Something that does trouble me is that most people who try out @cwtch try out the Android version - it is the way of the world that mobile computers are far more numerous than others.
But this does give a terrible first impression because as much as we have invested into Android over the years it still does not come close to the stability and usefulness of the desktop versions.
Metadata resistant communication is hard. Metadata resistant communication on mobile is harder.
Our team has used Cwtch for our daily communication for years now. I've used it for communicated with many others during the same time. And I am aware of others who use it for similar purposes.
Enough to say that it is stable, it is useable. Albeit with some rough edges which we are slowly sanding down despite very limited funding and a complex deployment space.
We do listen to all feedback, earnestly. Out mission has always been to make metadata resistant communication usable & accessible to as many people as possible.
On Android, that mission is progressing far slower. And on iOS I'm skeptical it will ever come.
Fundamentally, we've adopted the tenet that we will never weaken Cwtch in the name of performance/usability - many of the features considered table-stakes in other messengers are, and will always be, gated behind security settings in Cwtch.
And that approach also means that communication will likely always have strong limitations like both parties being online at the same time, dealing with the latency of onion services, and the need to run background services - the latter being a particular challenge on mobile devices.
And while I understand all of this, I am also disheartened.
I've poured my soul in Cwtch these last few years because I fundamentally believe that that is how an application should be - locked down by default, open to extension, free and open source, based on sound cryptography, no centralized servers or magic peers or any other surveillance chokepoint.
And it's hard to see Cwtch failing in comparisons because those things are not features, they are limitations.
I also tend to bite my tongue these days because the space is filled with messengers who make similar promises regarding metadata resistance while also offering real-time video chat and transparent offline messaging - feats which, if true, I would hail as academic breakthroughs.
Clearly I need to do a better job at distinguishing what makes @cwtch good - and I wish we had the budget to really try and solve some more of the harder problems in the space.
Cwtch needs more champions, and more volunteers. People who can tackle those problems, and to bug me to focus on fixing specific issues.
If you would like to get involved, then please reach out to me (details in profile or on my website) I will happily help find you some way to contribute (see also https://docs.cwtch.im/docs/category/contribute).
I really, deeply believe that the world needs metadata resistant applications - not just chat, but everything. The push for end-to-end encryption was a great start, but we need stronger security models for all kinds of communication.
Lastly, I saw a few comments today in the vein of "not much progress has been made recently" and I would like to refute that.
While @openprivacy had to make some significantly cut backs in recent years due to a decline in funding, everyone on the Cwtch team has contributed so much over the last few years.
We have put out a new version on average every 6-8 weeks, consistently for the last 2.5 years while making major improvements to all aspects of Cwtch (see the devlog https://docs.cwtch.im/blog)
Add comment