> Right, I think that WeChat basically exemplifies this too. But at that point, is the user really interacting with a "bot", or is the chat platform just an app delivery mechanism like an OS or a web browser?
I'm assuming the latter. I mostly avoided WeChat as an example because i haven't used it myself. But from what I understand WeChat goes much further than just chat interfaces, which kind of is out of the scope of what I'm really interested in for now (but still curious about).
EDIT: I'd add that many of the advantages that come with using chat-apps as a platform are still there even in apps that don't offer all of what WeChat does.
> It's a chat app that works very well even on the crappiest connections
Does it? I routinely use Telegram, Line and Messenger. Messenger is without contest the one that gives the most trouble.
I've been using chat apps at least since ICQ (1996) and sometimes I feel the user experience has declined.
That being said, I'm sure that a lot of progress have been made and that there's a lot going on behind Messenger in terms of security and scalability. I'd be curious to know what's hidden between the millions LOC.
> I was SUPER skeptical about the chat widget. I personally found them annoying, overbearing and could not imagine them working for customer support or sales.
> Boy was I wrong. As in completely, utterly, totally wrong.
I've found a chat widget really helpful for my own product (https://www.checkbot.io/) - I find the reduced lag of the chat format means problems get resolved quicker on both ends and the style of replying (e.g. maybe 16 short messages back and forth with chat via 4 longer ones with email) results in you getting more information and making more of a connection with your users.
I use the free tier of https://crisp.chat but most of them are fairly similar for basic usage. I would say avoid using one that has that annoying "Hey! You! How can I help?" automatic pop-up feature though.
> getting users to join/participate, or even interested is going to be the biggest up-hill battle.
Exactly, getting users to join is hard. It's a chicken and egg problem. It's not useful until there are users on the platform, so getting the first users to engage is hard.
I've tried doing 2 Show HNs so far and people are just not interested. I thought it would appeal to hackers, but I don't know what to make of the underwhelming response.
> Curious - is the code for it open source and what language is the back-end done in?
It's Django+Postgres and I use websockets for the chat. The code isn't open source currently, but I will open source it if I gain any traction at all. All I can say is, it's brutal trying to get a product off the ground.
> just click through the scam marketing, ICO offers and "airdrops"
That's what I meant by UX.
> user experience can still be confusing because a payments feature is… surprising
Everything new is "surprising", that's a low bar. Chat apps in China have had this feature for years now, and it's also a feature in WhatsApp, a direct Signal competitor.
> Would anyone else here have a need for a real-time translation video chat app?
I have to question if this is an actual post, because asking if a real-time video translator that works well would be useful to other people seems bizarre.
The answer is yes, that's a great product, if it work well.
>Do we really need another chat app? Wouldn't it maybe be >better to capitalize on the existence of an open network >that is already around, and build a better client for it >that kicks the pants off of whatever's already out there?
First thanks for the reply
I could have explained this a bit better it isn't a chat app replacement, not trying to dislodge messenger, whatapp, etc. Group and direct messaging is core to the product but not the value prop just by itself.
I am specifically asking the group chat part as it has been done meany times so I would like to not make it again but use already built or at least mostly built. Then can focus on other part that makes is unique and makes it valuable.
>Then who's going to build it? Are you hiring a team to do this? Don't underestimate >what's involved here to get something working and keep it running. At the very >least, if you don't go with a decentralized model, you're in for expensive server >bills and considerable ongoing maintenance to keep up with security patches, etc.
At the moment I have someone part time who is smart but is still learning. I may also hire a very small team but thats the reason I am trying to get a full understanding of options and pros and cons, so there is a clear roadmap.
>There are already too many options in this space. Why would anyone choose your >client when Signal, Telegram, Riot/Matrix, etc. are all free and decent to use? >What is your unique value-add?
By too many options I mean frameworks, languages, backends, etc. That why am soliciting feedback from HN on it.
Again it isn't a signal or telegram replacement. Group chat is core to the product but not the value-add. It isn't a slack replacement, no web or desktop. Just iOS & Android. The nature of the product it does have to be on both, can't start with only one.
>Don't do this unless you have a business plan good enough that someone will lend you >$1MM to get it off the ground. Seriously. You're talking about entering a massively >crowded marketplace, and you're clearly out of your element.
I have already brought my tent to Sand Hill road and written out my cardboard sign. (j/k)
But again not replacement for existing options. I have lead the creations of products before. I asking newbie questions because I want to see the situation with no preconceived ideas for this specific part.
> How would a messaging app work without contact discovery?
"Hey, add me on telegram, my username is @andrewzah". This isn't a hard problem.
I don't know why we decided apps hoovering up our contact lists in exchange for convenience was so important. For an app that touts itself as private and secure, I still had to explain to my brother why giving it his contact list wasn't a good idea.
> I've been playing around with an idea for a semi-decentralized/semi-federated chat service (like IRC but not quite), but it's just in my head for now.
Have you taken a look matrix.org? Out of interest: What would you do differently?
> Would you be willing to describe how it works / record a video of how you use it?
I'll definitely do it in the near future and post it here on HN.
> My exclusive, differential, unique characteristic against the world, my joker card.
In the sense that, if one day money becomes short, I could extract a few SAAS out of it and make some money or even sell it.
> I guess the idea is that you integrated all the apps with each other, such that you can create an event from a text message, forward an email to a Signal contact, this kind of things?
Yes, the main app has standalone apps, where each app integrates with each other whenever possible, like listing contacts in the email app, and one of the apps is "Flow", where you can create IFTTTs between apps.
> Because this sounds like an ad so it should be disclosed?
I wonder whether we would be having this conversation had I asked a random friend to post this instead of my brother (and hence you wouldn't have found out that the OP is a relative of the creator). Would you then have said that my friend should have disclosed that they're friends with the creator? However, I would agree that it might sound like an ad, but more importantly, he also asked for feedback.
> "all these other platforms suck but look at this one!"
I do believe that discussions on all other chat/forum platforms (telegram, slack, discourse, reddit, etc.) suck and want to share about CQ2's approach and get feedback on it, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, this is more about the interface/approach than the product. I myself wish that existing chat/forum platforms had an option for that interface instead of needing a different product just for complex discussions. I don't know when/if those platforms would implement that, hence decided to build a product.
Except maybe that Text actually works? I just tried Pidgin after being away from it for about 10 years. Its discord integration was lacking. It eventually showed some discord channels and some text in them, but it was incredibly spotty and the UI was useless. I walked away believing Pidgin was a dead project because it acts so much like one.
>>Why bring up some other site?
Sorry for not being clear. "Drift" is the name of the messaging widget we use to support Kapwing's chat bot. If a user responds to the welcome message on Kapwing, they're automatically prompted for their email (kind of in a side bar to the message box). I feel like this makes the chat bot a bit more annoying to users who choose to respond to the initial message.
>> how does that fact justify using this particular dark UI pattern?
We just made a product call and decided that the benefits, both for us and for our users, of having a chat box outweighed the annoyance. When people have problems using our tool, they really want help, and it isn't that difficult for the rest of our site visitors to swipe away or ignore the chat box.
I'm assuming the latter. I mostly avoided WeChat as an example because i haven't used it myself. But from what I understand WeChat goes much further than just chat interfaces, which kind of is out of the scope of what I'm really interested in for now (but still curious about).
EDIT: I'd add that many of the advantages that come with using chat-apps as a platform are still there even in apps that don't offer all of what WeChat does.
reply