5 ms·

I've switched everyone I know to Telegram, which works on all devices and isn't anti-competitive like Apple.

by chromedev 6y ago

hh3k0 6y ago
Why not Signal?
- chromedev 6y ago
  Because Signal isn't user-friendly, and does not work well between multiple devices.
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    It's just as user-friendly as the most popular messenger we have in the western world: WhatsApp. So it can't be that bad. Why doesn't it work well between multiple devices?
    - solarkraft 6y ago
      > So it can't be that bad It is. I currently can't use WhatsApp because my phone is broken, meanwhile I can happily chat away via Telegram. Same thing when my phone is off. Back when they didn't have WhatsApp Web you couldn't even use it on another device at all, but as slick as the UI it's still not really a proper solution. Meanwhile Telegram has real FOSS clients for any platform you can imagine (there's a CLI version).
      - Krasnol 6y ago
        > It is. I currently can't use WhatsApp because my phone is broken, meanwhile I can happily chat away via Telegram. You should try Signal than because there it's possible. > Meanwhile Telegram has real FOSS clients for any platform you can imagine (there's a CLI version). Just FYI: I'm not arguing for Whatsapp. Just against the usability argument against Signal.
    - chromedev 6y ago
      It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram. Additionally, you have to sync your devices. Once they become out of sync, you can no longer decrypt the messages on desktop. If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever. Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly. Telegram is great for most messaging, and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. Would be great for someone to implement GPG on top of their cloud-based messaging though.
      - Krasnol 6y ago
        > It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram. What is the problem with that exactly? I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging. > If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever. Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off. > Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly. What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either. > Telegram is great for most messaging What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal. > , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. So it is worse.
        chromedev 6y ago
        > What is the problem with that exactly? I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging. Telegram is way snappier and is more peformant all around. Same reason why people complain about Electron all the time. > Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off. No, compared to Telegram. Messages you send via Signal on mobile are not available on desktop, and when you sign-in on desktop you need to first link with mobile. When they become out of sync the messages you had previously are no longer available. > What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either. Again, as long as your device is linked but if you lose/break your phone then the E2E messages are not longer available on desktop after a period of time. > What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal. Telegram has a lot of great features that are not available on Signal. I suggest you try it out if you haven't already, and if you have then maybe you don't care about those features but it is much more widely used than Signal for that reason. > , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. That doesn't make it worse per say. The process of linking on desktop for Signal is cumbersome. I don't think Telegram is perfect, which is why I think GPG would be a great solution for encrypted cloud messaging.
  - kyriakos 6y ago
    Works on multiple devices well in my experience. Using it on android and 2 Windows devices at the moment. No problems.
- ufmace 6y ago
  Poor support for larger groups, poor support for use on multiple devices
  - codemac 6y ago
    Desktop + phone works well for me!
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  For me there's a few reasons, but the chief among them is its positioning of its desktop client as an afterthought. Telegram's clients are first class citizens on every platform they run on, which is rare and hard to let go of once you've experienced it. Its security is more questionable than Signal's for sure, but it comes so much closer to a cross-platform iMessage than Signal does that for 99% of day to day communications it's hard to care.
canada_dry 6y ago
Don't get why you're being downvoted... telegram was the first thing that came to mind as an alternative/better solution. Cross platform, dead-simple to setup and it just works.
- hu3 6y ago
  Telegram lacked video calls. However it was recently added and now I feel comfortable recommending it. Most friends who tried sticked to it. Some highlights are their lightweight, open-source, blazing-fast client (https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop) and compatibility with all major platforms like Android, iOS, Windows, macOS and Linux. I'd recommend Signal but it's not as user friendly.
- untog 6y ago
  I suspect the downvotes are because everyone knows there are alternatives to iMessage out there. It isn’t relevant to this particular topic. “All you have to do is convert everyone you’ve ever known to use a different app” is... not the proposition some people think it is. Kudos to anyone that’s pulled it off, but I won’t.
  - hu3 6y ago
    That's just gatekeeping nonsense. Discussing alternatives are always relevant and popular on HN. Like talking about macbooks on Thinkpad topics. Everyone knows macbooks exists, it's still fine to talk about them in non-macbook topics.
    - untog 6y ago
      That’s the beauty of the voting system. No one is banning the discussion, they’re just expressing their own disinterest in it.
- Bud 6y ago
  You get downvoted when you say incorrect, obviously dishonest things.
scarface74 6y ago
So now it’s anticompetitive any time that a vendor doesn’t support all platforms?
- chromedev 6y ago
  There are other issues, like that they don't allow you to install apps outside their Appstore and they require developers pay $99 a year to publish an app. Android allows you to install apps outside of the Google Play Store.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What does that have to do with iMessage?
    - chromedev 6y ago
      Because iMessage is an Apple-only product.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        What does iMessage being an Apple only product have to do with not allowing third party stores on iOS? How does that help getting iMessage on Android? Are you suggesting that Apple should be forced to port iMessage to Android devices?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kalleboo 6y ago
Yeah and the iMessage lock-in seems limited to the US. Most of the world is on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger instead (or local apps like LINE, WeChat, KakaoTalk)
- mrweasel 6y ago
  Most here seems to just think that iMessage is just SMS. They don’t think in terms of protocol, iMessage is on the phone, it sends text messages... it’s SMS. I think it help that SMS had been basically free even before iMessage arrived, so people never care to look into alternatives to save money.
codegladiator 6y ago
Because now we associate apps with countries, and china/russia/us/india == bad
EthOptimist 6y ago
Why not WhatsApp like much of the world?
- Yizahi 6y ago
  Most likely both, since different social groups in different countries have settled on different messengers. E.g. In Europe/Israel it's Whatsapp, but in eastern Europe and ex-USSR it's Viber (for older people) and Telegram (younger people), almost nobody uses Whatsapp. Speaking about preferences (and excluding privacy question because I have no expertise there) I would pick Telegram because while on mobile it is essentially the same as Whatsapp, desktop client for Telegram is miles better. Whatsapp client was crashing constantly and regularly, every few days. It's just junk.

