BirdyChat becomes first European chat app that is interoperable with WhatsApp

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

WhatsApp interoperability & DMA basics

  • BirdyChat is using Meta’s new DMA‑mandated interface so EEA users can chat with EU WhatsApp users via phone number.
  • Interop is currently limited to 1:1 chats; group support is promised later.
  • Several commenters ask if/when this will work outside Europe; consensus is that Meta is geofencing it to EEA numbers for now.

Opt‑in, region lock, and “malicious compliance”

  • WhatsApp users must explicitly enable “third‑party chats” in settings, and then whitelist specific apps; available only in the EU, not e.g. the UK.
  • Many see the opt‑in design and EEA‑only restriction as deliberate friction and “malicious compliance” that makes the feature practically useless, especially for cross‑continent families.
  • Others argue opt‑in is preferable for spam and privacy reasons and still better than convincing people to install a new app.

Privacy, GDPR, and E2EE

  • Some argue WhatsApp cannot legally share profile data (name, picture, status) with third‑party apps without consent; they want per‑app opt‑in for that reason.
  • Others respond that phone systems have always exposed metadata and that if you set visibility to “everybody”, excluding third‑party clients is an unrealistic expectation.
  • Meta claims interop preserves E2EE using the (open) Signal protocol; links to Meta’s technical write‑up are shared. Skeptics worry about metadata, attachments and spam scanning, especially given EU “chat control” debates.

Competition, network effects, and alternatives

  • Strong disagreement over whether BirdyChat‑style interop can meaningfully dent WhatsApp’s network effects.
  • Signal, Telegram, Matrix and classic XMPP/IRC are all discussed:
    • Signal praised for security but criticized for poor UX, backup/exports, and slow feature parity.
    • Telegram praised for features and multi‑device UX but criticized as fundamentally insecure and politically suspect.
    • Matrix seen as ambitious but heavy and rough in practice.
  • Some view DMA‑style interop as the only realistic way smaller apps can piggyback on existing networks.

Open protocols vs proprietary APIs

  • Several commenters lament the decline of open protocols (IRC, XMPP, OTR) and universal clients (Pidgin), and see BirdyChat as an unimpressive proprietary bolt‑on.
  • Others note that users consistently choose polished proprietary ecosystems over open but clunky ones, and that spam/abuse makes fully open interop hard without regulation.
  • There is debate over whether the DMA should have forced standard protocols or open‑sourced WhatsApp’s instead of a controlled interop API.

BirdyChat itself: trust, scope, and branding

  • Multiple people distrust a closed‑source, invite‑only, iOS‑only app from an unknown Latvian company as a privacy‑preserving “alternative” to Meta.
  • Some suspect BirdyChat and another early interop partner (Haiket) were “hand‑picked” tame startups to help Meta argue it is complying.
  • The “BirdyChat” name and “work chat” positioning are widely criticized as childish or confusing for professional use.
  • A few early testers report serious UX bugs in the onboarding flow and express doubt the team can safely implement cryptography.

EU vs US regulation and geography

  • Several non‑EU commenters express envy that Europeans get interoperability, GDPR, app‑store choice, etc., while US users are “stuck” with weaker protections.
  • There is extended discussion of what “made in Europe / EEA‑based” actually means, and how the DMA only applies to designated “gatekeepers” (e.g. not iMessage, Slack, Teams).