3 ms·

It's not clear to me why anyone would use Telegram over Signal.

skrowl 10y ago
Features / usability over perceived improvements to privacy / security. If you had actually used both, it would be clear why people use Telegram over Signal. Signal doesn't even have a desktop client for any OS!
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  > Signal doesn't even have a desktop client for any OS! [1] https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-desktop/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-desktop/
  - tdkl 10y ago
    > Signal Desktop is a Chrome app So yeah, the statement from parent still stands.
    - pfg 10y ago
      The line between desktop and web apps is becoming more and more blurred these days, so this seems like an inconsequential argument.
      - tdkl 10y ago
        It's not even a web app. It's a CHROME app. A web app would be accessible via any browser. But nice to see the Google propaganda working.
    - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
      So this argument is just a technicality. Please understand a little more about the background: There is basically one person writing the app[1], and given the company has just a few[2] people _volunteering_[3] for them, you cannot expect them to release a large amount of code across so many devices. They prioritized the highest volume first. Open Whisper Systems primarily develops a strong encryption protocol (Moxie's efforts). If you didn't realize, this protocol was adopted by WhatsApp[4] and also Facebook Messenger[5]. So, the developers of those other applications needn't spend time/resources on the encryption, but can release Desktop clients for people like yourself to enjoy. People who use Signal trust Moxie. People who dislike Signal _may_ care more about features than the security properties of the software (note, WhatsApp doesn't open-source their software[6], and Telegram instead bets people cannot break their encryption[7]). Also, their app will supposedly run on any OS that Chrome runs. I'm sure that was the intention. [1] https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/commits/master https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/commits/mas... [2] https://whispersystems.org/#team https://whispersystems.org/#team [3] https://whispersystems.org/workworkwork/ https://whispersystems.org/workworkwork/ [4] https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepaper.pdf https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap... [5] https://whispersystems.org/blog/facebook-messenger/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/facebook-messenger/ [6] https://www.whatsapp.com/opensource/ https://www.whatsapp.com/opensource/ [7] https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest
Sylos 10y ago
Signal has a Google Play Services dependency and through that makes meta-data visible to Google.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Almost all apps on Android are signaling push notifications through Google's play services, because keeping your own connections open keeps the phone from going in standby and thus it leaks battery. I doubt that Telegram doesn't use it. And on push notifications, the app only receives a signal that there's fresh content to be requested. There shouldn't be any metadata leaked. Source?
newscracker 10y ago
Telegram is way ahead on several fronts - UX, feature rollout speed, message delivery speed, multi-platform support, multi-device message sync, etc. Signal is still improving slowly and is nowhere close to Telegram (in my experience) in any of these areas. Of the three apps I use for messaging, my current position is that Telegram > Wire > Signal.
- fossuser 10y ago
  Thanks for explanation - sounds like it's generally a tradeoff of UX vs. Security, didn't know things were that much better in the Telegram world. Seems to me though that if you're willing to use telegram you might as well just use iMessage or What's App though?
  - newscracker 10y ago
    > sounds like it's generally a tradeoff of UX vs. Security Not necessarily. Wire has shown that a Telegram like UX is possible with end-to-end encryption, multi-device sync and multi-platform support. It's just that Wire and Signal are slow in catching up and seem like they need a slightly larger team and/or better management of the development. > didn't know things were that much better in the Telegram world. I keep trying any new messaging platform like this, especially if it promises privacy and better security. So I'd recommend you try Telegram and see for yourself what it provides. I'm heavily impressed by what it offers and use it as my primary messaging client, but don't like the crypto and the fact that normal chats are not end-to-end encrypted. > Seems to me though that if you're willing to use telegram you might as well just use iMessage or What's App though? That depends on which company one is more comfortable with on the privacy front. I don't consider iMessage to be equivalent to Telegram in features or UX (it's actually inferior and has issues with handling SMS as a backup option). WhatsApp being connected to Facebook is a no-no from the privacy point of view.
    - fossuser 10y ago
      > Not necessarily. Wire has shown that a Telegram like UX is possible with end-to-end encryption, multi-device sync and multi-platform support. It's just that Wire and Signal are slow in catching up and seem like they need a slightly larger team and/or better management of the development. To clarify not that it's a fundamental tradeoff that you can't have end to end encryption with good UX, but that the current choice between Signal and Telegram is a choice between security (Signal) and UX (Telegram). From everything I've read you'd probably be better off trusting iMessage or WhatsApp over Telegram.

