4 ms·

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.

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.