I've switched everyone I know to Telegram, which works on all devices and isn't anti-competitive like Apple.

hh3k0 6y ago

Why not Signal?

chromedev 6y ago
Because Signal isn't user-friendly, and does not work well between multiple devices.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  It's just as user-friendly as the most popular messenger we have in the western world: WhatsApp. So it can't be that bad. Why doesn't it work well between multiple devices?
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    > So it can't be that bad It is. I currently can't use WhatsApp because my phone is broken, meanwhile I can happily chat away via Telegram. Same thing when my phone is off. Back when they didn't have WhatsApp Web you couldn't even use it on another device at all, but as slick as the UI it's still not really a proper solution. Meanwhile Telegram has real FOSS clients for any platform you can imagine (there's a CLI version).
    - Krasnol 6y ago
      > It is. I currently can't use WhatsApp because my phone is broken, meanwhile I can happily chat away via Telegram. You should try Signal than because there it's possible. > Meanwhile Telegram has real FOSS clients for any platform you can imagine (there's a CLI version). Just FYI: I'm not arguing for Whatsapp. Just against the usability argument against Signal.
  - chromedev 6y ago
    It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram. Additionally, you have to sync your devices. Once they become out of sync, you can no longer decrypt the messages on desktop. If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever. Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly. Telegram is great for most messaging, and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. Would be great for someone to implement GPG on top of their cloud-based messaging though.
    - Krasnol 6y ago
      > It definitely isn't as user friendly on the desktop. It is basically a chrome sandboxed app, which is far from a native app like Telegram. What is the problem with that exactly? I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging. > If you break/lose your mobile device then the messages are gone forever. Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off. > Signal is great for enforcing end-to-end encryption, but doesn't yet have the mechanisms in place to sync across devices automatically to make it user-friendly. What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either. > Telegram is great for most messaging What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal. > , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. So it is worse.
      - chromedev 6y ago
        > What is the problem with that exactly? I have both. Both look like messengers and do messenging. Telegram is way snappier and is more peformant all around. Same reason why people complain about Electron all the time. > Where? On Whatsapp? Because on Signal you don't need the device. It can be powered off. No, compared to Telegram. Messages you send via Signal on mobile are not available on desktop, and when you sign-in on desktop you need to first link with mobile. When they become out of sync the messages you had previously are no longer available. > What are you talking about? I have the same messages on my phone and on my desktop client. I don't need to do anything. Just launch either. Again, as long as your device is linked but if you lose/break your phone then the E2E messages are not longer available on desktop after a period of time. > What is exactly "great" about it compared to the others? You can send the same stuff as you do with Signal. Telegram has a lot of great features that are not available on Signal. I suggest you try it out if you haven't already, and if you have then maybe you don't care about those features but it is much more widely used than Signal for that reason. > , and if you want end-to-end, it has that too but is mostly limited to mobile devices. That doesn't make it worse per say. The process of linking on desktop for Signal is cumbersome. I don't think Telegram is perfect, which is why I think GPG would be a great solution for encrypted cloud messaging.
- kyriakos 6y ago
  Works on multiple devices well in my experience. Using it on android and 2 Windows devices at the moment. No problems.
ufmace 6y ago
Poor support for larger groups, poor support for use on multiple devices
- codemac 6y ago
  Desktop + phone works well for me!
kitsunesoba 6y ago
For me there's a few reasons, but the chief among them is its positioning of its desktop client as an afterthought. Telegram's clients are first class citizens on every platform they run on, which is rare and hard to let go of once you've experienced it. Its security is more questionable than Signal's for sure, but it comes so much closer to a cross-platform iMessage than Signal does that for 99% of day to day communications it's hard to care.

