5 ms·

Very curious how Telegram plans to monetize the app eventually given their crypto thing didn't work out.

by nikivi 6y ago

johnisgood 6y ago
UI is neat.
- fretn 6y ago
  And very responsive
victords 6y ago
I honestly don’t think they do. I really think that’s just a personal project of a Russian billionaire that has enough free time and pretty much unlimited resources.
- mercacona 6y ago
  Yeah, that’s what their website claims. But it isn’t.
  - nobodyshere 6y ago
    Normally I’d ask you for some kind of proof, but I know you won’t be able to output any of it.
    - mercacona 6y ago
      Proof? The ICO they did isn’t enough? They act as a business, Durov keeps control, it did not create a foundation or a non-profit. What extra proof do you need?
      - maqp 6y ago
        I totally understand where you're coming from but in order to be better than Durov who claimed Signal had backdoor without any evidence, we can't say he's selling user data without evidence. We also can't claim he's secretly handing all non-end-to-end encrypted group chats and one-on-one messages to Kremlin, or that he's an oligarch who made his money by spying on Vkontakte users. We also can't say it's extremely suspicious his arrest warrant only lasted two months, or that journalists who visited Telegram offices in Dubai heard the company Telegram shared floor with had never even seen Telegram employees enter the offices. There is no evidence Telegram is an intelligence agency front. None. We should periodically remind people of this.
    - allarm 6y ago
      The fact that there’s no proofs, alone, says something. Telegram has been around for 7 years. There’s no external funding and yet the project lives and grows. It’s either being funded from the Durov’s pocket, or from elsewhere. Take your pick. To better understand who Durov is, look up the story about him throwing money to a crowd out of a window of his VK office. He also believed that foreigners should be able to buy land in Russia to create small states within the country. I would not (and I do not) believe in good intentions of this guy, at all. And in fact it is you (or Durov himself) who should provide a proof that Telegram is not getting funded by governments, being one of the most popular communication tools around. Especially after the failed ICO. The source of funds should be transparent.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Public estimates of his net worth are hard to believe. Not a billionaire, at most 2-3 hundred megabucks cash as his Russian assets are rendered effectively worthless, and he burned himself a lot trying himself in investments, real estate, and, in general, burning money on expensive things, including telegram, like no tomorrow. I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long.
    - SXX 6y ago
      > I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long. His first successful project (VK) was founded and gained popularity partially using money of really weird investors some of whom were related to Kremlin. Also keep in mind that Russia was just a kleptocracy until around 2008-2010 and only after 2012 when Putin decide to get back presidency everything started to go really sour. So it's not surprise they taken control of the company away from him shortly after.
  - mercacona 6y ago
    Why are the people is downvoting me? Did Durov create a non-profit or a foundation lately? Telegram it’s currently a business and Durov keeps the control...
    - fuzxi 6y ago
      >Why are the people is downvoting me? Because you made a definitive claim without providing any evidence, or even your line of reasoning.
outime 6y ago
Compared to WhatsApp, they do have access to all messages from every person (except for the few people using secret chats) and group so I'd not be very surprised if they started to mine that data somehow if they really want the money.
- enkid 6y ago
  Which would make me not want to use it if I was a revolutionary in a totalitarian state that could get access to that data.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Telegram having access doesn't necessarily mean the totalitarian state gets access, though I see your point
    - maqp 6y ago
      What about totalitarian state with 1,000,000 USD of extra cash to spend to buy a zero-day, that then exploits the server and reads any message from there?
- eitland 6y ago
  Compared to WhatsApp that is owned by a massive megacorp that bought it for over $10bn and that has already tried to start mining metadata from it I would say Telegram still has its advantages. (FWIW: I prefer Signal.)
  - VMG 6y ago
    What is the advantage when Telegram has less money and more data?
    - eitland 6y ago
      Same advantage as buying a car from someone you don't know versus buying from a known fraudster and bully? Yes: in Telegrams case I might possibly, maybe at some time be taken advantage of. In WhatsApps case it would surprise everyone greatly if one isn't - sooner or later - take advantage of.
1023bytes 6y ago
Signal doesn't make money either.
- baby 6y ago
  Signal is a non-profit though no?
  - em-bee 6y ago
    they still have to cover their cost somehow.
    - MatthewMcDonald 6y ago
      Signal was given $50M by Brian Acton (WhatsApp co-founder), I think they will be fine for a while.
    - maqp 6y ago
      Signal will most likely run on dividends from shares/investments owned by the Signal Foundation.
  - conception 6y ago
    Non-profits can and should make money. That’s a common misconception and a big problem for charities are people think they are being greedy if they are making money regardless of the impact of that money. A non-profit just means profit isn’t their goal.
    - baby 6y ago
      I don't think that's what it means, I think it means they have to re-invest benefits in the company no? Signal does get money from donations
punnerud 6y ago
Payments with bots as an entrance. Trying to copy WeChat? https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments Update, from the doc: «Telegram does not charge any commission for using the Payments API.»
eitland 6y ago
Some of you might remember me as the guy who defends Telegram, and I still am: most of the claims I see here are less than well researched it seems. The thing you bring up here however is my main issue with Telegram: I want it to be sustainable line WhatsApp once was.
WilTimSon 6y ago
Seeing how averse they are to putting any kinds of ads on the platform, I think they might find the middle ground by helping make ads in channels go through the official route. Basically, right now, some channels post "sponsored posts", which nets them some payment. By getting involved, they could probably help people not get ripped off, take a small cut of the fee, and make those sponsored posts integrated a bit better, maybe highlighted somehow. So no ads in the app, only in some channels, so that people can leave if they hate the ads.
_ink_ 6y ago
I would make companies pay if they want to use these channels for promotions.

