contacts is seamless 9) More viral - you can message people not on the service, and they will be spammed to sign up for the service Anyone want to call b.s. on this theory? Is my thinking headed in the right direction? Should we try to turn Gibberbot into a more-secure WhatsApp/WeChat clone? All the best from the Himalayas, Nathan -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
On 12/27/2012 06:29 PM, David Gessel wrote: A minor semantic quibble, but push-to-talk(1) is walkie talkie mode that typically implies live, instant, and synchronous communications with the caveat that it is historically half duplex which remains useful in high-noise situations. Push Voice would imply push notifications indicating the availability of stored audio files probably containing voice data (voice store and forward (2)). I am definitely talking about Push-to-Talk. What is interesting about the shift from VoIP to Push-to-talk is that half duplex over TCP (PTT) is insanely easier to implement than full duplex over UDP (VoIP). Best, Nathan -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Nathan of Guardian nat...@guardianproject.info wrote: On 12/27/2012 06:29 PM, David Gessel wrote: A minor semantic quibble, but push-to-talk(1) is walkie talkie mode that typically implies live, instant, and synchronous communications with the caveat that it is historically half duplex which remains useful in high-noise situations. Push Voice would imply push notifications indicating the availability of stored audio files probably containing voice data (voice store and forward (2)). I am definitely talking about Push-to-Talk. What is interesting about the shift from VoIP to Push-to-talk is that half duplex over TCP (PTT) is insanely easier to implement than full duplex over UDP (VoIP). From Cryptocat's perspective this is also true. Best, Nathan -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
On 12/26/2012 12:34 PM, Eric S Johnson wrote: Nathan, you've doubtless seen this article. What do your Tibetan friends say about this? It is a great article, and such a short, fascinating study into the mindset of an activist under clear, demonstrable state surveillance. I think the point about the greater efficiency these tools (aka moving to IP based comms vs. GSM/Telco) have given the state security/PSB is the most important one. We don't care if they're monitoring our WeChat use--we're out of their reach? This is the mindset of Tibetans in exile, until they understand that every message they send, whether to their friend in India or Europe, or to their friend in Lhasa, is all going through China. Also, once it is made clear how chatting with someone in Tibetan exile community about anything political could be enough to incriminate a Tibetan in China on trumped up charges, they also think twice. Still, the growth in use continues... ... or what's good enough for Hu Jia is good enough for us ... Actually, the inverse here - Hu Jia's post and others within the Tibetan community on this topic (VOA Tibetan had good coverage about mobile security), has actually increased awareness about the problem. At least now, everyone knows the risk, and can perhaps act accordingly. In a recent training to some monks, I said before you open the app, do a meditation and visualize yourself walking in the central square in Lhasa being observed by surveillance cameras and having your every move and word spoke observed by the PSB. I figured only then would they safely use WeChat, if that is even possible. or WeChat's convenience advantages outweigh its known security (i.e. security isn't a sine qua non for them) . This is the reason that is mostly given. It's free, or It's easy. Texting and calling between India and Tibet is much harder and more expensive that it seems, and that is just one-to-one. The group voice and picture message features of WeChat are really a game changer when it comes to (perceived) free flow of information. Almost all videos of protests (including the recent self-immolations) have come via WeChat. From the users perspective, they feel the risk is no different than if they were using a telephone, so it doesn't feel *worse*. However, they don't understand the subtle difference and again, the increased efficiency, that IP-based surveillance gives to the Chinese authorities vs. GSM/TElco based surveillance. Since WeChat has no encryption at all, they don't even need to request anything of TenCent/QQ - no backdoors are required. As long as they know IP addresses and/or usernames, it is simple to monitor, capture and analyze packets. Best, Nathan -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
On 12/24/2012 05:10 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote: I think that the reason is simple and obvious: society shifts to preferring more impersonal communication. Same reason that teenagers prefer texting to talking on phone, and hanging out to dating. From what I can tell, it is the exact opposite. The ease of use and persistent connected design of these apps (aka you have these always-on, long running group chat rooms), and the ability to quickly send voice messages and video, makes it MORE personal. The users feel a constant connection to a whole group of friends no matter where they are on the planet, and can, with a press of a button, reach out and hear their voice. I am not saying this is a global phenom, applicable to all societies. I think within this occupied/exile dynamic, and also where standard telecomms are difficult, the impact of apps like WeChat and WhatsApp is perhaps greater than places where Skype, Facetime and Hangout work well. +n -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing out to WeChat (async)
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Nathan of Guardian nat...@guardianproject.info wrote: Why is a text messaging/push-to-talk model winning out over an instant messaging/VoIP model, in places like Africa and Asia, regardless of known increased risk and decreased privacy and safety? I think that the reason is simple and obvious: society shifts to preferring more impersonal communication. Same reason that teenagers prefer texting to talking on phone, and hanging out to dating. Other than the typical users are dumb answer, Users (on average) are not dumb, but they are irrational and lazy, like people in general. So they will do what's most straightforward (insecure communications, web apps). I am guilty of the same, but at least I don't care (most of the time) if I am under surveillance. When I do, I have the tools I trust (see signature). But the reason I am aware of the dangers is relevant experience, not propaganda. That's why firms hire “red teams” — execs are forced to stop irrationally dismissing intrusion dangers after being shown how it is done on their turf. What follows is that for an anarchist group of activists / regular people, you probably cannot do much. If a group forms an orders-following hierarchy, it's a different thing — you only need to convince the leaders. Why Skype/real-time is losing Opinions wrt. your hypotheses below: 1) Noticeable impact on mobile battery life if left logged in all the time (holding open sockets to multiple servers? less efficient use of push?) No, unless the difference is drastic. 2) Real-time, full duplex communications requires constant, decent bandwidth; degradation is very noticeable, especially with video Doubt it. 3) App is very large (a good amount of native code), and a bit laggy during login and contacts lookup No. Just a reason to buy faster devices with more memory. 4) Old and tired (aka not shiny) perception of brand; too much push of pay services No. (Don't see people throwing out their iPhones just yet.) 5) Requires new username and password (aka not based on existing phone number), and lookup/adding of new contacts No. 6) US/EU based super-nodes may increase latency issues; vs China/Asia based servers People shift to impersonal communication everywhere, not just in Asia. Why WeChat (and WhatsApp, Kakao, etc) async are winning 1) Push-to-talk voice negates nearly all bandwidth, throughput and latency issues of mobile. Doubt that's the reason. 2) Push-to-talk is better than instant messaging for low literacy, mixed-written language communities; The bootstrap process for Skype is very text heavy still Push-to-talk is an alternative to interactive calls, not IM. 3) Apps feel more lightweight both from size, and from network stack (mostly just using HTTPS with some push mechanism) No. 5) Shiny, new hotness, with fun themes, personalization, and focus on free Unless WeChat are the first to think about those things, no. 6) Picture, video, file sharing made very easy - aka a first order operation, not a secondary feature; chats are a seamless mix of media Doubt it. 7) Persistent, group chat/messaging works very well (since its just async/store and forward, its very easy to send many-to-many) Maybe. 8) Identity often based on existing phone number, so signup is easy, and messaging to existing contacts is seamless I think there are many similar services that do that. 9) More viral - you can message people not on the service, and they will be spammed to sign up for the service LOL, no. Is my thinking headed in the right direction? I think that you are missing key societal changes that drive the new offerings. Should we try to turn Gibberbot into a more-secure WhatsApp/WeChat clone? You can try, but I doubt that anyone except a minority of security enthusiasts will use it instead of established solutions. Best regards, Maxim -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
