MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,430
15,160



whatsapp-250x250.jpg
WhatsApp is currently rolling out the ability to delete and revoke messages after they've been sent. The function has been in testing as a hidden feature in several earlier versions of the mobile chat app, but is officially going live this week.

Going forward, WhatsApp users will be able delete messages from conversations and group chats up to seven minutes after they've tapped the send button, as long as both sender and receiver have updated to the latest version of the app.

The new option, called "Delete for everyone" will appear in addition to "Delete for me", and is already showing up for some users when they select a message to trash.

In a published support article, WhatsApp notes that recipients "may see your messages before it's deleted or if deletion was not successful", so the feature isn't guaranteed to work all the time. It's also possible that some users may still see the messages in notifications before they're deleted.

Users aren't notified if a delete request fails, but messages that have been successfully deleted for everyone will be replaced with "This message was deleted" in recipients' chat threads.

According to WABetaInfo, WhatsApp is currently testing group voice calls internally, so it's likely this feature will also turn up in a forthcoming update.

WhatsApp is a free download for iPhone from the App Store. [Direct Link]

Article Link: WhatsApp Starts Letting Users Delete Messages After They've Been Sent
 

Apple blogger

macrumors 6502a
Feb 28, 2013
876
148
Flaws in the feature, and it should not work like that..

The whole point of deleting is that the other person shouldn't know we deleted... so if it's states "message has been deleted" that's wrong... also, we should not be allowed to delete if the other person has seen the message, it'll create a lot of problems going further between the 2, because the other person will say," it's my chat records, who are you to delete the messages without my permission, even if it's your own"

Whatsapp should also notify, that delete request was failed.

I can agree with the notification issue, because that's system wide. That would be Apples job, to change the system of revoking notifications, and figuring out how the phone and the app know whether the notification has been seen or not... may be Face ID would help in that case...
 

JosephAW

macrumors 601
May 14, 2012
4,021
4,795
Used this feature in Telegram for a while when communicating via audio with my handicap friend and they accidentally hit send after starting a message and were not finished. They just delete the audio and try again whether or not I've listened to it. Not aware of any time limit through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ikir

Glassed Silver

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2007
2,096
2,562
Kassel, Germany
5 minutes after you've sent a picture of your womanly parts and are wondering if it was such a crash hot idea.
5 minutes later you're already in the camera roll I'm afraid...

I mean, it's a chance still so fair enough.

Flaws in the feature, and it should not work like that..

The whole point of deleting is that the other person shouldn't know we deleted... so if it's states "message has been deleted" that's wrong... also, we should not be allowed to delete if the other person has seen the message, it'll create a lot of problems going further between the 2, because the other person will say," it's my chat records, who are you to delete the messages without my permission, even if it's your own"

Whatsapp should also notify, that delete request was failed.

I can agree with the notification issue, because that's system wide. That would be Apples job, to change the system of revoking notifications, and figuring out how the phone and the app know whether the notification has been seen or not... may be Face ID would help in that case...

^ALL of this. Very good proposals.

Glassed Silver:mac
 

vooke

macrumors 6502
Jul 14, 2014
268
238
What’s the big deal, Telegram has been at it for like forever, including editing messages
 

576316

macrumors 601
May 19, 2011
4,056
2,556
A $22,000,000,000 "dumb" name indeed.

That's not evidence as to why the name isn't dumb. The name is still dumb. It's just a very, very well known household-name...name. The fact the app was ever called that is dumb, but now they're stuck with it.
 

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,388
19,448
That's not evidence as to why the name isn't dumb. The name is still dumb. It's just a very, very well known household-name...name. The fact the app was ever called that is dumb, but now they're stuck with it.
The point is that it worked on many levels as far as being popular and being successful on all fronts essentially as far as it goes for a mobile app. So while it might be a dumb name in the opinion of some (given that that's subjective) the success pretty much outweighs it so much that not only does it not matter but it's actually a very positive thing as far as the app goes. We never know what might have been if the app was called something else.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.