Very curious how Telegram plans to monetize the app eventually given their crypto thing didn't work out.

by nikivi 6y ago

Very curious how Telegram plans to monetize the app eventually given their crypto thing didn't work out.

johnisgood 6y ago

UI is neat.

fretn 6y ago
And very responsive

victords 6y ago

I honestly don’t think they do. I really think that’s just a personal project of a Russian billionaire that has enough free time and pretty much unlimited resources.

mercacona 6y ago
Yeah, that’s what their website claims. But it isn’t.
- nobodyshere 6y ago
  Normally I’d ask you for some kind of proof, but I know you won’t be able to output any of it.
  - mercacona 6y ago
    Proof? The ICO they did isn’t enough? They act as a business, Durov keeps control, it did not create a foundation or a non-profit. What extra proof do you need?
    - maqp 6y ago
      I totally understand where you're coming from but in order to be better than Durov who claimed Signal had backdoor without any evidence, we can't say he's selling user data without evidence. We also can't claim he's secretly handing all non-end-to-end encrypted group chats and one-on-one messages to Kremlin, or that he's an oligarch who made his money by spying on Vkontakte users. We also can't say it's extremely suspicious his arrest warrant only lasted two months, or that journalists who visited Telegram offices in Dubai heard the company Telegram shared floor with had never even seen Telegram employees enter the offices. There is no evidence Telegram is an intelligence agency front. None. We should periodically remind people of this.
  - allarm 6y ago
    The fact that there’s no proofs, alone, says something. Telegram has been around for 7 years. There’s no external funding and yet the project lives and grows. It’s either being funded from the Durov’s pocket, or from elsewhere. Take your pick. To better understand who Durov is, look up the story about him throwing money to a crowd out of a window of his VK office. He also believed that foreigners should be able to buy land in Russia to create small states within the country. I would not (and I do not) believe in good intentions of this guy, at all. And in fact it is you (or Durov himself) who should provide a proof that Telegram is not getting funded by governments, being one of the most popular communication tools around. Especially after the failed ICO. The source of funds should be transparent.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Public estimates of his net worth are hard to believe. Not a billionaire, at most 2-3 hundred megabucks cash as his Russian assets are rendered effectively worthless, and he burned himself a lot trying himself in investments, real estate, and, in general, burning money on expensive things, including telegram, like no tomorrow. I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long.
  - SXX 6y ago
    > I am still very suspicious at how he managed to flout around Kremlin for so long. His first successful project (VK) was founded and gained popularity partially using money of really weird investors some of whom were related to Kremlin. Also keep in mind that Russia was just a kleptocracy until around 2008-2010 and only after 2012 when Putin decide to get back presidency everything started to go really sour. So it's not surprise they taken control of the company away from him shortly after.
- mercacona 6y ago
  Why are the people is downvoting me? Did Durov create a non-profit or a foundation lately? Telegram it’s currently a business and Durov keeps the control...
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    >Why are the people is downvoting me? Because you made a definitive claim without providing any evidence, or even your line of reasoning.

outime 6y ago

Compared to WhatsApp, they do have access to all messages from every person (except for the few people using secret chats) and group so I'd not be very surprised if they started to mine that data somehow if they really want the money.

enkid 6y ago
Which would make me not want to use it if I was a revolutionary in a totalitarian state that could get access to that data.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Telegram having access doesn't necessarily mean the totalitarian state gets access, though I see your point
  - maqp 6y ago
    What about totalitarian state with 1,000,000 USD of extra cash to spend to buy a zero-day, that then exploits the server and reads any message from there?
eitland 6y ago
Compared to WhatsApp that is owned by a massive megacorp that bought it for over $10bn and that has already tried to start mining metadata from it I would say Telegram still has its advantages. (FWIW: I prefer Signal.)
- VMG 6y ago
  What is the advantage when Telegram has less money and more data?
  - eitland 6y ago
    Same advantage as buying a car from someone you don't know versus buying from a known fraudster and bully? Yes: in Telegrams case I might possibly, maybe at some time be taken advantage of. In WhatsApps case it would surprise everyone greatly if one isn't - sooner or later - take advantage of.

1023bytes 6y ago

Signal doesn't make money either.

baby 6y ago
Signal is a non-profit though no?
- em-bee 6y ago
  they still have to cover their cost somehow.
  - MatthewMcDonald 6y ago
    Signal was given $50M by Brian Acton (WhatsApp co-founder), I think they will be fine for a while.
  - maqp 6y ago
    Signal will most likely run on dividends from shares/investments owned by the Signal Foundation.
- conception 6y ago
  Non-profits can and should make money. That’s a common misconception and a big problem for charities are people think they are being greedy if they are making money regardless of the impact of that money. A non-profit just means profit isn’t their goal.
  - baby 6y ago
    I don't think that's what it means, I think it means they have to re-invest benefits in the company no? Signal does get money from donations

punnerud 6y ago

Payments with bots as an entrance. Trying to copy WeChat? https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments https://core.telegram.org/bots/payments Update, from the doc: «Telegram does not charge any commission for using the Payments API.»

eitland 6y ago

Some of you might remember me as the guy who defends Telegram, and I still am: most of the claims I see here are less than well researched it seems. The thing you bring up here however is my main issue with Telegram: I want it to be sustainable line WhatsApp once was.

WilTimSon 6y ago

Seeing how averse they are to putting any kinds of ads on the platform, I think they might find the middle ground by helping make ads in channels go through the official route. Basically, right now, some channels post "sponsored posts", which nets them some payment. By getting involved, they could probably help people not get ripped off, take a small cut of the fee, and make those sponsored posts integrated a bit better, maybe highlighted somehow. So no ads in the app, only in some channels, so that people can leave if they hate the ads.

_ink_ 6y ago

I would make companies pay if they want to use these channels for promotions.