Meta replaces WhatsApp for Windows with web wrapper

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

RAM usage and performance concerns

  • Many see 1 GB RAM for an idle chat app as unjustifiable, especially on 8–16 GB machines where it competes with browsers, IDEs, and office apps.
  • Others argue “RAM is there to be used” and cheap, but are challenged with points about swap thrashing, lag on low‑end hardware, and rising RAM prices.
  • Several note the old native Windows client typically used ~100–300 MB; the new WebView2 wrapper feels both heavier and more sluggish in real use.
  • Some technical discussion: Chromium/WebView2 reserves large virtual memory chunks (e.g., V8 isolates, multiprocess sandboxing, GPU processes), so task‑manager numbers don’t map cleanly to “real” use, but users only see the bloat and lag.

Native app vs web/WebView2

  • Many are frustrated that WhatsApp went web→native→web wrapper, despite Meta’s size and resources.
  • A person who designed the native app explains the main reason as coordination cost: keeping feature parity across multiple desktop platforms doesn’t fit high‑velocity, “ship everywhere at once” org structures.
  • Several criticize Microsoft’s shifting Windows UI stacks (WinForms, WPF, UWP, WinUI, etc.) and say even Microsoft prefers webview-based apps, making native Windows a poor long‑term bet.
  • Others argue Meta could have used mature cross‑platform native frameworks (Qt, Flutter, Tauri) as a middle ground.

Desktop use cases and UX

  • Some assume few people use WhatsApp on desktop; others say they rely on it heavily for work (sales, logistics, international business) because of easier typing, copy/paste, and file handling.
  • Users debate app vs browser tab vs PWA: browser tabs are seen as harder to find, worse for notifications, and less controllable (VPN exceptions, sandboxing) than a dedicated app.
  • Complaints persist that both web and desktop UX are poor: slow loading, media download friction, weak search, and missing/limited calling on certain platforms.

Closed protocols, multi-device, and bridges

  • Several lament that a closed, dominant messenger can ship regressions without losing users, and wish for open IM protocols “like email.”
  • EU interoperability rules are mentioned, but actual uptake by other apps is unclear.
  • Multi-device WhatsApp (multiple clients without main phone online) now exists, but not everyone knows. Bridges (Matrix, Pidgin plugins, WhatsApp reverse‑engineering) exist but risk bans and are fragile.

Broader critique of bloat and industry incentives

  • Commenters contrast today’s resource use with 1990s–2000s chat and VOIP clients that ran on tens of MB of RAM.
  • Explanations center on organizational incentives: promotions for rewrites, metrics‑driven product changes, web dev skill dominance, and minimal business reward for efficient native desktop apps.
  • Some see this WhatsApp change as another example of “enshittification”: users locked in by network effects, while companies optimize developer convenience and feature velocity over efficiency and UX.