Banning users? Switching to a protocol that uses end-to-end encryption by default which happens to break 3rd party clients is not the same as banning users.

I've long been a critic of WhatsApp, I have avoided using it and this has been quite an inconvenience to me. Practically everyone I know uses it and I've missed out on a lot communication as a result. At the same, over the years I've reluctantly had to use other proprietary communication systems to stay in contact with others. WhatsApp just happened to be the latest proprietary new kid on the block, it had many shortcomings, to which I thought "enough is enough," and I chose not to embrace it.

I actually have congratulate WhatsApp on this change. It's come a long way since inception. End-to-end encryption as default puts it above most other proprietary communications in my book, even above SMS.

Of course, WhatsApp is still not perfect. In terms of client support, it still lags behind Telegram whose API and client are fully open. Telegram however, is not an option for me, it is not secure by default and I don't know anyone that uses it. WhatsApp's centralised server means that your address book is probably shared with Facebook who own it. I guess it's a trade-off about what I am willing accept but it looks like they are heading in the right direction and I think I might be ready start using it. All we now is for the Signal protocol to be RE'd implemented so we can have it on our devices.

EDIT: Even better... I just found out that the Signal protocol is open!