canada_dry 6y ago

Don't get why you're being downvoted... telegram was the first thing that came to mind as an alternative/better solution. Cross platform, dead-simple to setup and it just works.

hu3 6y ago
Telegram lacked video calls. However it was recently added and now I feel comfortable recommending it. Most friends who tried sticked to it. Some highlights are their lightweight, open-source, blazing-fast client (https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop) and compatibility with all major platforms like Android, iOS, Windows, macOS and Linux. I'd recommend Signal but it's not as user friendly.
untog 6y ago
I suspect the downvotes are because everyone knows there are alternatives to iMessage out there. It isn’t relevant to this particular topic. “All you have to do is convert everyone you’ve ever known to use a different app” is... not the proposition some people think it is. Kudos to anyone that’s pulled it off, but I won’t.
- hu3 6y ago
  That's just gatekeeping nonsense. Discussing alternatives are always relevant and popular on HN. Like talking about macbooks on Thinkpad topics. Everyone knows macbooks exists, it's still fine to talk about them in non-macbook topics.
  - untog 6y ago
    That’s the beauty of the voting system. No one is banning the discussion, they’re just expressing their own disinterest in it.
Bud 6y ago
You get downvoted when you say incorrect, obviously dishonest things.

scarface74 6y ago

So now it’s anticompetitive any time that a vendor doesn’t support all platforms?

chromedev 6y ago
There are other issues, like that they don't allow you to install apps outside their Appstore and they require developers pay $99 a year to publish an app. Android allows you to install apps outside of the Google Play Store.
- scarface74 6y ago
  What does that have to do with iMessage?
  - chromedev 6y ago
    Because iMessage is an Apple-only product.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      What does iMessage being an Apple only product have to do with not allowing third party stores on iOS? How does that help getting iMessage on Android? Are you suggesting that Apple should be forced to port iMessage to Android devices?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kalleboo 6y ago

Yeah and the iMessage lock-in seems limited to the US. Most of the world is on WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger instead (or local apps like LINE, WeChat, KakaoTalk)

mrweasel 6y ago
Most here seems to just think that iMessage is just SMS. They don’t think in terms of protocol, iMessage is on the phone, it sends text messages... it’s SMS. I think it help that SMS had been basically free even before iMessage arrived, so people never care to look into alternatives to save money.

codegladiator 6y ago

Because now we associate apps with countries, and china/russia/us/india == bad

EthOptimist 6y ago

Why not WhatsApp like much of the world?

Yizahi 6y ago
Most likely both, since different social groups in different countries have settled on different messengers. E.g. In Europe/Israel it's Whatsapp, but in eastern Europe and ex-USSR it's Viber (for older people) and Telegram (younger people), almost nobody uses Whatsapp. Speaking about preferences (and excluding privacy question because I have no expertise there) I would pick Telegram because while on mobile it is essentially the same as Whatsapp, desktop client for Telegram is miles better. Whatsapp client was crashing constantly and regularly, every few days. It's just junk.