Features / usability over perceived improvements to privacy / security. If you had actually used both, it would be clear why people use Telegram over Signal. Signal doesn't even have a desktop client for any OS!

eatbitseveryday 10y ago
> Signal doesn't even have a desktop client for any OS! [1] https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-desktop/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/signal-desktop/
- tdkl 10y ago
  > Signal Desktop is a Chrome app So yeah, the statement from parent still stands.
  - pfg 10y ago
    The line between desktop and web apps is becoming more and more blurred these days, so this seems like an inconsequential argument.
    - tdkl 10y ago
      It's not even a web app. It's a CHROME app. A web app would be accessible via any browser. But nice to see the Google propaganda working.
  - eatbitseveryday 10y ago
    So this argument is just a technicality. Please understand a little more about the background: There is basically one person writing the app[1], and given the company has just a few[2] people _volunteering_[3] for them, you cannot expect them to release a large amount of code across so many devices. They prioritized the highest volume first. Open Whisper Systems primarily develops a strong encryption protocol (Moxie's efforts). If you didn't realize, this protocol was adopted by WhatsApp[4] and also Facebook Messenger[5]. So, the developers of those other applications needn't spend time/resources on the encryption, but can release Desktop clients for people like yourself to enjoy. People who use Signal trust Moxie. People who dislike Signal _may_ care more about features than the security properties of the software (note, WhatsApp doesn't open-source their software[6], and Telegram instead bets people cannot break their encryption[7]). Also, their app will supposedly run on any OS that Chrome runs. I'm sure that was the intention. [1] https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/commits/master https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/commits/mas... [2] https://whispersystems.org/#team https://whispersystems.org/#team [3] https://whispersystems.org/workworkwork/ https://whispersystems.org/workworkwork/ [4] https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepaper.pdf https://www.whatsapp.com/security/WhatsApp-Security-Whitepap... [5] https://whispersystems.org/blog/facebook-messenger/ https://whispersystems.org/blog/facebook-messenger/ [6] https://www.whatsapp.com/opensource/ https://www.whatsapp.com/opensource/ [7] https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest https://telegram.org/blog/cryptocontest

Sylos 10y ago

Signal has a Google Play Services dependency and through that makes meta-data visible to Google.

bad_user 10y ago
Almost all apps on Android are signaling push notifications through Google's play services, because keeping your own connections open keeps the phone from going in standby and thus it leaks battery. I doubt that Telegram doesn't use it. And on push notifications, the app only receives a signal that there's fresh content to be requested. There shouldn't be any metadata leaked. Source?

newscracker 10y ago

Telegram is way ahead on several fronts - UX, feature rollout speed, message delivery speed, multi-platform support, multi-device message sync, etc. Signal is still improving slowly and is nowhere close to Telegram (in my experience) in any of these areas. Of the three apps I use for messaging, my current position is that Telegram > Wire > Signal.

fossuser 10y ago
Thanks for explanation - sounds like it's generally a tradeoff of UX vs. Security, didn't know things were that much better in the Telegram world. Seems to me though that if you're willing to use telegram you might as well just use iMessage or What's App though?
- newscracker 10y ago
  > sounds like it's generally a tradeoff of UX vs. Security Not necessarily. Wire has shown that a Telegram like UX is possible with end-to-end encryption, multi-device sync and multi-platform support. It's just that Wire and Signal are slow in catching up and seem like they need a slightly larger team and/or better management of the development. > didn't know things were that much better in the Telegram world. I keep trying any new messaging platform like this, especially if it promises privacy and better security. So I'd recommend you try Telegram and see for yourself what it provides. I'm heavily impressed by what it offers and use it as my primary messaging client, but don't like the crypto and the fact that normal chats are not end-to-end encrypted. > Seems to me though that if you're willing to use telegram you might as well just use iMessage or What's App though? That depends on which company one is more comfortable with on the privacy front. I don't consider iMessage to be equivalent to Telegram in features or UX (it's actually inferior and has issues with handling SMS as a backup option). WhatsApp being connected to Facebook is a no-no from the privacy point of view.
  - fossuser 10y ago
    > Not necessarily. Wire has shown that a Telegram like UX is possible with end-to-end encryption, multi-device sync and multi-platform support. It's just that Wire and Signal are slow in catching up and seem like they need a slightly larger team and/or better management of the development. To clarify not that it's a fundamental tradeoff that you can't have end to end encryption with good UX, but that the current choice between Signal and Telegram is a choice between security (Signal) and UX (Telegram). From everything I've read you'd probably be better off trusting iMessage or WhatsApp over Telegram.